THE ANATOMY OF A MERGER

by Fred Hall, Director Palatine Park District

In the course of continuing efforts to provide meaningful leisure services to their residents, elected and appointed park and recreation officials are ever mindful of stretching every inflation deflated dollar. In order to get the most return from available funds, park boards and administrators strive to assure the implementation of effective purchasing procedures, efficient preventive maintenance schedules to prolong equipment life, sound budgeting and fiscal controls, effective scheduling of work and equipment, and good management techniques in hiring, placing, training and supervising staff.

Intergovernmental cooperation within our communities is promoted to reduce duplication of effort and to foster a maximum yield from the total tax dollar. Additionally, park and recreation agencies provide and receive many forms of assistance from their counterparts in other communities. These, of course, are just a few of the management concerns shared by all of us in attempting to provide the best possible services to our residents and are not purported to be particularly new, extraordinary or innovative.

However, the consolidation of two park districts as a positive action to improve services to the residents of both districts is a technique employed very infrequently. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief synopsis of the events which led to the consolidation of the Palatine Park District and the Palatine Rural Park District and of the early history of the merged district.

The Palatine Park District (PPD), which was formed in 1945 to provide park facilities and recreation services to the Village of Palatine and its environs, saw its population grow steadily from 3,000 in 1945 to 26,000 in 1974. All of the district's growth during the fifties, sixties and early seventies followed the annexation of previously unincorporated areas by the Village of Palatine. Before the PPD could annex the newly incorporated areas, the land first had to be disconnected from the Palatine Rural Park District (PRPD).

Formed in 1950 to protect rural land owners from the active (and higher taxing) park district serving the adjacent incorporated areas, the rural district's tax rate was minimal, providing funds for elections, audits, legal notices and little else. PRPD had no staff, land or other tangible assets. As the incorporated municipalities of Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Hoffman Estates grew, disconnection petitions were submitted to the PRPD Board. The newly incorporated areas were then annexed to the Palatine Park District, or to districts within other municipalities, so that adequate parks and recreation services might be provided to new residents. However, subdivisions built within PRPD which were not annexed to an incorporated village or city, remained in the rural park district. In Palatine Township, subdivisions in unincorporated areas were not annexed to the PPD because of a policy adopted by both the Village and Park Boards to attempt to keep village and PPD boundaries as coterminous as possible.

In 1973, two important changes took place which suggested a re-evaluation of the PPD annexation policy. First, three PRPD residents successfully conducted a write-in campaign in the rural district election in April, 1973. Seizing majority control of their board, the three new commissioners soon made clear that their primary objective would be to provide viable services to the PRPD residents and that the district would no longer be a tax protection district. Obviously, if PRPD was to provide recreation programs, acquire land, and develop park facilities, future disconnections of taxable property by PRPD would be extremely unlikely.

The second change in 1973 which encouraged reconsideration of the PPD annexation

Illinois Parks and Recreation 10 March/April, 1977

policy was an apparently modified viewpoint with respect to annexations of unincorporated land by the Village of Palatine, including areas which had already been subdivided and built upon. The effect of the changes in attitudes by two other governments were potentially harmful to the PPD.

Initially, it was clear that perhaps several thousand future residents of the village would live within the boundaries of the PRPD. This possibility, added to the confusion already existing between the two districts and compounded by the presence of another park district—which includes portions of Palatine, Arlington Heights and Rolling Meadows—was somewhat disconcerting. Secondly, the metamorphic changes of PRPD would result in a duplication of administrative effort and equipment utilization, and would substantially reduce planned PPD growth in the northern, western and southern portions of Palatine Township.

The thought of a merger was first discussed by both park boards in early 1974. Advantages of merging were immediately apparent to the rural district, including the expertise of an experienced and knowledgeable board and staff, and the availability of many established park facilities and recreation programs at resident rates. Also, a merger would provide a solution to the problem faced by the rural board of administering a large horseshoe shaped district. The principal advantage to the PPD was recognized to be a expanded district which would provide growth potential and increased operating revenues.

Beneficial to both districts were factors related to the administration of a nearly square-shaped district for nearly all residents who identified with Palatine. Philosophical differences between the boards were minimal, disadvantages of a merger were few, and both boards agreed in September, 1974 that consolidation of the two districts would be in the best interests of the residents of each district.

By this time, the PRPD had had prepared a comprehensive master plan and had commissioned a planner to prepare plans for the development of a five acre park. It has issued $330,000 of non-referendum general obligation bonds and was planning to use the bond proceeds and the 1973 and 1974 tax levies to support initial acquisition and development of park land. The PRPD Board was offered and accepted assistance from the PPD during these planning phases. In September, the boards requested the attorney for both districts to draft a sample of the ordinances which would be required for consolidation.

Two areas of concern were discussed when the ordinance drafts were submitted. As anticipated, substantial negotiation and compromise were necessary to agree on commissioner representation on the new board. Initially, the PPD suggested a 4-1 split, with the one rural commissioner's seat up for election in 1975. The rural district's position specified a board consisting of three commissioners from the PPD and two from the PRPD, with one of the PPD seats up for election in 1975. Compromise led to a board composition of four commissioners from the PPD and one from the PRPD with one of the PPD seats available in the 1975 election.

The other concern expressed was the use of the PRPD cash assets on hand at the time of the merger, which totaled approximately $600,000. Language was inserted in the ordinance which provided for the formation of a Rural Planning and Development committee (comprised of the rural commissioners) which would make recommendations to the board of the consolidated district. Stipulated was the restriction that PRPD funds on hand would be disbursed only within the boundaries of the rural district.

In December 1974, the Palatine Rural Park District Board adopted an ordinance providing for consolidation with the Palatine Park District and named to the new board a commissioner who had been instrumental in changing the direction of the rural district. The other PRPD commissioners were named to the Rural Planning and Development Committee. At a special meeting the PPD adopted its consolidation ordinance. Named to the new Board were commissioners who had served from four to fourteen years on the PPD Board. One commissioner, who had served twelve years, withdrew his name from consideration to facilitate the merger.

The consolidation ordinances were filed with the County Clerk of Cook County on December 31. The date was optimal, in that it simplified procedures involving the extension of the 1975 tax levy for the merged district.

1975 and the first months of 1976 have been even busier than anticipated. Immediately following the merger, six persons filed nominating petitions for the one position on the Board to be filled in the April election. Of the four candidates who lived in the former rural district, two had been commissioners and one had served as the appointed secretary. A spirited campaign preceded the re-election of the incumbent PPD Commissioner.

Before the election, a five acre parcel was acquired with the assistance of a DOC grant, and by July, plans for the development of the park were completed

Continued on Page 25

Illinois Parks and Recreation 11 March/April, 1977

ANATOMY OF A MERGER ...

Continued from Page 11

and approved. The wisdom in forming the Rural Planning and Development Committee was established as the former rural commissioners served their former constituents and the board of the merged district with distinction. As the pages of the 1975 and 76 calendars turned, the PPD staff gradually absorbed a steadily increasing work load with little difficulty. Most of the new residents were people who had previously participated in PPD programs at non-resident rates, so no major surge of activity was felt.

Not every situation has been encountered without difficulty. In some issues, such as the disconnection of land in the extreme south-western portion of the merged district, the former rural commissioners, including the one named to the PPD Board, disagreed with the position of the rest of the board. Other matters which have generated substantial discussion would never have become issues had the merger not been effected.

But in looking at the total picture, one would have to conclude that the advantages of consolidation identified in 1974 are now benefiting the community. Disadvantages have been minimal, were not unforeseen, and are expected to become insignificant as the 30,000 residents of the "Old Rural District" increasingly refer only to "Our Park District" which now serves 45,000 residents. In Palatine, it's working.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 25 March/April, 1977