Town and county review Parks & Recreation joint-powers agreement, weigh population split vs. jurisdictional capital allocation

Town and county staff briefed the joint boards on a Parks & Recreation joint-powers agreement (JPA) review, presenting a cost-of-service analysis, proposed funding splits and governance options. Staff said no action was requested at the meeting; the purpose was to provide common data, answer clarifying questions and give each jurisdiction time to consider alternatives before returning with recommendations.

Tyler Florence, Parks & Recreation director, and finance staff presented the FY26 cost-of-service figures. Staff reported total net operating costs of about $4.7 million (expenses minus revenue) and a recreation net operating cost of roughly $2.7 million. Florence said the rec center generated approximately $2.9 million in revenue in FY25 — the majority of the department’s revenue — and that the rec center’s operating split is difficult to parse by residency because membership and daily-use data vary over short timeframes.

Staff described three analytical lenses: the current MOU phase-in (which moves to a 62/38 town/county split over three years under the 2024 memorandum), a census/population split (recently 54/46 county/town under one measure) and a jurisdictional cost-of-service model that assigns capital costs to the jurisdiction where assets are located while keeping shared assets such as the rec center and equipment on a unified ratio. For capital planning, staff said the proposed FY27–31 capital budget is approximately $19.8 million and illustrated an option to allocate capital by jurisdiction while maintaining a shared funding model for the rec center and mobile equipment.

Staff recommended a simple, department-wide ratio applied to net operating cost for administrative clarity but acknowledged that capital projects can be handled jurisdictionally because asset location is straightforward. Commissioners and councilors debated trade-offs: several said population-based splits are administratively simple and fair for community-shared services, while others argued jurisdictional capital allocation better matches where infrastructure sits and who benefits most.

Jessica Kellett, chair of the Parks & Rec advisory board, provided public comment and asked that the advisory board participate in JPA governance discussions; she said the advisory board expects to discuss and possibly vote on recommendations at its Feb. 12 meeting. Staff said parks and rec follow-ups will return to both jurisdictions in coming months (county discussion in February; joint follow-up likely in May) and emphasized that the current process is informational, with final governance and funding decisions to be made later.

No votes were taken on funding splits at the meeting; staff asked boards to return with direction after internal deliberations.