 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
LENDING INSTITUTIONS MAY CHARGE UP TO 7% INTEREST ON ALL BONDS AND TAX ANTICIPATION WARRANTS ISSUED BY PARK DISTRICTS Because of the certain interest limitations contained within the provisions of The Park District Code and other statutes, a question has arisen among certain banks, clearing houses and lending institutions as to what statutory limitation has been placed upon interest to be charged on the issuance of tax anticipation warrants by park districts. While all of the pertinent provisions of The Park District Code (Ch. 105 Ill. Rev. Stats. 1973, Sections 1-13) have been amended to authorize the payment of interest on park district bonds up to 7% per annum "for bonds issued before July 1, 1975 . . ." the omnibus interest bill (Ch. 74 Ill. Rev. Stats. 1973, Section 82) provides as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, any public corporation may agree or contract to pay interest on bonds or other evidences of indebtedness and tax anticipation warrants issued pursuant to law at an interest rate or rates not greater than 7% per annum. "The amendatory Acts of 1971, 1972 and 1973 are not a limit upon any municipality which is a home rule unit." Thus, while certain limits upon interest have been placed upon the issuance of bonds by various municipalities and subdivisions of the State of Illinois, the foregoing provisions clearly authorize the payment of up to 7% per annum interest on tax anticipation warrants and other evidences of indebtedness issued by park districts, as well as by other special districts within the State. ALL PARK DISTRICTS SHOULD URGE CONGRESSMEN TO INCREASE AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND It has become increasingly apparent that park districts and other special districts within the State of Illinois are faced with practical problems in securing a portion of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, despite the fact that under the provisions of the Federal Revenue Sharing Act park districts are clearly authorized to receive and utilize Federal Revenue Sharing Funds which have been allocated to counties, municipalities and townships for recreation purposes. As a practical matter, those units of local government are hesitant to make available funds to other units of government, namely, special districts. In addition to this reticence on the part of municipalities, counties and townships to distribute funds to park districts, certain limitations on the use of such funds are imposed primarily upon the use of such funds distributed to townships. In view of this situation as it relates to the receipt of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, it becomes increasingly important that park districts in Illinois urge their United States Senators and Congressmen to make available funds for open space and the development of park areas as well as indoor recreation facilities through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and related laws. A series of bills are presently pending in the Congress of the United States which would increase the authorized funds available for such purposes from its present level. On July 29 the National Recreation and Park Association through its Board of Trustees and representatives appeared before the subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and urged certain proposed amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The statement of the National Recreation and Park Association, which is in the best interests of the members of the Illinois Association of Park Districts is set forth in full as follows: "The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates this opportunity to testify on the various proposals to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and related laws. The Association is a private, non-profit organization devoted to the improvement and expansion of park, recreation and leisure systems and services for all people. Policy is detemined by a Board of Trustees representing lay persons responsible for public policy for parks, recreation and leisure, and professional and technical staff who directly plan and manage a diverse range of park and recreation facilities and services. Our membership exceeds 18,000 individuals, agencies and organizations. Those Association members professionally employed in this field are primarily from the public sector, particularly state and local governments. There is considerable representation from the private sector as well, however. Our national headquarters is located at 1601 N. Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia. The Association commends the scores of sponsors and cosponsors of proposals to amend and expand the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and related law. The bipartisan nature of this support is, we believe, a tribute to the importance and success of this program. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and other important actions at all levels of government and in the private sector was largely brought about through the interest created by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and its report in 1962. It was a landmark report that has shaped more than a decade of public policy in an area of critical importance to the well-being of this nation. Its impact has been universal in scope as nation after nation attempts to emulate United States' efforts in this area. The Nation's social and environmental state dictates change in the basic laws effecting park, recreation and leisure services and facilities. We believe the political climate is receptive to positive change, and this Committee can take the lead in this area. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act must be considered one of the most important programs dealing with parks and recreation in the history of the United States. The record of this program, including the manner in which it has been administered, clearly sets it above many other Federal efforts which started with high goals and good intentions but somehow fell short. Over the last 10 years, $982.8 million have been made available for over 13,500 state and local acquisition, development and planning projects. Some 1.053 million acres of parks and open space have been acquired for a wide range of park and recreation uses. The states and local governments Illinois Parks and Recreation 8 September/October, 1974 have matched the federal dollars and committed additional billions to maintaining and programming for parks, recreation and leisure. The program has been exceedingly popular with the states because of its relatively streamlined operation. Our comments deal principally with those aspects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund affecting state and local activities. We believe it is time for changes in the Land and Water Conservation Fund to make it more responsive to current needs. We do not propose major changes in the concept or operation of the Fund, but offer our full support for amendments which will give the Land and Water Conservation Fund flexibility, responsiveness, and realistic fiscal levels. Most of our concerns are addressed in some form by bills before the Subcommittee. We recommend the following specific amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund: • Increase the total authorization to $1 billion per year. • Change the Federal grant percentage for eligible State activities to 75%. • Require an opportunity for local participation in preparation of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. • Change the apportionment formula to 20% apportioned equally among the states, 70% apportioned to each state on the basis of need, and 10% made available for research, evaluation, demonstration projects, special purposes and emergency grants. • Authorize 90% grants for areas in the national natural landmarks system administered by the National Park Service; park and recreation areas serving predominatly low-income residents; areas providing access to costal waters; projects using less-than-fee acquisitions; facilities for the handicapped, and demonstration projects. • Eliminate the 7% state apportionment maximum and allow the above formula to determine the State apportionment level. • Eliminate the artificial distinction between outdoor and indoor facilities. Increase the Authorization to $1 Billion Per Year There are three levels of authorization contained in the bills under consideration at this time—$500 million, $900 million, and $1 billion. Each of these proposals represents an improvement over the present authorization level. There are a number of reasons for significant increase in the authorization level. We are far behind in land acquisition and development programs, and time exacerbates the problems. The unpublished first version of the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan prepared under Interior Secretaries Udall and Hickel indicated that $25 billion would be required over a five year period simply to give urban residents the same general access to outdoor recreation experiences that non-urban residents enjoy. The Plan would have recommended appropriation of $6.3 billion during the Fiscal Year 1971—Fiscal year 1975 period "to meet the urban recreation problem . . ." The Land and Water Conservation Fund has, over the last 10 years, assisted state and local acquisition of 1.053 million acres with a federal share of $982.8 million. But this statistic must be put in context. For instance, during the twenty-year 1960-1980, period a recent study done for the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future estimated that land in urban areas of the U. S. will increase from 196,958 square miles (1960) to 395,138 square miles (1980). This is an average of over 9,900 square miles or over 1.5 million acres of new urban area annually. The pressure on areas that should be retained for public park and recreation use is obvious. A survey of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers early this year indicated that approximately $250 million in approvable projects could be funded in Fiscal Year '75. Another survey undertaken by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, revealed that near term state and local needs ran into billions of dollars. The record over the years shows that the money can be effectively spent. The question of whether a major increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is appropriate now has been raised. The Administration would argue that because of inflationary and budgetary pressures little or no money should be added to the authorization level of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We strongly disagree with this proposition. The existence of strong inflationary pressures in our economy are well documented, but overall the Congress has largely maintained Administration budget levels. The Congress' assessment of priorities has differed on numerous occasions, but its annual budget outlay has usually matched the total request of the Administration. So the Committee should not view this legislation solely for its possible effect on the economy, but should balance that factor against the demonstrated public need for a large expansion of park and recreation facilities. The cost of labor, equipment, material and virtually everything connected with the operation of state and local park and recreation systems have increased. The general effects of inflation on one hand and economic stagnation in some areas on the other, coupled with energy shortages, have reduced citizen mobility and put more pressure on park and recreation resources close to where people live. The need for more assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund becomes more apparent each day to those concerned with this vital part of our lives. As more and more emphasis is put on improving the physical and spiritual quality of our lives, the creation and development of parks and open space becomes a crucial factor in that quest. It is eminently reasonable and logical to put the return realized from the depletion of one natural, non-renewable resource—oil—into the acquisition, protection and development of a renewable natural resource—park and recreation areas. We urge the committee to increase the Land and Water Conservation Fund authorization to $1 billion per year. Increase the Federal Grant Percentage We believe that a 75% Federal/25% state matching formula would more nearly meet State and local fiscal needs, make park and recreation acquisition and development a competitive priority with other programs, and remove the inequities implicit in varying percentages for eligible activities. It would simplify program administration. Individual states and localities are in the best position to determine planning, development or acquisition priorities. The variable grant percentages ranging from 50 to 70 percent proposed in certain bills are initially attractive, but they represent assumptions which, upon closer examination, we found questionable. For example, they imply that acquisition is the most important eligible activity. But in other areas, development of park space may be the crucial local need. In all states, planning is essential to coherent growth. For these and other reasons, we have concluded that assigning specific matching ratios based on the type of project is not desirable. We do feel that an increase in the level of Federal support is essential, however, for the following reasons: 1. There is no local financial "bonanza" comparable to the soaring revenues generated by Outer Continental Shelf oil leases and royalties. For the states to generate necessary matching revenues in the absence of "new" money may be difficult, particularly in the first years of an expanded program. 2. Many less affluent communities are already excluded from program participation because even the 50% matching grant is difficult or impossible for them to raise. This continued on page 30 Illinois Parks and Recreation 9 September/October, 1974 LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE continued from, page 9 particularly applies to densely populated urban areas where demands for services are great and the tax base is low. 3. Uneven matching ratios in Federal programs tend to skew local priorities, and lead local dollars into whatever programs provide the highest match, thus working against rational planning and allocation of funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund must be competitive with other grant programs. Change the State Apportionment Formula; 90% Grants for Special Purposes; Eliminate 7% State Apportionment Maximum Two of the bills under consideration, H.R. 289 and H.R. 4865, suggest a state apportionment formula more responsive to populated areas. We strongly support this initiative. The present apportionment formula—40% divided equally among the states; 60% to the states on the basis of need —has caused major per capita disparities in distribution of the Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation. For instance, under the present formula some states receive up to $6 or $7 per capita. While others receive less than $1. We strongly support an apportionment formula that will more equitably distribute the Land and Water Conservation Fund resources. There are several other areas that the Committee might consider in apportioning funds and setting matching percentages, including research, evaluation, demonstration, and special high priority needs in the field of parks and recreation. We recommend, for instance, the committee direct that a thorough evaluation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund be undertaken to review its 10 year operation. Has it really been meeting the highest priority unmet demands for parks and recreation? How can multi-jurisdictional recreation needs and multi-jurisdictional resources be best handled? Should large multi-jurisdictional areas with high recreation potential, such as river systems, valleys and mountains, be acquired by Federal agencies or could some state, regional or local mechanism and funding process be developed to handle these very important, large resource areas? What are the potential uses of less-than-fee acquisition techniques and in what situations are they most suitable? How can lands and facilities in public ownership for other than recreation purposes be used in an auxiliary way for recreation (municipal water district lands, school facilities)? What are the potential recreation uses of abandoned railroad rights-of-way? Land and Water Conservation Fund money should be available to address these and numerous other questions. In the past the Contingency Fund has been used to finance high priority projects. The Secretary has delineated areas of special Federal interest. We feel the Secretary's authority should be broadened to allow 90% grants or supplemental grants for the following special purposes identified by this Committee as having high priority. • Areas identified as eligible for the National Natural Landmarks program administered by the National Park Service. • Coastal zone areas, especially those providing water access. • Facilities serving predominantly low-income residents. • Less-than-fee acquisition projects which expand limited resources and leave lands on the tax rolls. • Projects to develop special facilities to meet the recreation needs of the handicapped. • Demonstration projects which will test ideas having potentially broad applicability. In order to accomplish these activities we suggest a slight modification of the apportionment formula as proposed in H.R. 289 and H.R. 4625. We suggest that the apportionment formula be: 20% apportioned equally among the states; 70% apportioned on the basis of need; and 10% to be used by the Secretary for research, evaluation and technical assistance and made available to individual States to meet special or emergency needs, as determined by the Secretary. To be sure that the above formula can be fairly applied the existing 7% maximum state apportionment must be removed from the law. We recommend the new formula be permitted to set the state apportionment level, without regard to percentage of the total fund. However, no state should receive an apportionment of less than it has received under the present formula. A "hold harmless" clause should be included to protect all of the states from a decreased apportionment. Require Local Participation in Preparation of State Comprehensive Plans The present law states that "The plan . . . shall be correlated so far as practicable with other State, regional or local plans." This is interpreted in the Outdoor Recreation Grants-In-Aid Manual as "... a State outdoor recreation plan may be prepared by an agency of the State government, either independently or jointly with assistance of its political subdivisions or other public agencies;" (emphasis added) (Part 630.2.1). Thus, while much of the money is used and matched by local levels of government, their participation in the planning process is optional. We suggest that the creation of realistic Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans and their successful implementation must reflect meaningful involvement by all levels of government. We strongly recommend, therefore, that Sec. 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 be amended to require that the Comprehensive State Planning process include local participation. Indoor Facilities NRPA generally supports the provisions of H.R. 15506, H.R. 5251, H.R. 4856 and S. 2661 which would make money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund available for the development of indoor recreation facilities. While the language of each bill differs, the basic point is the same: to assist the development of year-round facilities which improve the cost effectiveness of both Federal and local money spent to develop these facilities. The climatic conditions in many states make this change in the law not only justified but essential. While the present use of outdoor recreation facilities in many of our southern and southwestern states exceeds 300 days a year, the same kind of facilities in many northern tier states are used only one-third of that time. The provisions of many of these bills would enable states and localities to expand the use of their facilities, thus greatly expanding recreational opportunities. Access to all-weather, year-round facilities will also permit park and recreation departments and agencies to meet the needs of many groups in our society who, because of physical handicaps, age, or other reasons, cannot use or can use only to a limited extent, traditional outdoor facilities. If we have any objection to the proposals on this question, it is that none goes far enough. We believe the longstanding arbitrary definitions that artificially distinquish between indoor and outdoor facilities should be abolished, and recreation and leisure programs should deal with recreation and leisure needs for people in a comprehensive and systematic way. We should focus on meeting the needs of the whole person and the whole community. As we stated at the outset, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a significant catalyst for meaningful actions. It is not the total answer to this nation's park, recreation and leisure service needs. We need more broadly defined legislation if we are going to make progress in this multi-faceted field. Yet we believe expansion and modification of the Fund generally as suggested will greatly increase its significance. We commend the Subcommittee for holding these hearings and encourage you to pursue these efforts." All park districts are urged to immediately contact their members of Congress to indicate their interests in the passage of these pending federal measures. Illinois Parks and Recreation 30 September/October, 1974 |
|
|
