 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
STATEHOUSE INSIDER
ISSUES & INSIGHTS FROM THE LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE SCENE
THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION ended with the following components of omnibus bills that, at this writing, are pending Governor Ryan's signature and will affect park districts and forest preserves. Lease Agreements The first legislative initiative is contained within HB 390 and it provides a limited authorization to park districts in order to permit a leasehold exemption when districts sublease property. This would assist park districts in attracting private investment in the development of park facilities. The exemption is permitted to extend for a ten-year period. Specifically, the legislation provides a tax abatement for any property in a municipal taxing district (i) that is used for a municipal airport, (ii) that is subject to a leasehold assessment under Section 9-195 of the Property Tax Code and (iii) which is sublet from a park district that is leasing the property from a municipality, if the property is used exclusively for recreational facilities or for parking lots used exclusively for those facilities. This limited authority will provide an opportunity for a model park district/private sector development project that could be the basis for a further broadening of this legislative authority. Double Taxation Another provision approved by the General Assembly addresses the double taxation issue. It authorizes a municipality to adopt an ordinance to pay all or part of a park district tax if the property of the park district lies within a municipality and is being taxed for park and recreation purposes by both the municipality and the park district. In tax cap counties, the legislation also provides that the amount of the extension abatement will be included in the park district's aggregate extension base so that a park district's taxing authority would not be eroded. Criminal Background Checks In an effort to protect park district hiring decisions and eliminate potentially dangerous employees, legislation was passed to require criminal background checks on all new employees. This legislative action codifies the existing practice of most park districts to conduct criminal background checks, but will be monitored closely for any negative impacts that would need to be addressed by additional legislative change. Specifically, the law provides that an applicant for employment with a park district is required, as a condition of employment, to authorize an investigation to determine if the applicant has been convicted of any of the enumerated criminal or drug offenses specified, within seven years of the application for employment with the park district. The investigation also identities any other felony under the laws of this state or of any offense committed or attempted in any other state or against the laws of the United States that, if committed or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as a felony under the laws of this state. Specific requirements of the background checks are as follows: • Authorization for the investigation shall be furnished by the applicant to the park district. • Upon receipt of this authorization, the park district shall submit the applicant's name, sex, race, date of birth, and social security number to the state police on forms prescribed by the Department of State Police. • The Department of State Police shall conduct an investigation to ascertain if the applicant being considered for employment has been convicted of any of the enumerated criminal or drug offenses specifically enumerated or has been convicted, within seven years of the application for employment with the park district, of any other felony under the laws of this state or of any offense committed or attempted in any other state or against the laws of the United States that, if commit- 12 / Illinois Parks and Recreation ISSUES AND INSIGHTS FROM THE LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE SCENE ted or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as a felony under the laws of this state. • The Department of State Police shall charge the park district a fee for conducting the investigation, which fee shall be deposited in the State Police Services Fund and shall not exceed the cost of the inquiry. The applicant shall not be charged a fee by the park district for the investigation. • The Department of State Police shall furnish pursuant to positive identification, records of convictions, until expunged, to the president of the park district. • Any information concerning the record of convictions obtained by the president shall be confidential and may only be transmitted to those persons who are necessary to the decision on whether to hire the application for employment. • A copy of the record of convictions obtained from the Department of State Police shall be provided to the applicant for employment. • Any person who releases any confidential information concerning any criminal convictions of an applicant for employment shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, unless the release of such information is authorized by this Section. • No park district shall knowingly employ a person who has been convicted for committing attempted first degree murder or for committing or attempting to commit first degree murder, a Class X felony, or any one or more of the following offenses: (i) those defined in Sections 11- 6, 11-15, 11-15.1, 11-16, 11-17, 11-19, 11-19.1, 11- 19.2, 11-20, 11-20.1, 11-21, 12-13, 12-14, 12-14.1, 12-15, and 12-16 of the Criminal Code of 196l; (ii) those defined in the Cannabis Control Act, except those defined in Sections 4 (a), 4 (b), and 5 (a) of that Act; (iii) those defined in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act; and (iv) any offense committed or attempted in any other state or against the laws of the United States, which, if committed or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the foregoing offenses. • Further, no park district shall knowingly employ a person who has been found to be the perpetrator of sexual or physical abuse of any minor under 18 years of age pursuant to proceedings under Article II of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. • In addition, no park district shall knowingly employ a person for
July/August 2000 / 13 STATEHOUSE INSIDER
whom a criminal background investigation has not been initiated. • This legislation applies as well to the Chicago Park District and all certified and non-certified applicants for employment with a school district. MUSEUM HOURS Senate Bill 1425 is pending Governor Ryan's signature as of this writing. The legislation provides that park district operated museums may be open to the public without charge for a period equivalent to 52 days each year. (Prior law required one free day each week). At least six of these free days must be during the period of June through August. This new flexibility will greatly enhance a park district's ability to structure free days when adequate park district staff are available to work, since these days are typically the busiest The legislation will be effective for a two-year period. NATIONAL FRONT While the IAPD staff and membership have been focusing the majority of its efforts on the authorization of full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, urban park restoration programs and other conservation programs, the U.S. House and Senate have been working on appropriating funds for the U.S. Interior Department for fiscal year 2001. Summary on the Interior Appropriations Bills The Senate subcommittee on Interior Appropriations approved a $40 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for assistance to state and local governments, and IAPD Legal Symposium November 2, 2000 Hamburger University Oak Brook 14 / Illinois Parks and Recreation ISSUES & INSIGHTS FROM THE LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE SCENE $2 million for urban park restoration for fiscal year 2001 beginning October 1. The Senate subcommittee report emphatically states that state and local governments should retain full discretion to apply funds for land conservation, recreation development or park restoration and renovation as presently authorized. It also directed the Administration to allocate all funds to the states rather than retain an unknown amount for the Interior department or White House contingency grants. The House-passed version of H.R. 4578 limited the $30 million in its version of the Interior bill to land acquisition only. The Administration had earlier requested $ 150 million for state grants but wanted to retain $72 million for discretionary projects. Senate ENR Committee Addresses CAM The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at this writing was expected to meet to consider S. 2123, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)and S.2181, the Conservation and Stewardship Act (CASA), as basis for adoption of a bipartisan bill. Each bill would restore a long-standing, but largely unfulfilled congressional commitment by annually investing $2.825 billion from outer continental shelf energy revenues to permanently and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program • (UPARR) and other conservation initiatives. S. 2123—supported by committee chair Frank Murkowski (R- AK)—would transfer $900 million annually to LWCF to be equally divided between state and local governments and federal land systems. The $450 million for stateside would be allocated as follows: • 30% appropriated equally to all states • 70% will be appropriated based on relative population • Not less than 50% of funds available to a state must be passed through to local governments CARA would also provide $125 million annually for 70/30 matching grants to poorer areas through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. Senate Bill 2181 S. 2181—introduced by committee minority leader Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)—is similar to S. 2123, but has important differences. Land and Water Conservation Fund— S. 2181 not only fully funds LWCF with $450 million going to both the states and federal government, but also: (1) contains language guaranteeing the spending of the full $450 million share by the federal government, (2) provides an ADDITIONAL $125 million annually for state projects of regional or national interest (a feature not included in H.R.701 or S.2123), (3) does not contain the CARA language setting up procedural requirements for selection/funding of federal projects, and (4) does not limit administrative overhead costs. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program—Funded at $75 million versus $125 million as proposed by S. 2123 and H.R.701 Changes the state allocation formula: 80 percent (versus 100 percent) would be available for regular apportionment, 20 percent would create a contingency reserve. Of the 80 percent, 60 percent would be distributed equally to all states (versus 30 percent in S. 2123) and 40 percent would be distributed relative to overall population. The outcome is expected to be a compromise between the two bills. A number of contentious issues, similar to the House consideration, continue to interfere with efforts to move this bill forward. For example, some western senators are concerned with property rights issues and with creating a permanent funding source for federal land conservation.
July/August 2000 /15 |
|
Sam S. Manivong, Illinois Periodicals Online Coordinator |
