Vote ‘No’ On Measure P [Opinion]

Vote ‘No’ On Measure P: Taxpayers Deserve Answers [Opinion]

There is a number every taxpayer within the Desert Recreation District should know: $4,164,232.

That is how much DRD transferred from its General Fund to its Assessment Fund in fiscal year 2025.

Three years earlier, that transfer was approximately $583,000.

In FY2023, it increased to approximately $2.02 million. In FY2024, approximately $3.50 million. By FY2025, it had reached $4.16 million.

DRD’s own audited financial statements explain that interfund transfers are used, in part, to “absorb the operating deficit and to support the operations” of the respective funds.

That should get our attention.

DRD’s FY2025 audit shows approximately $17 million in General Fund balance, and its independent auditor issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements.

But it raises an important question:

Why did General Fund support of the Assessment Fund grow from roughly $583,000 to more than $4.1 million in just three years?

That’s especially important now because DRD itself says it faces an “ongoing structural deficit.”

Measure P is on the November 3 ballot and is expected to generate approximately $11.3 million in additional tax revenue annually.

DRD says the additional funding would help maintain programs, address aging facilities and avoid significant service reductions or potential facility closures.

Those are important services and legitimate concerns.

But before deciding how to fund the system, I believe there is another question worth examining:

What created the structural deficit in the first place?

Was it increased staffing and benefits? Maintenance? Aging facilities? Expanded responsibilities? Contracts? An assessment structure that no longer generates enough revenue? Or some combination of those factors?

Those are questions that can be answered.

That’s why I believe the District’s finances deserve deeper independent examination, not to begin with an accusation, but to follow the money.

Examine the transfers. Examine expenditures and contracts. Review cost allocations. Determine what is driving the deficits and whether the financial model is sustainable.

But the more I look at DRD, the more I believe the financial discussion leads to an even larger question.

Is DRD’s Governance Model Still the Right One?

DRD was formed in 1950. The Coachella Valley of 2026 looks very different from the Coachella Valley of 1950.

Today, DRD covers approximately 1,887 square miles, serves more than 432,000 residents and operates across incorporated cities and unincorporated communities.

It is governed by its own five-member board, with each director elected from one of five divisions.

Perhaps that remains the best structure.

But when government faces a structural financial problem, we shouldn’t limit the conversation to:

“Where do we find more money?”

We should also be willing to ask:

“Is the structure we’re funding still the best structure for delivering these services?”

Should we ask the most fundamental question of all:

Is a separate regional recreation district still necessary in today’s Coachella Valley?

Many communities served by DRD are incorporated cities with their own elected councils, budgets, staff and municipal operations. Riverside County represents the unincorporated communities.

Could cities assume responsibility for parks and recreation within their boundaries while the County provides or coordinates services for unincorporated areas?

Would that bring recreation government closer to residents?

Could it reduce duplication?

Or would breaking apart a regional system eliminate economies of scale, increase costs and make recreation services more difficult to provide in smaller communities?

I don’t think those answers should be predetermined.

Maybe a comprehensive review would conclude that the existing DRD model remains the most efficient and sustainable option.

Maybe a regional recreation district with direct city and County representation would provide greater accountability.

Maybe some services should remain regional while others are handled locally.

Maybe there is another model entirely.

The point is that we should be willing to ask.

This is precisely the kind of analysis LAFCO’s Municipal Service Review process is designed to undertake. State law directs LAFCO to examine an agency’s financial ability to provide services, shared facilities, governmental structure, operational efficiencies and alternatives that could improve the efficiency and affordability of service delivery.

I support parks, pools, youth programs, senior programs and community centers. Those services are important to our communities.

But this discussion should be about more than finding another source of money.

It should also cause us to think about DRD’s governmental future.

What created the structural deficit?

Is the current financial model sustainable?

Is the current governance model still appropriate?

Should Coachella Valley cities and Riverside County have a more direct role?

And ultimately:

Is DRD, as currently structured, still the best way to provide recreation services throughout the Coachella Valley?

Those are questions worth answering.

Before making long-term decisions about how these services are funded, let’s understand the financial problem, examine the governmental structure and consider the alternatives.

Follow the money. Get the facts. Examine the structure.

Then let the facts tell us where we go from here.