Bond Referenda
and the Master Park Plan

by Peter T. Dyke

Introduction Park district management has struggled with the thought and reality of tax caps imposed by the Property Tax Extension Limitation Act of 1991. The Act has severely limited park districts' ability to finance needed improvements and the prospect of Cook County districts facing the same situation as the collar county agencies remains in the foreground. The primary tool for planning for and dealing with effective management of the larger park district issues remains the Open Space Master Plan. The Open Space Master Plan has withstood the test of time as the main vehicle for planning, managing and shaping open space and recreation in United States communities. In fact, two-thirds of Illinois districts and park departments have a Master Plan to help manage their jurisdictions effectively.

In preparation for this article, TD&A conducted a detailed survey of 127 Illinois park districts and recreation departments to confirm vital information. The results were extraordinary; 76% of the districts responded to our request for information. Thanks to all who responded and a special thank you to the IAPD and IPRA for sharing their data.

Referendum and Tax Cap Legislation

The issue, with respect to the tax cap issue, is important to explore. First and foremost, it is important to realize that we in the park community have a good chance of living with the tax caps instead of living without caps. The legislature in Springfield is not likely to back down on the issue. If we are to live with caps, then we must plan for caps.

As you all know, park districts obtain funds from several sources, including:

1. Existing Tax Levy. How the district manages existing levy funds will continue to remain a priority. We can assume levy proceeds will remain relatively constant with inflation.

2. Public Participation. User fees, fund raising for specific projects and revenue producing assets such as golf courses, driving ranges and concessions, will become higher profile revenue sources.

3. Bonds. The importance of referenda will become even greater, and the ability of park boards to "position" their referenda correctly will become even more crucial. The districts' ability to convince voters that their ideas and plans are wise will become paramount to successful park management.

In each revenue producing category above, a master plan allows the management of the funds to be directed in a prudent and responsible manner because of the knowledge obtained and guidance provided by the plan. The Illinois Department of Conservation routinely asks districts whether or not they have a master plan when funds are requested.

Master Plan Purpose Park officials are responsible to the citizens of their jurisdictions to make the best possible decisions based on sound facts and accepted standards. In order that the facts are readily available and coordinated with one another, a Master Park Plan in text and map form is necessary to compile and organize all important information. The future of each community is fragile and crucial for all residents; therefore, informed decisions are vital. Planning Process One of the principal objectives in pursuing the development of a new or updated Master Plan is the establishment of a "process" whereby the park agency, advisory committee, staff and private citizens are all involved. The process will produce a "blueprint" for the future. This blueprint consists of maps, charts, statistics, plans, goals, standards, cost estimates, priorities, phasing written recommendations and an implementation strategy. The process works to coalesce public opinion so that local governmental leaders can work toward common goals which serve the entire community. It is vital to each plan that the board and staff work to help shape the document when preparing the plan. The implementation stage is the most successful if the final plan contains the results of hard work and input of both the board and staff members.

Nine of the top ten largest districts, measured by total acres, have master plans, and two out of three districts (66 out of 99 respondents) have prepared master plans to help manage their districts. Note: Peoria and Rockford, two large districts, are not included in the survey results.

A good Master Park and Open Space Plan should have a "Purpose" Section which not only describes the reasons for the plan being prepared but also contains a history of the park agency, its general philosophy and current policies. Not all park agencies are alike nor are they created for the same purpose. Each may have different state statutes under which they are legally obliged to operate.

Existing Conditions and Community Involvement

Once the preparation of the Master Plan is underway, it is important to undertake a comprehensive inventory of the existing facilities which are under the jurisdiction of the park agency. An important aspect of the inventory is an assessment of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines. When prioritizing park upgrades, in relation to other capital improvements, the district's degree of compliance to national standards and laws is important to document. Population data should be gathered on the residents in the jurisdiction of the park agency, and an analysis of the population should be undertaken with a population projection made for a 10 to 20 year period.

A recreational attitude and interest survey is just as important. Such a survey may be 100% sample or, in large jurisdictions, may reach only a percentage of the population. The purpose of the survey is to find out which facilities people use, what they want, and whether they are willing to pay for upgrades through increased taxes or user fees. A study of recreational programming should then be undertaken. This portion of the Master Plan should document the growth and changes in recreational programming and assess the impact that possible population shifts will produce in the way of changing demands on the facilities, staff and existing programs.

Goals and Standards Once the status of physical facilities, recreational programming, staff requirements and desires of the community residents has been determined, the identified requirements should be converted into new policies measured against appropriate standards. The National Recreation and Park Association published park standards in 1983. The current standard for park acreage per 1,000 residents is 10 acres. We believe that the standard should be raised to 15 in suburban areas to reflect social changes, citizen needs and attitudes. The "per 1,000" common denominator is useful in articles such as this so comparisons can readily be made. A set of goals and objectives needs to be written outlining what the agency should strive to achieve. The goals should include standards for the amount of park land the agency should have, and minimum standards should be set for needed programs.

DISTRICT COMPARISON District Acreage per 1000 Acreage Sites Residents EAV Wheaton 15.7 797 47 50,800 $911,148,548 Gurnee 13 195 11 15,000 $315,638,767 Wilmette 12.4 330 24 26,690 $540,861,878 Burr Ridge 11 75 14 6,800 $233,640,232 Glenview 10.1 482 37 47,540 $914,548,897

The standards are often accompanied by the preparation of charts and typical park designs to illustrate how the physical elements of the system can best be interrelated. At this stage, an important step to remember is the consideration of joint usage of public property owned by another governmental agency. Intergovernmental agreements are often written in contract form, such as the park-school situation where the school district owns the land or buildings but permits park usage during non-school hours. Another important step is to make a comparison of agency owned and managed property and facilities with regional and national standards. Often an agency will undertake the preparation of a Master Plan and not relate the plan to nationally accepted standards. This can result in a failure to provide needed and wanted facilities.

Capabilities and Constraints The evaluation and analysis of the agency's physical, financial and management capabilities and constraints is a crucial next step. This includes an objective evaluation of all park facilities to determine park conditions and usefulness within the entire system. A similar evaluation should be made of the agency's financial resources, as determined by its existing tax rate, potential tax rate, assessed valuation, bonded indebtedness and future financial capability. The tax cap legislation has made this section of the plan even more critical now than in past years. A similar study includes an objective look a the current management of the agency to determine its capability to meet the challenges of the changing community.

The districts above provide citizens with many more acres per 1000 residents than the state average. Lake Bluff boasts one golf course, 7 park sites and 315 total acres for 6700 residents. Source: TD&A and IAPD/IPRA, 1993.

Plans and Priorities

The Master Plan map graphically portrays the various recommendations representing land acquisition, recommended improvements and better utilization of existing facilities. The plan should show the various types of parks, playgrounds and open space facilities that are desired over a 10 to 20 year period. Once the plan is graphically represented on a map, it is possible to determine priorities for action. Many ideas on the plan will take years to accomplish, but others require immediate action. The plan specifically lists projects for the future, ranging in price and scope from a new backstop to a 75 acre land purchase.

Financial Program

A Master Plan is a valuable tool by itself but becomes a working document, interrelated with the annual budget, when a financing program is prepared to accompany the plan. The financing program or budget should express ways the plan can be accomplished by including improvement projects in the annual budget, bonding (utilizing governmental and non-governmental programs) and by intergovernmental cooperation. A 10-20 year spreadsheet is prepared showing the prioritized items that are agreed upon by the board and the consultant. Estimated costs are prepared and the projects are budgeted throughout the 10-20 years.

The Argument Against In our consulting practice, we have heard arguments against conducting open space master plans because of budget limitations. A common argument today is, "We cannot afford to spend money on 'soft' items like a plan that just sits on a shelf. We need to spend money to upgrade parks." A good Master Plan is one which is prepared by the consultant with significant involvement of the director, staff and park board. If the client is involved and has ownership of the document through hard work, the plan will be implemented and referenced instead of left "on the shelf." Districts find management of resources becomes easier and more efficient if a plan is implemented and integrated into the capital budget. Districts who use a plan find they could not afford not to have a Master Plan.

DISTRICT COMPARISON    Acreage             District per 1000 Acreage Sites Residents EAV Wheaton 15.7 797 47 50,800 $911,148,548 Gurnee 13 195 11 15,000 $315,638,767 Wilmette 12.4 330 24 26,690 $540,861,878 Burr Ridge 11 75 14 6,800 $233,640.232 Glenview 10.1 482 37 47,540 $914,548,897

Golf related facilities are premium assets held by 44% of 97 survey respondents. Wheaton, Wilmette and Glenview all have golf courses, but Burr Ridge and Gurnee do not. It is important to recognize district's assets and the benefits of the different open space types. Burr Ridge manages 437 acres and maintains 10.3 acres per 1000 residents. None of their acreage is tied up in a golf course so they have more programmable land per 1000 people than does Wilmette. Wilmette has 330 acres, but when the golf course is backed out of the figure, their programmable acreage

figure is 8.5 per 1000.

Wise boards will recognize the need to have current plans in place before referenda issues are put before the voters. Referenda issues should be raised by the planning process. The planning process should not be raised because of referenda issues. Voters will demand completed master plans before referenda are voted upon. Voters will expect board approved concept plans for specific planned parks when being asked to vote for a referendum supported by the board. Board members can say, "Look, we have this master plan that says ... we need it and here is why...."

"Referenda issues should be raised by the planning process. The planning process should not be raised because of referenda issues."

Summary

The many direct and indirect benefits of preparing a Master Park and Open Space Plan include the following:

• A tool to help manage the district effectively and efficiently.

• New goals based on documented needs with specific recommendations on how to achieve the goals.

• The establishment of a process whereby the community, staff and agency officials agree on what is important so they may continue to act in the public interest.

• New policies and revised standards designed to implement the goals.

• Basis for obtaining support for referenda.

• Basis for obtaining IDOC grants.

• Spin-off benefits, occurring when an entire community recognizes that an agency is up-to-date and wants to plan a future for all to enjoy.

• A 10-20 year capital spending program tied to an operation budget.

About the Author
Peter T. Dyke is a park planning consultant with Thompson Dyke & Associates, Ltd. TD&A provides park planning and design services for municipalities, school districts and park districts throughout Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana