|
■ Recommendation concerning Admission-Based Special Events Policy to be made at February meeting
BY RORY SEEBER
The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) discussed the proposed Admission-Based Special Events Policy (ABSEP) Jan. 14 in preparation for a vote on the policy at its Feb. 11 meeting. The board will make its recommendation to Parks & Rec manager Kevin Patterson at that gathering, set for 6 pm at Bogey’s Restaurant, 26th & York at the City Park Golf Course.
The PRAB held a public hearing on the matter at its December
meeting. The proposed policy was developed by a public/private task
force over more than a year’s time.
Supporters of the policy say that park events which charge
admission could help to “activate” the city’s parks, specifically
pointing out Civic Center Park, Colfax & Broadway. They also note
that the city could earn funds from such events through the Seat Tax
and permit fees, which could help Parks & Rec retain the current
level of parks management and maintenance during the current budget
difficulties.
Opponents have argued that under their interpretation of the City
Charter the renting or leasing of a public park, and hence the policy,
would be illegal without first putting it to a vote of the electorate.
They state that all city parks should be free and open to the public at
all times. They also fear that such a policy would amount to a
commercialization of the parks.
PRAB members, all of whom are appointed volunteers, had several
questions for Chantal Unfug, special assistant to Mayor John
Hickenlooper, and Parks & Rec manager Kevin Patterson.
The draft policy states that no more than 20% of any park could be
used for an admission-based event. PRAB chairman Edward Done asked what
would happen if an event split up the 20% for an event by using four,
separated stages for entertainment.
Unfug replied, in part, “...there are millions of ‘what-ifs” and
she hadn’t be asked that previously. She said that, assuming the policy
is approved, over the next year each such special circumstance that
arose would be handled separately, and that after that “pilot” period
PRAB would be involved in dealing with such specific issues.
Noting that there are areas in some parks that could be “choked
off” from users by such events, one board member said, “I don’t care if
it’s two percent, if you cut off a main artery of circulation in that
park, you’ve killed it for everyday use.”
Noting that portions of some parks are already closed off for some
events held by non-profits, such as the Parade of Lights and Taste of
Colorado in Civic Center, board member Heidi Loshbaugh, who represents
City Council District 9 on the board, said that such shut-downs are
“part of the fabric that exists.”
Loshbaugh asked rhetorically, “If we can do this in a revenue
structure that makes sense..., are we doing so in a way that it is
actually meaningful and will be a benefit to the park that is being
disrupted, to the citizens who are being disrupted, in a way that is
fundamentally different than those non-profit events?”
Mary Ewing (10) said, “The big difference is non-profits versus
for-profits and fencing out people who don’t pay the entry fee. That
doesn’t occur with the events today. This (would be) a huge change. In
the old song it’s ‘Don’t fence me in.’ Well I don’t want to be fenced
out, and I think that’s the biggest thing bothering people.”
Ewing mentioned that she’d asked at the board’s December meeting
that Parks & Rec get a legal opinion from a lawyer who is not a
City Attorney and that had not occurred.
Parks manager Patterson replied, “We take our legal advice from our City Attorney. That’s what we do.”
Loshbaugh said, “They’re going by the law and by the City Charter.”
City Attorneys are not ‘hired guns,’” she added, referring to a
characterization made by former City Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, an
opponent of ABSEP, during PRAB’s December hearing.
Patterson explained that any permit issued for an event in a park
grants the permitted user “an exclusive use” of the permitted space for
a specific period of time. It would be similar for admission-based
events.
He also said that it had not been finally determined where any
funds that flow to the city from such events would go. Permit fees
normally go to the city’s General Fund. It is possible that a portion
of the money raised through use of the Seat Tax for ticketed events
could go to the specific park that hosts the event, with the balance
going to the general maintenance of all of the parks. He noted that
City Council would have the final say on any financial matters.
Parks & Rec representatives have said over the past few months
that the policy was being created not so much in response to the 2007
proposal to hold the inaugural Mile High Music & Arts Festival in
City Park, but rather because the department has received requests from
small groups who desire to host events where tickets could be sold as a
fund-raiser.
Other than that from a group of supporters from East High School,
no such inquiries have been made public. A board member asked that if a
list of organizations that have made such requests exists, he’d like to
see it because it has been requested by the public.
Public comment on ABSEP is still being taken by email and regular
mail to Parks & Rec, and at the department’s website, denvergov.org/parksandrecreation. The draft of the policy can be found at the
denvergov.org website by typing “Admission Based Special Events” in the
search box.
Assuming it is approved by City Council, Unfug has said that it was
hoped that the policy could be “rolled out” in 2011 after most of this
year is spent “working on logistics” with stakeholders.
For information, contact a City Council representative or Parks
& Rec spokeswoman Jill McGranahan at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
