Jane Adams on Park District Referendum

Past councilwoman Jane Adams is running for a spot on the Carbondale Park District board. Since one of the items on the ballot is a referendum on merging the Park District into the City, I emailed for her take on the question. Below is her unedited response:


It’s one of the most important items on the April 2 ballot. Short answer:

Kirsten Trimble and I support the question on the Advisory Referendum that will be on the April 2 ballot: “Should the City of Carbondale and the Carbondale Park District explore merging their operations?” 

We need to know more to commit to supporting a merger of the Park District into the City.

Here’s how we see the issues:

For decades the Park District has faced fiscal crises; in response proposals to merge some or all of the District’s operations have been proposed. Discussions between the City and the  Park District regarding continued leasing of City properties by the Park District have made public the massive amount of deferred maintenance and focused attention on the Park District’s inability to adequately maintain the city’s parks. It’s widely recognized that they do a good job with programming, particularly (but not solely) for children. They also do a good job of collaborating with other units of government.

The Park District's financial inability to maintain our parks for public usage has risen to the level of a true crisis. Given the Park District’s virtually complete reliance on property taxes, merging the Park District into the City may turn out to be the only solution. 

The Park District Board of Commissioners has begun collecting the data to help Commissioners (and the public) determine whether there are other solutions or if merger is the best solution. With adequate data and citizen input, I need to weigh all options before making a final determination that merger is the best option.

Here’s our expanded response:

1. Is merger possible? 
Advice from Illinois' leading municipal law firms shows that, despite very restrictive language in theIllinois Constitution, a merger of a Park District and a municipality is still possible. Here’s how it can be done:

• The Park District can contract with the City to take over Park District operations, including financial management, maintenance, and/or recreational and other programming. The Park District agrees to reimburse the City for some or all the costs of these operations.
• The Park District continues to levy property taxes and pays down its debt. In the case of the Carbondale Park District, it appears this can be accomplished in 7 years.
• The Park District asks the City to annex any properties that lie outside the city limits; the City does so.
• The City Council and Park District Board of Commissioners then submit a binding referendum to the voters seeking a merger of the two taxing bodies. If a majority of those voting approve it, the Park District would cease to exist as a separate taxing body.

2. What would be the benefits? 
From what we currently know, there appear to be more benefits than risks in merging operations:

• There should be cost savings by eliminating duplication, especially in financial management; maintenance equipment, staff, and management; and some staff duplications in programming. The amount of duplication looks as if it will increase as the City takes over Piles Fork Creek Greenway and Trail from the Park District and as it develops more parks and activities in the Downtown area (Founders Park, Town Square Pavilion, the developing event space on Washington Street, and more). 
• Due to its larger size, the City can exercise greater financial oversight and eliminate inefficiencies due to inadequate software and number of staff.
• For the same reason, the City can more easily cover absences of management and other key personnel.
• Due to its much larger and more diversified budget (a variety of sales taxes as well as property taxes), the City can cover dips in income for which the Park District currently must borrow, at relatively high interest rates, with tax anticipation warrants.
• The City Manager has stated that all current Park District staff can be integrated into the City staff with a minimum of disruption.

3. What are the risks?
The greatest risk that we see is that the Park District Board of Commissioners currently focuses entirely on the Park District. The public’s ability to influence Park District priorities might lessen in a merger with the City.

4. Proposed next steps.
We believe this risk can be averted in two ways:

• As long as it remains an elected Board of Commissioners, the Board should undertake strategic planning, set clear priorities, and develop written criteria for accountability. These should guide negotiations between the Park District and the City. Strategic planning and setting of priorities needs to be done whether or not the Park District Commissioners decide to merge their operations with the City.
• If voters approve merger of the two taxing bodies (after bonds are paid off), The Board should be reconstituted as a Parks and Recreation Commission that meets regularly, advising the City Council on Parks and Recreation Department priorities.

In principle, we believe that fewer units of government lead to lower property taxes. Further, 48 of our 50 states have parks and recreation within City governments. Only Illinois and California have (some) independent park districts. Those 48 states’ municipalities offer residents excellent parks. We can do the same if we choose to take that route.