Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Staffing And Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Park board urges council to boost parks staffing and clarifies limits of park levy

Pleasant Hill City Council and Park Board · June 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Pleasant Hill’s park board told the city council it is understaffed and asked that an additional parks position be considered in the next budget cycle; the board also reviewed the park-board ordinance and explained the park levy and donations are the only funds the board directly controls.

Mark Crane, president of the Pleasant Hill Park Board, told the city council during a joint work session that park operations are strained by limited staffing and turnover. "We are under staffed," Crane said, explaining the board currently relies on three full‑time parks employees, one recreation coordinator position that is vacant, and director-level support filling gaps.

Crane said the staffing shortfall affects both routine maintenance and upkeep of new facilities and contributes to turnover in key positions. "I don't want to see this be a revolving door of people," he said, urging council to consider adding a parks staff position during the next budget cycle to reduce burnout and preserve institutional knowledge.

Jessica, the council’s park-board liaison, read the city’s park-board ordinance aloud and the group reviewed how state law (RSMO 90.50 and RSMO 90.570, as cited in the ordinance) limits the board’s direct financial authority. The board and council clarified that the park levy and donations are the only revenues over which the park board has statutory control; other sources such as the city’s sales tax or general‑fund transfers remain under council authority. The park levy currently generates about $114,713 for the park fund in a roughly $782,000 budget, the group said, meaning the council must subsidize most park operations.

Park board members and staff asked that the city schedule an annual agenda item or a budget work session before the council’s budget deadlines so the board can review park fund priorities and provide the annual report the ordinance contemplates. Council members agreed to consider the request as part of the upcoming strategic‑planning process.

The meeting closed with the council noting the staffing request and ordinance discussion would be folded into broader budget and strategic‑planning work.