Urbana Asks Around

By Susan C. Stone, Commissioner
and
Robm Hall, Director of Parks

IN A TIGHT FINANCIAL bind, the Urbana Park District is looking for ways to stretch its capabilities. We need to provide more land, better services, more varied programs. To help us reach some tough decisions intelligently, we sent a questionnaire to 30 other Illinois Park Districts asking about certain policies and practices.

The following park districts responded: Canton, Champaign, Decatur, DeKalb, Des Plaines, Elk Grove, Freeport, Glen Ellyn, Glenview, Homewood-Flossmoor, Mt. Prospect, Naperville, Oak Park, Pekin, Pepria, Rockford, Skokie, Springfield, Waukegan, Zion. Information received through the questions below gives an overview of the experiences of 20 active park districts in Illinois.

Question: What degree of coordinated land-use planning exists between the park district and other local governmental agencies? Particularly, what is the level of consultation among the park district, the city and the school district concerning: (a) sub-Division and planned unit development; (b) requests for zoning changes; (c) annexation to the city and pre-annexation provisions?

Here, at the crux of park futures, districts run the gamut from "we have absolutely no 'say' in what happens" to highly sophisticated and nearly complete coordination, communication, and control to insure adequate parks and open space as an integral part of community development, rather than as haphazard, catchup afterthoughts.

Thirty five percent of the districts have little or no coordination with other agencies at this time. Three districts are totally land-locked by other incorporated areas, and all development possibilities are already accounted for. In at least four instances (20%), representatives of the Park District are, formally or informally, ex-officio members of the local Plan Commission, thereby providing a high degree of inter-agency communication.

There is a clear correlation between those park districts having a comprehensive plan and those having the most advanced consultation and review rights. Twenty-five percent of the responding park districts have excellent coordination with their cities and/or counties, and 25% have a close working relationship with school districts. There is overlap here, but not exact duplication.

One Parks Director reports that "all subdivision plots, planned unit development plots and requests for zoning changes are submitted to the Park District for review and comment. The developer must negotiate with the Park District to meet our land- or fee-deeding requirement. All annexations to the City must also be annexed to the Park District as a part of their pre-annexation agreement.

In several other instances where close cooperation has developed, the city's official land use map reflects the park district's plans by showing future park sites as public lands on the city map. These areas cannot then be privately developed until the park district has had one year after development plans are approved in which to buy or otherwise acquire such designated lands.

Twenty-five percent of the park districts work at either the formal or informal level with developers as part of the subdivision planning process. This is a growing trend. About 20% of the park districts receive notification from the city of all requests for zoning changes. In other cases, park districts are notified only when they are adjoining property owners.

About 50% of park districts indicate that they coordinate closely with their cities, through city attorneys or other officials, on annexation matters. In three instances, the city requires property owners to annex to the park district when annexing to the city. Several park districts are attempting to secure such a provision from their city councils.

Question: What percentage of your park holdings has been donated (a) in the past 10 years, and (b) in your total park history? What have been the most effective methods for securing private gifts?

Many park districts originated with the gift of a parcel of land. Some have grown proportionately through local generosity and civic pride. Overall, the average amount of park land acquired through private gifts has been about 25%. In the past ten years the average has fallen to about 13%. Many strong exceptions, however, signify that in some districts philanthropy is alive and well. In the very recent past, six districts have enjoyed gifts of from 26% to 55% of their land acquisitions, but nine received no land in gift form.

Successes in attracting gifts have usually resulted from direct personal contact between a Board member or the park

Illinois Parks and Recreation 12 March/April, 1973

director and a landowner. In recent years, gifts have been aided by showing the prospective donor the relationship of his land to a master park plan. Marginal land, less suitable for development but with attractive natural features such as flood plains, forests or steeply inclined areas, can be more readily secured. Sometimes, small, odd parcels in a subdivision lend themselves to donation for development as tot-lots.

Whereas some districts have apparently never solicited gifts, others are trying a variety of approaches, including the encouragement of local foundations to attract tax-deductible donations. In addition to the traditional individual or family donor, some districts are successful in obtaining substantial gifts from clubs and organized groups.

Question: What "built in" provisions does your city or county have which require developers to dedicate land for parks and school sites or for payment of fees in lieu thereof?

Here the "thin edge of the law" could, and has, cut either way. As land values skyrocket, private philanthropy appears to have plummeted. Districts whose growth depended upon gifts of land cannot usually continue to rely upon them to the same extent, at least not without significant prodding. Such a prod might come in the form of dedication requirements if the public, through their elected officials, consider this important and appropriate.

In other states, a growing number of cities and, in several instances, state law itself, require land dedication proportionate either to the total land package to be developed or to the number of dwelling units. In Illinois, no such trend has yet emerged. The experience of Mt. Prospect in 1961 has dampened local attempts to use this tool.

In the case of Pioneer Trust and Savings v. Village of Mount Prospect the court overruled the requirement for dedication of land for school and park sites, saying that Mt. Prospect had exceeded its use of the police power by failing to show in its ordinance that the need for these park/school facilities was specifically attributable to the new subdivisions. The guideline which emerged from that such dedication requirements must be "specifically and uniquely attributable" to the needs of the new subdivision.

Today, the city of Naperville stands almost alone in Illinois in having attempted, in 1971, to draw up a carefully correct subdivision ordinance which overcomes legal objections cited in the Mt. Prospect case, yet guarantees land or monies in lieu of land for park/school purposes. It has not yet faced a court test.

Of the 20 districts replying to our questions, 13 (65%) had no provisions whatever requiring the setting aside of lands. In one district, developers are "urged" to include park land in their plans; in other districts ordinances are now in preparation or under consideration. Only five districts have some form of requirement.

Besides Naperville, Elk Grove requires that 10% of a subdivision developer's land be set aside for public use. Subdivision ordinances applicable to Springfield and Glenview require developers to hold for one year any site designated as a park or school on the master plan, so that the public agency may buy the land. Peoria's new subdivision ordinance assesses developers $25.00 per dwelling unit to pay for new park sites.

Question: What type of cooperative arrangement do you have with the City? What services and equipment do you share?

Overall, the spirit of cooperation between park districts and their cities or villages is encouraging, although one official reported that for communication between park district and city was nil. Cooperation is usually informal and depends upon good relations at the administrative staff level. In two instances, joint board meetings and joint staff meetings are regularly scheduled.

The degree of exchange of goods and services varies from only occasional, ad hoc borrowing of specialized equipment, to quite extensive continuing arrangements. Generally, the cities have far more to offer the park districts than vice versa, because of the cities' more inclusive responsibilities and correspondingly greater resources. The responses indicate that cities and villages serve essentially the same constituencies as park districts do, therefore sharing, rather than duplicating costly efforts makes both sense and cents for their beleaguered taxpayers.

Cities are providing the following types of free services to various park districts: loan of specialized equipment, garbage and leaf pickup, use of landfill, water for parks and for flooding ice rinks, grading of terrain of new park areas, winter plowing, salting, sweeping and repairing park roads, police patrolling of parks, construction permits, use of storage areas, use of buildings no longer needed by the city (charges only for utilities). In several cases, joint purchasing of commonly used items, such as trees, gasoline, equipment, is practiced.

Districts also cooperate in such matters as installing and repairing street lights and solving sewer problems. Park Districts, for their part, are able to lend equipment, provide storage areas, lend specialized personnel, particularly with landscaping competence, and to help with mowing and tree planting. Question: Would you please describe any policies you have with your school district or other educational institutions for the use of their facilities, charges therefore, and reciprocal services?

Guiding principles are expressed in Peoria's park-school agreement that "public services should be provided at the lowest

continued on page 24

Illinois Parks and Recreation 13 March/April, 1973

URBANA ASKS AROUND...

continued from page 13

cost. . . that all facilities, activities and services should yield as large an educational return as possible . . . since most school buildings and facilities are located near the center of the community they serve, they are admirably situated to meet many of the recreation needs of their constituents. Further, schools lie idle much of the time when people are free to use them."

In only one case does a park district make no use of school buildings or grounds, and in only two cases does a park district use only school grounds and not any buildings. Within a park district-school district agreement, there can be varying arrangements, depending upon the type of school used, the room or special facilities of the school, the time and staff of the school used. Staff must be hired. Bearing these variables in mind, the following picture emerges.

65% Park districts use some schools free.

30% use all schools free.

30% park and school districts have reciprocal facility use with no charges.

Most districts have year-to-year arrangements, be they written or verbal; one district has a five-year renewable lease for using school buildings and grounds, and another has a similar type of lease on a ten-year basis. This allows meaningful long-term program planning. Several respondents felt that agreements should be in writing to strengthen assurances of continuing cooperation.

Increasingly, school districts are making arrangements to provide for park districts to construct facilities on school grounds, especially in neighborhoods lacking in parks or the opportunity to provide parks. As indicated in the earlier discussion of coordinated planning, a growing number of park and school districts are engaged in joint planning for acquisition and development of adjacent sites with complimentary facilities. A key to the success of all of these arrangements lies in the observation of the park director who said: "We have an excellent working relationship with the administrators of all school districts and their staff. These relationships have had to be cultivated and worked at because . . . prior to professional leadership in the park district, school administrators were dissatisfied with the park district's ability to meet its commitments. We try to ... get better acquainted and discuss any potential problems and developments which might affect overlapping jurisdiction."

Illinois Parks and Recreation 24 March/April, 1973