Special park districts.

Throughout the budget turmoil of the last decade, the estimated 100,000 special park and recreation districts have fared better than many park and recreation agencies under either city or county governments. This is especially true of the independent special districts which have their own tax base, elected boards of directors, and considerable public involvement. The use of special districts to provide services to the public in counties, cities and towns is quite widespread and quite successful.

Two states, Illinois and California, exemplify the vast benefits to be had by creating special park districts (SPDs). Illinois leads the nation in the number of SPDs with 357. California is not far behind with 102. Most of the California districts are smaller recreation districts which serve as purveyors of recreation facilities for one or two cities or towns and usually include adjoining, unincorporated areas. Some are also community services districts which may cover similar areas.

Illinois has a substantial number of Forest Preserve Districts which often encompass a complete county. A general act permitting the formation of park districts in Illinois was created more than 100 years ago. In 1893, the state legislature passed "An Act to Provide for the Creation of Pleasure Driveway and Park Districts." Shortly thereafter, the Peoria Park District and Springfield Park District were organized. Today Cook County, the most urbanized county in the state, is home to one third of all Illinois park districts, including the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

In addition, there are SPDs and regional park systems in Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and seven additional states have legislation that allows for the creation of SPDs. What makes these districts better suited to serve their communities than a county, city or town park department? In virtually every case, the formation of the SPD was initiated by the desire of a growing number of individuals to control the delivery of park and recreation services, apart from other services.

Over time, the districts have demonstrated that they can deliver park and recreation services without paying the overhead costs incurred by other types of governing structures. They have also shown that they can deliver their services economically, efficiently and with effective response to citizen needs. Another advantage is that SPDs are feeer to act more boldly than the park and recreation departments in legislative matters. Additionally, they can focus full attention on fulfilling the public needs and desires, as well as moving into the community to gain private funding support.

Although autonomous, the SPDs do not exist in a vacuum. In California, the park and recreation districts are part of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. This is also true in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota, where the SPDs play a leading role in the parks and recreation field as well as in creative legislation.

To stimulate an exchange of ideas among park districts, the 1972 NRPA Congress in Anaheim, California hosted a special session on SPDs. The resulting Special District Forums are held annually to facilitate an exchange of ideas, successes and failures, and for the SPD leaders to get better acquainted with one another. Fourteen SPDs have played host to the Forums in the 23 years since.

In spite of legislative efforts to the contrary, public support for SPDs has been overwhelming, since their inception nearly 100 years ago. One illustration of that support came in 1988 when California's East Bay Regional Park District placed a $225 million bond measure, requiring a two thirds vote, on the November ballot. Because a two-thirds approval is so difficult to achieve, the results of a professional research study proved invaluable. The Strategy Research Institute found that voter support would be forthcoming only under certain conditions. The District's board followed the Institute's recommendations gained through citizen polling, and the bond measure passed. In this way, the citizens were able to indicate their approval for the SPD as well as its programs and services.

Another signal of public approval came in 1981 with the findings of a comprehensive Illinois study. These findings are generally true of most special park districts in the United States today. Following are some highlights from the study.

* There is no evidence to support or substantiate the claim that general purpose governments could provide local park and recreation services more efficiently and economically than SPDs.

* By far, the majority of Illinois citizens were overwhelmingly satisfied with the programs and facilities offered by their local park district, and they believe these districts serve true community interest and encourage citizen involvement.

* A majority of Illinois citizens disagreed entirely with the notion of combining parks and recreation programs under a larger, general purpose government.

* Most citizens felt better informed about park district programs and services than the services offered by city, village or county government.

* A majority of citizens felt that park districts provide the greatest opportunity for citizen involvement. More citizens were in contact with park districts than city an county governments combined.

* Citizens were by far, more satisfied with the performance of park district employees than city or county employees.

* Citizens did not believe there were any substantive jurisdictional disputes between park districts and other public entities, nor did they feel tax levies were disproportionately high.

In addition to the statistical findings the study concluded:

* Since park district board members are usually elected, and serve with little or no compensation, there is a very clear indication of citizen involvement. These board members must live in the district they serve, and be elected by the local constituency. On average, they serve longer terms than appointed board members in city-run systems, and are nearly free of all partisan influences.

* Illinois park board members represented a wide and divergent group of citizens, dispelling the criticism that vested or special interest groups dominate park district policies and programs. Furthermore, these board members were highly visible and broadly involved in their communities as a whole.

* Park districts are heavily involved in intergovernmental agreements and cooperation, dispelling the notion of waste and duplication of services and equipment.

* The local media attends park district meetings and publicizes their services, programs, achievements, as well as their board activities.

However, not all criticisms were dispelled by the study. Some citizens felt there were perhaps too many special districts, and that smaller park districts might be examined for possible consolidation. Another concern was that voter participation in SPD elections was minimal. This is difficult to gauge since widespread citizen apathy has become common to all governments, with fewer Americans exercising their right to vote.

Among the larger SPDs, there are a number of models from which we can learn. A brief profile of each and its accomplishments may give new ideas to other special districts as well as city and county park agencies.

East Bay Regional Park District,

Oakland, California 

Created in 1934 during the Great Depression, this district was formed when citizens voted to tax themselves in order to form the District. The multi-county district is as large as the state of Rhode Island. Its seven board members are elected by wards, and its property tax monies come from the state.

East Bay is renown for its legislative acumen and success. For example, legislators representing the park district have successfully initiated rebuttable presumption on state or county roads through regional parks; provided the power of eminent domain for trails; permitted borrowing of up to two years of anticipated revenues; exempted East Bay from liability on landslides; and provided exemption from suit from persons injured in a hazardous recreation activity. The District receives special funding for projects in the state's annual budget. The state has also transferred funds and land negotiations to the district for a shoreline state park.

The District has also performed well in federal legislation, attaining $7.5 million during the eucalyptus freeze, and achieving a complex land transfer between county and federal governments and the district. These achievements have come about because of the District's part-time paid lobbyists working in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., in addition to its politically conscious leadership.

East Bay is also noted for it interagency agreements. In its early years, the District concentrated on the acquisition of ridge lands, but successfully moved into the acquisition and development of regional parks along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. More recently, it shifted toward active recreation in its parks, particularly in the inner cities.

Environmentally astute as well, the District defeated a potential quarry project which would have damaged one of its wilderness parks; warded off a county road that was proposed to run through a regional park; worked with the private sector to preserve essential wetlands; and last year, received a special award from the state for its leadership in developing pest management techniques that reduce risks from chemical pesticides.

Its first true master plan was prepared in 1973 by former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, who worked with an 83-member citizen task force and a 60-member public agency committee. Since it was adopted, the plan has undergone review every five years by the Park Advisory Committee and the staff board.

East Bay also has a history of working with the private sector in funding its parks. The Alameda-Contra Costa Regional Parks Foundation has generated $35 million in donated land, monetary gifts, equipment, and substantial land donations for the District. When it lost more than half of its property tax base, the District began an active "adopt-a-park" program, with citizens helping to maintain parks and trails, both monetarily and through volunteer efforts.

Huron-Clinton Metropolitan

Authority, Brighton, Michigan 

Huron-Clinton is the largest regional park district in the United States, encompassing five counties and serving 4.5 million people. Unlike the East Bay Regional Park District, which substitutes for county parks in both the counties it serves, the Huron-Clinton Authority overlays county parks with its regional system in several counties. Its seven-member board of commissioners are appointed, one from each of the five counties and two by the governor.

The Authority has shown remarkable success and stability during its 55-year history. It currently manages 13 metroparks with a total of nearly 24,000 acres, plus another 1,000 acres of undeveloped parkland which is not in use. Many of the Authority's constituents live less than an hour's drive from their favorite metropark - each is designed to accommodate crowds of 35,000. All 13 metroparks are located on water and offer a wide variety of recreation pursuits, from concerts by the Detroit Symphony to canoe trips, golf courses, picnic areas, tot lots, boating, dancing under the stars, multi-use trails, winter ice skating, ice fishing, nature education, and swimming.

In 1992, Huron-Clinton celebrated 50 years of service with over nine million visitors. A recent household survey indicated that the park users enjoy and support the Metroparks because they are accessible, well maintained, and safe. The governing body and staff are forward thinking and have had a stable existence.

Cleveland Metroparks,

Cleveland, Ohio 

Next summer, the Cleveland Metroparks, know as the "Emerald Necklace," will celebrate its 80th birthday, making it the second oldest regional park system in the country. Metroparks covers all of Cuyahoga County with land in five adjacent counties. The Emerald Necklace, which nearly encircles the city of Cleveland, is governed by a three-member board who serve three-year alternating terms, without compensation.

Created in 1917 under the Ohio Revised Code, the Cleveland Metroparks include 14 park reservations, 20,000 acres, 75 miles of trails, and 100 miles of parkway and serves 25 million visitors annually. The parkways began the system, skirting or running through the various reservations and creating easy automobile access to recreation areas. Recreation in the metroparks includes six golf courses, four swim facilities, four nature enters, two horse stables, and refrigerated toboggan chutes, in addition to many other recreational opportunities.

In 1975, Metroparks assumed operation of the Cleveland Zoo. Since that time, 60 million has been invested in updating and improving the facility. The Cleveland metroparks Zoo, with its tropical forests, deserts, polar tundra, wetlands, and oceans, is now a prime attraction that rings visitors from all over the country.

Maryland National Capitol Park

and Planning Commission,

Silver Spring, Maryland 

Another type of model regional park strict is found in the Maryland National Capitol Park and Planning Commission, whose commission coordinates the work of Montgomery and St. George's Counties. The two counties continue to have their own parks and recreation departments and their own planning bodies. Certain umbrella functions have been delegated to this joint park planning authority comprised of the members of both county commissions. Certain functions ave also been placed in the hands of this two-county Commission and its staff.

There are, however, no large cities in either county and most of the smaller cities continue to retain their own city park and recreation departments.

The district was created by an act of the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 and continued by similar acts in 1943 and 1959. All of the unincorporated areas are included and the Commission is also empowered to represent the state in cooperation with the National Capitol Planning Commission. A provision is also made for the formation of advisory committees on recreation. The Commission's fiscal authority includes the sale of bonds. Generally speaking, any regional park, trail or greenway that will impact residents of the two counties is reviewed and funded by the Commission. This funding comes from allocated Commission monies together with bonds.

The system has grown over the years from 11 local parks and 2,300 acres to 28,000 acres. Much of the growth can be attributed to the involvement of volunteers from civic, and business clubs.

Northern Virginia Regional

Park Authority, Fairfax

Station, Virginia

Formed in 1959, the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority serves over one million people and covers three cities and three counties. The Authority was created in order to protect northern Virginia's rich heritage of woods, meadows, lakes and streams from the threat of suburban sprawl and is governed by two appointed representatives from each jurisdiction.

Many successful bond referendums have been held in Fairfax and Arlington Counties to support the capital needed for land acquisition and development. The other four jurisdictions appropriate capitol funds to the Park Authority from their general funds. Capital budgets vary beginning at $2 million annually and go up, depending on gifts and grants. The operating budget for the 23 parks and 11,000 acres is approximately $9 million. The Park Authority has also received over $50 million in gifts and grants.

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority's first recreation development was a small fishing center built on the shore of the Occoquan Reservior at Bun Run Marina. From this modest start, the Park Authority has grown to five regional swimming pools, a linear park of 44 miles along the Potomac River, two 18-hole golf courses, a skeet and trap range and indoor archery center, boat, launching ramps, fishing, more than 500 campsites, sports fields, an urban nature sanctuary, and more than 100 miles of trails.

Greater Vancouver Regional

District, Burnaby, British

Columbia, Canada

The Greater Vancouver Regional District is a partnership of the 18 municipalities and three electoral districts that make up metropolitan Greater Vancouver. Its role is to deliver to the area's 1.6 Million people - half of the population of British Columbia - essential services which are regional rather than local in nature, among them regional parks.

The regional district concept was established by the Provincial Government in 1965. Its impetus came from the rapid population growth and explosion in out-door recreation that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. The Regional Parks Department is part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a system in which the Regional Parks are part of a mix of community services. In this way, it differs. from the single-purpose park districts used as models earlier.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District developed a blueprint for action in the late 1980s which involved more than 4,000 residents in public meeting, discussions and surveys. The District board of directors then adopted a series of actions - with the regional parks playing the leading role - with five main themes: 1) Maintaining a healthy environment 2) Conserving land resources 3) Serving a changing population 4) Maintaining the region's economic health, and 5) Managing the region.

Last year, a new land assembly phase was adopted based on environmental concerns and the region's annual population growth rate - considered among the five highest in North America. At the same time, the Heritage Parkland Acquisition Fund began a $3.5 million pay-as-you-go fund that will continue through the year 2000.

Midpeninsula Regional Open

Space District, Los Altos,

California

The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was formed by voters in 1972 under the same section of the State Public Resources code as the East Bay Regional Park District. As with East Bay, Midpeninsula's seven directors are elected by wards. The concept behind the districts was to preserve a regional open space greenbelt, linking district preserves with other public parklands. The concept also includes public low-intensify recreational use and protecting wildlife habitat, natural resources, watersheds, and a variety of ecosystems. In 1992, the District annexed a small portion of a third county, making it the only tri-county park or open space district in the state.

Metropolitan Park District of

the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio 

The Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area has met and surmounted more problems in its 67-year history than most other agencies. One such example involved a bitter debate over tax levies. Two weeks before voters were to decide on a 1990 levy, a Toledo city councilman challenge it, claiming that Metroparks should share their assets with the cash-strapped city parks. The election wa thrown into turmoil, and the levy was narrowly defeated. The city parks attempted to pass their own levy the following year with no success. Metropark's levy was slated to expire one month after the city park levy was defeated. With an aggressive campaign, Metroparks convinced 75 percent of voters to approved a new levy, keeping their means of funding alive.

The District was created in 1928 in response to a recognized need to preserve green space beyond the boundaries of the City of Toledo. As with Cleveland Metroparks, the Toledo version is governed by a three-person board of park commissioners appointed by the Lucas County probate judge.

The District has created a number of unique and thoughtful programs. During 1994, the Miami and Erie Canal Restoration project was completed and dedicated. It is the only restoration in the country that combines a working mule-drawn canal boat, working canal lock and 1840s water-powered saw and gristmill. Metroparks also initiated a "time of healing" commemoration, where for the first time, the losses of Native Americans in the Battle of Fallen Timbers were recognized. In addition, Metroparks boasts one of the finest nature programs anywhere.

Much can be learned from the case studies cited in this article. As proof, many other states are investigating the creation of SPDs. Among them are: Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho. With the success that the larger special districts have had in gaining public support and adequate funding, it is likely that there will be more SPDs created in the future. As one outstanding park leader said, "The name of the game is Do It Better." By combining resources and tax base, special park districts have demonstrated that ability.