bQNs7mR

Charges need to be widely seen as fair. Charges can be controversial, so the toolkit outlines ways to address this.
First, local politicians, foundation heads and community activists need to debate which assets they think should
be accessible freely by right. Where it is felt that something should be available by right, consideration must
be given to how to help those unable to pay — for example, scholarships, bursaries, fee-waivers — and how to
administer these without stigmatizing the recipients. This still leaves the question around whether government
and others have the money to make free access a reality, which is potentially a taller order in cities with high
levels of disadvantage.
The proceeds of charges need to be wholly or partially retained by the assets. All or a substantial portion of
fee proceeds need to retained by the asset or the department that manages them and not returned to the city’s
general fund. This ensures there is an incentive in place to use charging and to get the charges right. With
management of city-owned assets by non-profits, an increasingly common occurrence, the money does stay with
the asset.
Theme 5 — City-owned assets may also attract more resource if run by non-profits
City-owned assets can be run by non-profits. The term “run” is here used to mean managed, resourced, and
programmed. This arrangement has the potential advantage of opening up assets to:
• management by social enterprises that have a public service ethos allied to a business/enterprise mind-set;
• competition for foundation grants and donations from philanthropists and the general public; and
• private investment, in the case of theaters and golf courses, which have the potential to make money.
There are numerous instances of city-owned assets being taken on and run by non-profits in the case study cities;
it is by far the main direction of travel in terms of asset operation moving between public, private, and nonprofit
sectors. Examples include Clark Park and Eastern Market in Detroit; 12 Rec Centers in St. Paul; and five
neighborhood markets and five golf courses in Baltimore.
Dynamic non-profits could be contracted by city government to deliver core asset services and generate
additional funding and innovation. With the exception of the management of recreation centers in Baltimore
County, which surrounds the city of the same name, this does not really occur at present in the case study metro
areas. There are however assets that are run by non-profits that also get a high level of public grant funding such
as a handful of Baltimore’s senior centers, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and Detroit Zoo.
City governments can give help to ease this transition to partnership or contracting. When non-profits gain
ownership and/or management over city assets, city governments can take a number of steps to facilitate the
ownership transfer. For example, they are typically leased on very low rents; are exempt from property tax (as
they remain in city ownership); may get a lump-sum upon start-up; or get assistance with building or program
management issues. It is for this reason that such shifts are typically described by city officials as partnerships.
When considering possible partnerships, city governments need to think about a number of factors, including
the likely effect on service quality, accessibility, staff pay/conditions in relation to public provision, and
sustainability over the long term. Sometimes the moves have been described in local media as privatizations
rather than partnerships on the grounds that assets were disposed of to remove costs from city accounts and/or
as the only alternative to closure. The likely outcome depends heavily on the context in which the transfers occur,
including the state of local government finance and the prosperity of the local population.
13 | The New Barn-Raising