Don’t think the SF Parks and Rec spends money recklessly for what we get? Think again.
l3wis A friend of mine spoke to a 19 year veteran divisional director of the Kansas City Parks and Rec department recently and gave me some interesting figures when compared to Sioux Falls.
KS: 470,000 residents served
SF: 150,000 residents served
KS: Parks and Rec department trims the trees in the blvd.
SF: Forces residents to trim city owned trees or fines them.
In fact the director said it is illegal for residents to trim the trees and they will be fined if caught. The reason is because of liability reasons. The director ‘was amazed’ that a city attorney in Sioux Falls hasn’t squawked about it since it is the city’s liability. IMO it has to do with HOME RULE and the way our ordinances and code enforcement are written around it.
KS: Maintains 300 parks
SF: Maintains 69 parks
KS: Employees 300
SF: Employees 150
Now here’s the interesting part;
KS: 2009 Budget $35 million
SF: 2009 Budget $33 million
Not only does Kansas City serve 3 times more residents and 4 times more parks then Sioux Falls for the same money, they also trim CITY OWNED TREES with that budget. And their usage season is longer because of milder winters. So if you think we are getting a ‘bargain’ with our Parks and Rec department, you have completely lost your mind, in fact, taxpayers are getting screwed.
