Natural collaborations: inter-departmental partnerships can help park and recreation agencies manage more efficiently.

Park and recreation agencies face a complex dilemma of how to maintain current facilities and programs with an ever-shrinking budget. Through an archaic system of strict districting created during a period of government prosperity, park administrators are left with little choice but to consider cutting services. But there is a workable solution using manageable concepts such as collaboration, cooperation and solidarity. These options can provide answers to the budgetary epidemic that is infecting our park systems nationwide.

While visiting Portland in 1903, famed landscape architect and planner John Olmsted noted, "No city can be considered properly equipped without an adequate park system ... Parks not only add to the beauty of a city and to the pleasure of living in it, but are exceedingly important factors in developing the healthfulness, morality, intelligence and business prosperity of its residents."

As early as 1928, reports were published that suggested inter-bureau cooperation was needed to help study and plan for future management of national parks and forests. In 1962, the Report of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation suggested that recreation agencies at the regional level should pursue interagency cooperation. Forty years later, it is apparent that regional recreation agencies have become increasingly fragmented because of this lack of cooperation.

According to the California State Park System Statistical Report from fiscal year 2001/2002, of the 266 units and properties managed by the department, 28 of these parks are operated by local government agencies or by non-profit organizations. Initially it might seem as though collaboration between state and local agencies does occur.

A closer examination of one such collaborative reveals a successful merger of assets. The California State Parks' Kings Beach State Recreation Area (SRA) is currently managed by the North Tahoe Recreation and Park District. By jointly administering the Kings Beach SRA, both the state park system and the North Tahoe Recreation and Park District benefit. The property is owned by California State Parks and can be considered one of California's capital assets. The North Tahoe Recreation and Park District effectively controls the day-to-day operations of the property, which gives it primary control over park operations.

This system works much like the relationship between a landlord and a tenant. The landlord (California State Parks) reaps the benefits that ownership includes, but the tenant (North Tahoe Recreation and Park District) is the actual holder of the property and therefore controls its daily operation. Both entities benefit from the arrangement.

Additionally, the North Tahoe Recreation and Park District does not need to spend additional public funds to construct facilities that Kings Beach SRA would provide. For example, if the North Tahoe Recreation and Park District was interested in purchasing lakefront property to provide beach access to its constituents, the district would expect to pay a minimum of $10 to $20 million for lake front property based on recent real estate estimates before any improvements to the land were made. Add in the cost of environmental impact studies, public hearings, permits, building costs, etc., and the cost of providing a beach for the district's constituents becomes more than it can afford.

Instead, the North Tahoe Recreation and Park District partners with California State Parks that already owns a waterfront site, and is able to provide beach access at a fraction of the cost. It is a win-win for both agencies. "California park and recreation professionals have the acumen to develop effective joint arrangements," says Leslie Fritz, director of education for the California Park and Recreation Society. "They recognize and use qualities that produce cooperative success."

These winning relationships abound throughout the profession. The California Parks and Recreation Society has reported many such successful partnerships. The following are just a few of them:

* Daly City Parks and Recreation has developed a partnership with the Mid-Peninsula Boys & Girls Club to work together in the development, installation, construction and maintenance of recreation facilities to reduce capital costs and provide additional recreation opportunities.

* San Jose Parks and Recreation collaborated with California State University in San Jose to build and operate a new library--the first of its kind.

* The Chico Area Recreation and Park District, California Department of Water Resources, local non-profits and California State Parks created a partnership between two districts 30 miles apart to develop a youth aquatics program (Aquatics Adventure Camp) that emphasizes water and boating safety.

* Roseville Department of Parks and Recreation created inter-agency collaboration with four school districts to plan and develop adjacent school and park sites, including the Roseville Aquatics Complex. The benefits include reduced costs for land acquisition, economy of scale for construction of recreation/school joint-use facilities and overall use of facilities and expanded programs.

* Brentwood Department of Parks and Recreation collaborated with the Brentwood Union School District and the Liberty Union High School District to build four joint-use community gymnasiums at two of its middle schools and two of its high schools. Another gym is currently under construction. At each facility, the Department of Parks and Recreation operates an office and storage space, and controls these facilities during non-school hours. Furthermore, the Brentwood Department of Parks and Recreation has recently entered into an agreement to pay half of the costs of a $6 million theater at one of the middle schools. The department will obtain further office and storage space in addition to the option of renting the facility to the public. The Brentwood Department of Parks and Recreation has also partnered with the Liberty Union High School District to build an Olympic-sized, joint-use swim facility to be owned by the school district and operated by the city outside school hours.

Colliding Collaborations

Occasionally, government agencies do communicate and collaborate without much success. In 1970, a businessman developed a plan to build a 307-foot tower with a revolving deck near the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania. His plan was to provide a unique view of the Gettysburg battlefield for educational purposes. The National Park Service (NPS) was vehemently opposed to the project because its officials believed the tower would destroy the aesthetic atmosphere of the park.

Initially, local government agencies were supportive because of the potential increased tax revenues. During 1970-71, the NPS had successfully acquired several properties which, since the NPS does not pay taxes, would decrease tax revenues in and around Gettysburg. Local government agencies hoped that tax revenues from the tower would offset local tax losses from NPS purchases.

By 1971, the Gettysburg Borough Council, county commissioners and many local businessmen realized that the tower would likely draw away tax revenues from other tourist attractions. This realization, along with rising public opposition to the tower, caused them to change their position.

The NPS and the local government agencies of the borough of Gettysburg found themselves agreeing with the opposition to the tower. Unfortunately for the concurring government agencies, the tower was to be built on private land and they had no jurisdiction because of a lack of zoning restriction.

In May 1971, a civil suit was initiated by local homeowners but was never concluded because the Department of the Interior settled to allow the tower to be built in a more acceptable location according to the interests of the department. Public outcry was intense. After substantial litigation through the early 1970s, the tower opened in 1974. Initially, the collaborative effort between the NPS and the local government agencies of the borough of Gettysburg proved unsuccessful; but in 2000, the NPS was able to purchase the property to remove it by exercising its power of eminent domain.

On July 3, 2000, 137 years to the day after General Pickett's ill-fated charge, the tower was destroyed. Unfortunately for the citizens of Gettysburg, their battle to remove the tower lasted 30 years. While the collaboration between the local government agencies of Gettysburg and the NPS didn't succeed at stopping the tower from being built, the relationship they created could realize future cooperative benefits.

Keeping a Distance

Another partnership possibility could be in the initial planning of properties. If facilities with similar program offerings are built far enough apart in relation to the communities they serve, it would cut down on overlap. German geographer Walter Christaller's central place theory supposes that recreation facilities should maintain predictable distances from each other based on the needs of the consumer (see Figure 1 on page 62). Central place theory is based on the comparison of threshold (or the minimum market area that can support goods or service) and range (or the maximum area that people are willing to travel to use the goods or service).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

If the theory is drawn out, these facilities would spread out with equally concentric circles emanating from the point of origin or central place (see Figure 2 on page 62). Concentric circles from neighboring facilities would only come in contact at equally hierarchical points. Eventually the model develops the appearance of a nested hexagon (honeycomb) with the center of each honeycomb representing a recreation center.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Aggressive planning and cooperation by neighboring recreation agencies could develop and evolve under this model. Ultimately, without cooperation and collaboration, recreation agencies would come into competition with each other. This is the situation that many recreation agencies find themselves in today. According to central place theory, competition between spatially equal entities will result in one becoming more dominant and eventually replacing the recessive entity.

If the rationale is mutually beneficial, recreation agencies could choose to move facilities to a more appropriate location. For example, two recreation agencies might have similar facilities in need of updating. Neighboring park and recreation districts operate their individual pools. They were both built around the early 1950s long before compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act was an issue. The population of the communities has increased through the years and now both facilities are inadequate and becoming run down. In a cooperative effort, both park and recreation districts pool their resources and build a communal state-of-the-art aquatics center.

John Olmsted was a landscape architect by trade and a recreation development pioneer by virtue of his vision. In 1903, Olmsted epitomized the concept that "parks were the antidote to the deadening effects of urbanization [and that] cities should build parks not just singly, but as comprehensive and connected systems." What Olmsted understood in 1903, recreation administrators are still grappling with today. Park systems should be interconnected. The fact that political boundaries shape the management of facilities and allocate how tax revenue is spent seems to get lost on those that should have the biggest voice--the people.