Federal recreation policy 1962-2002:
Great Society promises and New Federalism challenges

By Jim Kozlowski
National Recreation and Park Association

Twenty years ago, on January 13, 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (created by Public Law 85-470 in 1958) presented its final report to President Kennedy entitled "Outdoor Recreation for America." This report contained the findings and recommendations of the commission regarding the projected recreation desires and needs of the American people in 1976 and 2000. The ORRRC report described the appropriate roles for federal/state/local governments and the private sector. Basically, the federal government was responsible for areas of national significance. Similarly, states were to acquire and manage areas of state or regional significance. Local governments were charged with the provision of open space and recreational opportunities for urban and metropolitan areas. The private sector, through private initiatives and enterprise was envisioned as the most important factor in providing outdoor recreational opportunities.

In 1963, Congress passed P.L. 88-29 which established a congressional policy based upon the findings and recommendations of the ORRRC report. This law remains in effect today (16 USC 460 (1); it defines a federal recreation policy based upon intergovernmental cooperation. Pursuant to the law "Congress finds and declares it to be desirable that all American people of present and future generations be assured adequate outdoor recreation resources, and that it is desirable for all levels of government and private interests to take prompt and coordinated action to the extent practicable without diminishing or affecting their respective powers and functions to conserve, develop, and utilize such resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people."

In 1965, Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) to provide financial incentives for the states to implement the federal recreation policy enunciated in P.L. 88-29. In addition to allowing funding for federal recreation projects, the LWCF program authorizes 50% matching grants to the states. States in turn may fund local projects. This type of federal financing of state/local projects through matching grants is characteristic of many domestic spending programs which emerged in the 1960's.

A report by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) entitled "The Condition of Contemporary Federalism; Conflicting Theories and Collapsing Constraints" attributes the phenomenal growth of federal aid for state/local programs such as LWCF to increased federal income tax yields which reflected the prosperity of the United States after the Korean war. The ACIR report provides the following rationale for federal aid to state and local governments:

"Federal programs financed by the constantly increasing funds provided by the federal individual income tax might have met with considerably more resistance from state and local governments if the revenues had been devoted exclusively to federal programs. However, by devoting an increasing proportion of federal domestic expenditures to federal grants-in-aid to state and local

Illinois Parks and Recreation 17 January/February 1982

governments, potential state and local objections were muted. Federal grants-in-aid provided Congress with a facile way to co-opt state and local resources, and to enlist state and local policymakers and administrators in domestic aims."

In the case of LWCF state grants, there was increasing dissatisfaction among the representatives of major urban areas. Since LWCF state assistance was limited to acquisition and development projects, it did not address the perceived need for park rehabilitation an revitalization in urban areas. These concerns were, substantiated by the findings of the National Urban Recreation Study published in 1978. On September 28, 1976, Congress had mandated this study in section 12 of Public Law 94-422 amending the Land and Water Conservation Act. The purpose of the study was to provide "a comprehensive review and report on the needs problems, and opportunities associated with urban recreation in highly populated areas including the resources potentially available for meeting such needs."

Just as the ORRRC report had done in 1962, the findings and recommendations of the National Urban Recreation Study prompted authorizing legislation for a federal grant program, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625). The purpose of this recreation recovery program (UPARR) was to rehabilitate critically needed recreation areas and improve recreation programming in economically hard pressed communities through a series of competitive federal grants over a five year period. UPARR was designed to complement the existing LWCF state grant program and other community development programs by generating a long term commitment by local governments to park and recreation area maintenance.

Funding patterns for both LWCF state assistance and UPARR illustrate a change in attitude regarding federal domestic spending. The increased tax revenues which fueled the social programs of the 60's were hampered in the 70's by higher and higher levels of inflation and federal deficit spending. In fact, federal funding for state/local parks and recreation through the LWCF program peaked in 1979, the year after UPARR was authorized. Since 1979, the trend for federal appropriations for LWCF Fund and UPARR alike has been downward reaching the low point in the current 1981 fiscal year.

No funding has been provided for state LWCF grants in fiscal 1982, and a paltry $8 million has been earmarked for UPARR. It is uncertain whether further appropriations will appear in fiscal 1983. House/Senate conferees on the interior appropriations bill have stated that the zero figure in fiscal 1982 for state LWCF grants constituted a one year "moratorium" rather than program termination as recommended by the Administration. In any event, the trend is clear, park and recreation advocates are spending greater amounts of time and effort to compete for the shrinking federal dollar.

Further, this reduced funding trend is not limited to

Illinois Parks and Recreation 18 January/February 1982

matching grant programs. Funding for federal programs which provide technical assistance to state/local park and recreation systems has also been severely curtailed. The National Park Service (NFS) which has assumed responsibility for these recreation resources functions formerly administered by the now defunct Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) continues to treat these programs as the poor stepchildren of the national parks system. Cuts of 50% or more are being recommended for these state/local assistance programs in favor of increased funding the national park rehabilitation projects.

NPS was recently admonished on the floor of the Senate by the chairman of the public lands subcommittee, Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy), for its disparate treatment of these recreation resources service programs. Wallop reminded NPS that the service functions contained in these programs are mandated by Congress in P.L. 88-29. He, further, advised NFS to revise some of its administrative and bookkeeping practices which have had an inequitable impact upon these state/local service programs as opposed to site specific operations and projects.

Jim Kozlowski is on the public affairs staff of the National Recreation and Park Association, He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the American Bar Association. In addition to his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Maryland School of Law, Kozlowski holds an M.S. in Leisure Studies from the University of Illinois, an M.A.T. in English from the University of Chicago, and a B.A. from the Johns Hopkins University.

The hue and cry for less federal involvement in state/local parks and recreation systems did not originate with the Reagan Administration. Actions taken by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and NTS which have crippled the grant programs and technical assistance services for state/local park and recreation systems are symptomatic of an attitude which gained momentum in the early 70's. During this period, states and localities became accustomed to general revenue sharing and block grants. Many states had instituted their own income taxes. This newly developed revenue producing capability added to the power and sophistication of state government just as it had to the federal bureaucracy more than a decade earlier. With their new found strength, governors, state legislatures, and local officials began to demand greater autonomy from the federal government, "New federalism" was the label given this approach to government.

The categorical grant programs of the 60's became symbolic of federal domination in domestic policy. As a result, new federalism espouses "decongesting" the federal categorical grant system. Proponents of the new federalism, including then California governor, Ronald Reagan, argued that categorical grants subverted the states' sovereign power and relegated state/local government to mere ministerial agents of federal domestic policy. The philosophy of new federalism has provided the Reagan Administration with the necessary political base, particularly among governors and state legislatures, to severely curtail federal assistance to state/local park and recreation systems. Using the new federalism rationale, the Administration has recommended termination of state LWCF and UPARR grants because they provide "primarily state and local benefits."

The new federalism has prompted a movement among park and recreation advocates to reassess the Federal role in assisting local/state parks and recreation service delivery systems. Without a doubt the underlying economic and social assumptions, projections and recommendations of the ORRRC reports are outdated. However, there is significant resistance to abandoning the ORRRC intergovernmental initiatives under the banner of new federalism without first establishing a participatory process. Such a process will hopefully develop a progressive federal recreation policy for the 80's and beyond.

Despite apparent domination by the federal bureaucracy, the intergovernmental approach of the social programs in the 60's demonstrated the increased impact of public expenditures through cooperation among governmental units and the private sector. In the months and years to come, advocates for quality park and recreation systems must seek new and innovative ways to regenerate and maintain this spirit of cooperation engendered by ORRRC without having the luxury of a substantial federal subsidy to drive the process.

Editor's Note: This article and the others within the theme section are not intended as definitive statements of the law but rather should serve to introduce the reader to selected legislation applicable to recreation settings and services. Specific questions regarding this legislation or other legal matters should be directed to appropriately qualified legal counsel.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 19 January/February 1982

Legislation affecting liability in public recreation operations

By Dawn Biddison and Len Cleary, Jr.

Ms. Biddison graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Southern Illinois University in 1979. Her major area of study at Southern was park and community recreation. She is currently employed by the Southern Illinois University School of Law Library, as a Library Technical Assistant in their Reader Services department. As part of her job training she has been exposed to legal research methods and problems, which included the completion of a course offered at the Law School in Legal Bibliography. Ms. Biddison is a native of Des Plaines, Illinois.

Are you liable for the injuries that occur in your recreation operation?—do you have immunity from liability? In Illinois there are numerous laws regarding this area that directly pertain to the recreation profession. Of these laws, those dealing with liability in recreation operations are of special concern. Two acts, currently in effect, that have sections regarding the liability issue will be featured here. They are the local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act¹ and the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act². The first of these, the Tort Immunity Act, was passed in 1965 as a result of the General Assembly's desire to concretely settle the issue of governmental immunity from personal injury (tort) cases.

Prior to 1965, the General Assembly and the judiciary were seemingly engaged in an ongoing battle about the immunity issue. Some of the reasons for the conflict are inherent in the history of immunity legislation. This legislation generally is based on two theories - "the king can do no wrong" and "protection of public funds".³ The thought behind these theories is that if governmental agencies were not given some degree of immunity they would spend a great deal of time and money involved in lawsuits and in the paying of settlements. Since most governmental agencies exist through the use of tax revenues they would actually be spending their constituents' money. This rationale is inherently logical but the courts now tend to reflect the feeling that these theories are archaic and that provisions like insurance can now protect the public funds thus eliminating the need for some immunity laws.⁴

A good beginning point for consideration of the Tort Immunity Act is to identify whom the act affects. Local public entities and employees as defined in the statutes are given immunity. Included as employees are board members, commissioners, officers, and regular employees.⁵ The local public entity that employs them may be a county, municipality, township, school district, forest preserve district, or park district among others.⁶ This act does not include the state or its agencies, because the idea of sovereign immunity was abolished by the 1970 Illinois Constitution.⁷ This means that the state, its agencies, and employees, formerly considered supreme in power and authority, are not now immune from suit. Any lawsuits against the state are generally heard by the Illinois Court of Claims.

The immunities granted to employees and public entities are quite exact. These include those found in the act which grant specific immunities arising from personal injury suits. These immunities actually mean that there is no liability for many actions as set out in the act. For instance, there is no liability for failing to make an inspection of property.⁸ Because many public agencies oversee vast amounts of property, the expense of inspection programs could make owning the property more of a burden than the activities provided are worth. Another action for which immunity is given is for the failure to enforce any law.⁹ This section has the same effect as the one discussed above in that public agencies cannot with all their other duties also act as a law enforcement agency. One final example of an immunity that is given is for an injury caused by the act or ommission of another person.¹⁰ This section provides for no liability when an employee is doing his job but an injury occurs because of someone else's oversight.

Although the scope of the whole Tort Immunity Act is much too great to be discussed here, some key sections of the act that have provisions for recreation operations warrant examination. For example, Section 3-106 states that there is no liability for injuries, where the liability stems from the existence of a condition of any public property, which is used for recreational purposes including playgrounds, parks, or open areas.¹¹ Simple stated, this means that the park district may not be liable for any conditions of the property that would not reasonably be expected to exist. Liability does exist however, in the case where the injury resulted from willful and wanton negligence on the part of the individual or representative agency responsible for the public property. The concept of willful and wanton negligence is explained as "a failure to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to a person who is actually known to be, or reasonably expected to be, within range of a known danger".¹² One example of this would be a park maintenance worker leaving sharp branches on the ground knowing that they could cause injury if individuals using the park were to fall upon them.

Another section that pertains specifically to recreation operations is 3-107.¹³ Here roads and trails that give access to recreational, fishing, hunting,

Illinois Parks and Recreation 20 January/February 1982

primitive camping, or scenic areas are the subject.¹⁴ The provisions of this section relieve the local public entity or employee of liability from an iniury caused by a condition of the access trail or road.¹⁵ This condition could be the result of a natural phenomenon like snow on the trail, or artificially generated i.e., a pot hole which resulted from heavy use of the road. However, city streets, county and township highways and other such roads are not covered by this section, but fall instead under the provisions of laws applicable to the responsible government unit. Although it is not specifically stated, it should be understood that willful or wanton negligent acts are not given immunity.

A final section worth noting is 3-108.¹⁶ The first part of this section provides that there is no liability for an injury that is caused by the failure to supervise an activity or the property itself.¹⁷ This means that if a child is injured during a park district supervised baseball game the park district might not be liable depending on the circumstances, Another example would be that of a child who is injured while simply-playing-on the playground but not participating in a specific program. In this situation there generally is no liability because the agency does not have to provide supervision of the property. A note of caution is that other provisions of the Tort Immunity Act may provide for liability in such instances like the ones mentioned above dependent on the fact situation.

The second part of this section deals with swimming activities. Probably because swimming is one of the most popular recreational pastimes and has the inherent potential for injury, the statutes are very specific. Included among their requirements is that the public agency must post the hours of use on the premises.¹⁸ If a person was swimming in a public pool during the hours that the pool is posted as being open, and he drowned, and the court finds that there wasn't sufficient supervision the public agency could be held liable. This section is aimed at protecting the public from the possibility of poor management in pool services.

Even though districts, along with other public agencies, are given immunities from certain liabilities, there must be something to fill in the gaps where there no immunity. Section 9-103 of the Tort Immunity Acct provides for the contracting of insurance coverage.¹⁹ Although the purchase of insurance is not mandatory, it can provide an agency with protection from liability, especially those liabilities not specifically covered by the act. Every policy is issued with the provision that the insurance company waives the rights to refuse payment or deny liability, which almost guarantees positive settlement of claims arising from typical liability situations.²⁰ Consequently, between insurance coverage and the provisions of the Tort Immunity Act, the agency can achieve a high decree of protection from liability claims.

Another act that has a very positive effect on recreation agencies is called the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act.²¹ The purpose of this act is to limit the liability of landowners who make their land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes.²²

This act also contains a section like the Tort Immunity Act that says the landowner won't be held liable unless he is guilty of willful or malicious acts.²³ This means he has a responsibility to warn about dangerous conditions on his land and to keep his land safe.²⁴ Such responsibilities include but are not limited to; posting of signs to warn of danger, providing general maintenance, or checking the area for dangerous-conditions especially in regard to potential swimming areas

The favorable effect of the act is that it encourages private individuals to open up their lands for recreational purposes without the fear of unrestricted liability. These landowners are granted an immunity that would not have been available to them otherwise. Laws of this type can do a lot to promote recreational activities within the private sector.

Without immunities from liability/or insurance coverage, park districts would be" constantly threatened by lawsuits. This could result in the park district spending more time in the business of fighting lawsuits rather than serrving the public with programs. Public agenices are fortunate to have the tort immunity acts to protect them from the barrage of lawsuits that might otherwise occupy their time and funds. As we public-- agencies are here to serve the public--and it's good that they can do so with the protection of statues. It also seems a positive sign to see that policies of limiting liability are being extended to the private sector as well.

It appears that an appropriate balance has been reached between "the king can do no wrong" approach and placing public recreation areas in constant jeopardy of continuous litigation. As long as both the agency and consumers exercise reasonable care, safety can be maintained without the threatening enjoyment of recrreation opportunities.

ENDNOTES

1. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 85, §§1-101 et. seq (1979)
2. Ill. Rev. State, ch. 70, §31 et. seq. (1979)
3. Judge, Tort Immunity Act: Only Certain Immunities Are Waived By Public Entity's Purchase of Insurance, 63 Ill. BJ. 387 (1973)
4. Id.
5. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §1-202 (1979)
6. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §1-206 (1979)
7. Constitution of Illinois 1970, Art.13, §4.
8. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §2-105 (1979)
9. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §2-103 (1979)
10. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §2-109 (1979)
11. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §3-106 (1979
12. Black's Law Dictionary 1435 (5th ed. 1979)
13. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.85, §3-107 (1979)
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §3-108 (1979)
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, §9-103 (1979)
20. Id.
21. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 70, §31 et. seq. (1979)
22. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 70, §31 (1979)
23. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 70, §36 (1979)
24. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.70, §33 (1979)

Illinois Parks and Recreation 21 January/February 1982

Providing leisure services at the county level in Illinois

By Robert D. Espeseth
Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Office of Recreation and Park Resources
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Illinois has the most comprehensive body of legislation relating to parks, recreation and open space available to the county level of government of any state in the United States. Functions related to preservation of open space, conservation and recreation can be carried out under direct funding from the county board or through the establishment of a special district; such as, a forest preserve district, a county conservation district, a county wide park district, or a river conservancy district. Each of these special districts which have been authorized by legislative acts provide for essentially the same basic opportunities for county level systems for outdoor recreation services with slightly different approaches, funding capabilities and makeup of governing bodies.

In spite of this comprehensive body of legislation, the weak link in the "recreation chain" in Illinois continues to be the county level of government, which basically has not met its responsibility in providing recreational opportunities across the state. Only 27 of the 102 counties in Illinois provide any type of recreational or land preservation opportunities under some type of county jurisdiction. This is a very small percentage of counties indeed when one looks at the immediately surrounding states where county level participation ranges from a low of 60 % in one other to 100 % in the case of Iowa, where every county in the state has a county conservation district.

In a recent survey conducted by the Office of Recreation and Park Resources, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a questionnaire was sent to the county board chairs and county clerks of each of the 102 counties in Illinois. Responses were received from 96 (94 %) of the counties (either from the county board chair or the county clerk) but in only 20 cases were responses received from both of these people from the same county. When asked the question, "Does the county board feel that it has any responsibility to provide recreation services for county residents?", a majority of both groups (67% of the county board chairs and 85 % of the county clerks) felt that the county did not have a responsibility to provide park, recreation and open space services for their citizens. The reasons given for not providing these services varied. A few of the reasons are noted below:

1. There are enough local parks or private clubs in our county.

2. The county board has tried several times to have a vote on a park district or other special district but failed each time.

3. Private enterprise should provide these services.

4. The county is too small.

3. This should be a state responsibility in rural counties.

6. There is a state park(s) or considerable federal land in our county.

7. Nearby counties provide these facilities.

A responsibility for preserving river resources is found in county-based legislation.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 22 January/February 1982

It should be kept in mind that every level of government, as well as the private sector, has a role to play in providing open spaces, recreational programs and facilities to serve every segment of their respective populations. This role is both individual as well as complimentary in the overall perspective of recreation services. If any level does not provide its share of the responsibilitiy, then a disproportionate load will be placed on other jurisdictions. County government's challenge is to provide imaginative local leadership in responding to recreational needs and demands outside incorporated areas. The special role of the county is to acquire, develop and maintain outdoor recreation areas and to administer related programs that will serve the needs of areas broader than the local municilality but less than statewide or national in scope.

Under the several acts established by the Illinois legislature counties can fulfill their roles by operating in a partial county, full county or a multi-county basis. The legislation is quite broad for most of those acts and provides for a considerable degree of discretion on the part of the policy making boards as to the direction they wish to take in operating the areas and facilities in any particular county. For example, the forest Preserve District Act contained in Chapter 96 1/2 of the Illinois Revised Statutes gives forest preserve district boards certain powers and specifies that forest reserves may be created for the purpose of "protecting and preserving flora, fauna and scenic beauties; the education, pleasure and recreation of public"; "to store flood waters, control other drainage and water conditions"; and "preserve ground water,"¹ The law also specifies that "any forest preserve district is authorized to sell at fair market price gravel, sand, earth and any other material obtained from the lands and waters owned by the district"² so that valuable mineral resources can be utilized if it is prudent to do so.

State enabling legislation for forest preserve districts, therefore, recognizes the multiple uses for which areas can be designed to handle, and benefits which can be derived from a balance of properly developed areas in a total forest preserve system. The greatest benefit will be derived from seeking the most productive combination of objectives. In the broad field of outdoor recreation, forest preserves in most counties have traditionally played a somewhat specialized and conservative role. Forest preserves, in contrast to park districts which provide smaller, more intensively used areas, are normally larger in size than most municipal parks and oriented toward preservation and less intensive forms of outdoor recreation.

Forest Preserves have typically been established more with reference to the location of prime natural resources than to the population served or geographic distribution. It is possible to acquire forest preserve land that will satisfy a multiplicity of purposes such as preservation of biota, open space, land-water recreation, water resource management and wise use of mineral resources. It is possible to seek out sites which contain sufficient size and diversity to accomplish a number of these purposes. From a practical point of

Education it part of the legislative mandate.
Macon County Conservation District

Illinois Parks and Recreation 23 January/February 1982

view it is usually not possible to achieve all of the purposes of the forest preserve district at a single site. However, for the benefit of the taxpayers it is imperative to fulfill as many of these purposes as practical consistent with the resource base and character of the individual sites. Eleven counties have full county forest preserve districts; Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, Piatt, Rock Island, Tazewell, Will and Winnebago counties. Two counties have forest preserve districts covering less than the full county: Champaign and Ogle (Byron FPD) counties. The Illinois County Conservation District Act which is contained in Chapter 57 1/2 of the Illinois Revised Statutes is similar in many respects to the Forest Preserve District Act. These two acts provide alternate methods for initiating local land preservation action. However, the Conservation District Act provides a more comprehensive means of managing wild lands and open space conservation needs. Conservation districts may encompass a territory that can be a single county or include a group of up to five counties. However, to date the five conservation districts which currently exist have all been established on a single county basis. The purpose of the multi-county approach was to enable counties with high tax bases but little usable land to consolidate their efforts and assets with counties in an opposite situation and this way the benefits would be spread more evenly. Any county, with the exception of those which operate under the Forest Preserve District Act, is eligible to form a conservation district. Presently five Illinois counties have organized Conservation Districts: Boone, Macon, McHenry, Putnam and Vermilion. A sixth, LaSalle, was dissolved at an early stage.

Discretion is allowed in the development of facilities. Macon County Conservation District

County wide park districts can be formed under the Park District Act which is contained in Chapter 105 of the Illinois Revised Statutes. This is the same Act which governs park districts at the municipal or township level. To date only one county, Clark, has organized a county-wide park district. This legislation is highly oriented toward providing recreation services and is less oriented to natural resource based areas.

Although a number of river Conservancy Districts have been formed under Chapter 42 of the Illinois Revised Statutes only two of these special districts have instituted any type of recreation function to date; the Rend Lake District and the Lake Kinkaid-Reed's Creek District. The Act authorizing the formation of River Conservancy Districts gives such Districts powers "to effectuate river and flood control, drainage, irrigation, conservation, sanitation, navigation, recreation, development of water supplies and the protection of fish life." This Act is probably the broadest and most comprehensive of all the legislative opportunities available for resource based programs in the state; however, recreation and conservation have not been given adequate consideration when these districts have been formed for only one of the several reasons mentioned above.

Table 1 provides a comparison of the variety of tax levies which can be instituted to finance the respective systems. Each of the special districts have advantages and disadvantages and the related Acts and statutes should be carefully analyzed when units of government or a group of citizens are considering the alternatives available to them for providing parks, recreation and open spaces for their county.

As previously stated, the problem of late issuance of tax bills has resulted in many districts having to borrow short term funds and to use tax monies to pay the interest. Under the new proposal this would not be necessary as the tax bills would be mailed in November with tax payments in January, March, June and September, This early receipt of tax income would also allow the districts to earn more interest because of the longer period the tax funds could be invested before they were needed. In fact this extra interest earnings could offset the loss of income due to change in the assessed valuation base.

This summary only hits the high points of the report by the Local Government Finance Study Commission. There is much more that should be reviewed and considered by each park district board and staff as it can have a major affect on their finances. We must be prepared to work with the General Assembly as these recommendations are considered from a basis of a thorough knowledge and understanding rather than a quick reaction to something we just heard about.

1. Local Government Finance Study Commission Report, State of Illinois, April 1, 1981, page i
2. Local Government Finance Study Commission Report, State of Illinois, April 1,1981, page ii
3. Local Government Finance Study Commission Report, State of Illinois, April 1, 1981, page 33

Illinois Parks and Recreation 24 January/February 1982

TABLE I TAXING CAPABILITIES OF COUNTY SYSTEMS

TYPE OF TAX LEVY	COUNTY-WIDE PARK DISTRICT (of less than 500,000 inhabitants)	FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT1	COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT (May be a multi-county district)	RIVER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
Corporate Fund	.1 % (l0c per $100 of assessed valuation) .05% (5c) additional may be authorized by referendum.	.025% (2.5c per $100 of assessed valuation). May be increased to .06% (6.0c) by referendum.	.025% (2.5c per $100 of assessed valuation for general purposes may accumulate to not more than .075% (7.5c).	.083% (8.3c per $100 of assessed valuation) may be increased to .75% in districts with less than 25,000 population and .375% (37.5c) in districts with over 25,000 population by referendum
Construction & Development		.025% (2.5c per $100).	Aggregate bonded indebtedness not to exceed .5% of the total county assessed valuation by referendum (for any purpose).
Land Acquisition		Aggregate bonded indebtedness not to exceed 2 % of total county assessed valuation. No rate limit.	.075% (7.5c) may accumulate to not more than .25% (25c) of assessed valuation. May be used for land development of general purposes by consultation with Department of Conservation
Bonds Repayment (General Obligation Bonds)		To fund payment of existing indebtedness. No rate limit.	Same as Forest Preserve District	No rate limit. Authorized by referendum
Audit Tax	.005% (.5c)	Same as Park District	Same as Park District	Same as Park District
Public Liability Insurance Fund	Amount sufficient to pay insurance premium and for payment of lost judgments and bond issue to pay judgments.	Same as Park District.	Same as Park District	Same as Park District
Zoological Park		.0058% (.58c) in Districts of over 150,000 population,
Botanic Garden		.0048% (.48c) in Districts of over 200,000 population.
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)	Levy not to exceed amount appropriated for municipal contributions to the retirement system.	Same as Park District.	Same as Park District	Same as Park District
Aquarium & Museum	.03% (3.0c)
Conservatory	.05% (5c)
Police System	.025% (2.5c)
Recreational & Community Center	.075% (7.5c) may be increased to .12% ')12c) by referendum.
Programs for Handicapped	.02% (2c) authorized by referendum.
Basic Chapter of Illinois Revised statues as of 10/1/81	C-105	C-96 1/2	C-57 1/2	C-42

¹Some population restrictions for use of various funds but generally applicable to counties of over 100,000 populations. NOTE: Other special levies and Revenue Bonds are authorized for certain special districts. Check the statutes for details.

Illinois Parks and Recreation

January/February 1982