By Thomas M. Wheeler

A number of Special Recreation Associations have, in the past year, adopted a non-resident policy that required all program participants to reside in the partner communities. Other SRAs are contemplating similar action.

The need for such a policy is clearly evident as SRAs evaluate their current success in meeting their communities' needs and requirements and begin developing a long range comprehensive plan for recreational services during the 1990's.

By way of review, there are currently seventeen (17) Special Recreation Associations in Illinois serving 102 park districts and 10 municipalities. All but two of the SRAs are located in a metropolitan area — Cook County, Champaign/Urbana and Peoria/Morton.

Since the formation of the first Special Recreation Association in 1969 and the passage of the Special Tax levy in 1972, all SRAs took a very similar approach to admittance of the non-resident participant. The policy reflected mainstream park district philosophy in which a nonresident would pay a higher fee for particular programs to help off-set administrative costs or tax subsidies. In addition, non-residents were not allowed to register for given programs until well after registration had begun for the associations' resident participants.

The real negative force behind the non-resident policy is a community that refuses to serve all of its residents equally.

As SRAs' operations mature in size and scope, non-resident participation has become more difficult to rationalize by the participating partner communities' elected and/or appointed officials. The cause for concern begins with the difficulty in off setting operational overheads by charging a non-resident fee. In reality, most non-resident fees do not completely cover the costs of operating a program, particularly those programs that require heavy staffing and supervision. For example, many of our day camp programs for a child with a severe handicap can cost an SRA anywhere from $600-$1,200 per season, per child, depending upon the severity of the child's disability and the staffing required. Consequently, a non-resident that is charged a standard non-resident fee is being subsidized by tax dollars paid by those taxpayers in the partner's communities.

Secondly, an SRA that has been in existence for a number of years has accumulated a number of capital assets paid for by the partner communities. Those capital assets, specially equipped vans, office equipment, computers, etc., represent years of accumulated investment by the participating communities. It is difficult to justify allowing residents from a non-participating community access to the use of specialized equipment, particularly when the park district or municipality in which they reside has ignored their obligations and steadfastly refused to join an SRA, even though the governmental unit had the ability and encouragement to do so.

In reality, are we really denying a nonresident services when, year after year, the community in which they reside has refused to join an SRA?

A case in point, that I am most familiar with, saw a neighboring park district annually turn down residents' requests to

(Continued on page 12)

By Jon D. Sommer

Many of today's Special Recreation Association (SRA's) have either adopted a non-resident denial policy or are contemplating such a policy. Why?

Allow me to review, for a moment, an historical and significant viewpoint on the topic at hand. One has to understand that my historical view emanates from being one of the original staff representatives of the ten (10) original charter communities who not only perceived the concept, but created and founded our current SRA system in 1968. That founding SRA is known today, of course, as The Northern Suburban Special Recreation Association (NSSRA).

Representatives from these original communities met on a rather cold and sunny day, January 8, 1968, in the offices of the Highland Park Recreation Center. Our discussion was the establishment of a special recreation district for mentally and physically handicapped children in the area. I further recall (for I was a volunteer staff counselor) our very first joint district "pilot" recreational program that was held in a hot, stuffy elementary school facility in Wilmette during the summer of 1967. This was the beginning!

In these early months of formulation and drafting the articles of particulars, there was never once, between those of us involved in developing and creating an SRA system, a word mentioned about the denial of any recreational service to the handicapped, whether they be a resident or non-resident of the participating communities. Quite to the contrary, we recognized and addressed the issue straightforwardly by making provisions within the original charter to provide recreational service for non-resident handicapped individuals. We even established a fee structure (we called it a "tuition fee") for the service. The focus and intent of our original chartered purpose was clear on the subject of non-residents.

My historical view emanates from being a representative for one of the ten original charter communities who perceived, created and founded NSSRA.

As time marched on, the rest (as they say) is history. We watched the development of enabling legislation that provided the necessary legal mechanisms to not only give municipalities and park districts the authority to provide recreational programs for the handicapped, but to jointly do this with other park districts and units of local government (1969). State legislators also developed a mechanism, via a special tax levy (1972), to raise and collect funds for the direct purpose of funding a district's share of joint recreational handicapped programs.

Our current day SRA's are a partnership, so to speak, of their member park districts. They are the representatives of their member districts, doing jointly what each of the member district had the authority to do singularly: establishing, maintaining and conducting recreational programs for the handicapped.

There is no single authority granted under Section 8-10.2 of The Park District Code that creates an SRA as a separate legal entity as a result of a joint agreement. It should be emphasized again that an SRA, in legal effect, is really the representative and agent of each of the joint member park districts and/or other public agencies. Thus, it certainly stands to

(Continued next page)

Point ... (Continued)

join an SRA in order to save a few dollars. Even so, the local unit of government continued to make referrals and encouraged its residents to enroll in programming as non-residents.

As you might imagine, the non-participating community screamed the loudest, once a non-resident policy was implemented, even after repeated warnings that such a policy was in the offering.

The economic and ethical justification for a non-resident policy seems obvious. More importantly, common sense suggests that an SRA have the responsibility to direct its total resources to its constituents. When so much work exists in the area of outreach and expanded programming, an SRA's partner communities cannot justify subsidizing a non-resident participant when the needs of the participating communities' residents remain unfilled.

Like with most issues effecting park district policy, there are legal considerations to review. To date, however, the validity of a non-resident policy remains untested in court. Therefore, individual opinion as to the legality of the policy is only speculative.

Are we really denying a non-resident services when, year after year, the community in which they reside has refused to join an SRA ?

However, I believe it can be argued, with great merit, that the working of Section 8-10.2 of The Park District Code, (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 105), reflects a legislative intent not to obligatean SRA to open their facilities and services to all of those that seek their services, as a park district in its mainstream programming would normally do. Specifically, the statutory language authorizes a group of local governments "to enter into a joint agreement for the purpose of providing . . . recreational programs for the handicapped in all participating districts and municipal areas".

The key word in the statute is participating, which I believe indicates legislative intent for fairness and common sense.

I readily recognize that Section 8-10.2 does not specifically outline the role of the non-resident, but it most certainly allows the SRA partners to decide for themselves what role residents from a neighboring community should play in its operations.

Therefore, supported by expert legal opinion (Fawell, James & Brooks, Heidi H. Katz - June 15, 1987) and a careful review of Section 8-10.2 of The Park District Code, I do not believe a legal hurdle exists in barring non-residents from an SRA's programs.

In summary, in practical terms it certainly has been more economical and less obligatory for community leaders to allow their residents to participate in a neighboring communities' SRA programming

as long as they have been allowed to do so. From the outside looking in, a community really enjoys the best of both worlds — quality special recreation programming without long-term financial or emotional obligations. Unfortunately, I believe it takes a tough policy, such as the non-resident policy that was adopted by the West Suburban Special Recreation Association last year, to motivate other governmental units to live up to their obligations and responsibilities and quit relying on the generosity of their neighboring communities.

The SRAs that have adopted a denial policy have withstood a great deal of criticism and have been portrayed, by some in our profession, as misguided — an unfair evaluation at best. The real negative force behind the policy is a community that refuses to serve all of its residents equally — the mainstream participant and those that require special recreational services.

I believe that the long-term interest of all parties involved is best served by denying non-resident participation in an SRA's programming. Not to establish such a policy will only weaken the partnerships and negatively affect the potential for continued long-term success.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Thomas M. Wheeler is President of the Park District of Oak Park and former chairperson (1986-87) of the West Suburban Special Recreation Association Board of Directors.

. . . Counterpoint (Continued)

reason, and should be held, that the same set of rules and regulations are to be followed by each.

Can park districts deny non-resident individuals participation in their programs? I think not! I believe it's fairly common knowledge that, generally,courts have upheld the proposition that park district facilities and services are open to the general public and not merely for those persons residing within the boundaries of a given park district. If park districts cannot deny the participation of non-residents and SRA's are extensions of park districts, it must then hold and stand to reason that SRA's also cannot deny non-residents participation. If SRA's were allowed to deny access to non-residents and park districts were not, it would be akin to the proverbial "Tail Wagging the Dog" syndrome. I don't believe for a moment that this should be the case. In addition, certain statutory enactments have generally implied that park districts are required to service nonresidents by specifically authorizing districts to establish fees for the use of district facilities and services, but, at the same time, expressed that the district need not charge non-residents the same fees as those charged to district residents. Even within Section 8-10.1 of The Park District Code (which grants authority to the park districts to provide recreational programs for the handicapped), it states ". . . the fee charged for non-residents of such district need not be the same as the fees charged the residents of the district. ..." I do not believe for one moment, at least from my historical perception, there is any doubt in the focus or intent of this particular section of the Act. It was precisely this intent, the written intent of the chartering agencies, to recognize non-resident participation and to charge a fee. It was this intent that was communicated to our legal representatives in sponsoring the original legislation. Any other interpretation of purpose or intent is erroneous!

I'm very familiar with a widely circulated legal opinion (1981), which stated that SRA's could indeed deny nonresident handicapped individuals' participation in their programs; I am the person who confronted the issue that prompted the opinion. This opinion was further flavored with the author's interpretation of legislative intent to do likewise. What ironies prevailed some 12 years later, when it was this same author who had been charged with the legislative sponsorship of the original SRA bill in 1969? What has changed in these years from the original intent and why? I cannot argue legal opinion, for my profession is not law. I can, however,express with some degree of authority the intent and purpose of the SRA legislation.

If park districts cannot deny the participation of non-residents and SRAs are extensions of park districts, it must then hold and stand to reason that SRAs also cannot deny non-residents participation.

In closing, if indeed the intent of the law has changed from its original purpose and is no longer satisfying current day needs, then perhaps new legislation needs to be drafted to address today's circumstances. However, until that time I believe, we, as public administrators and commissioners of recreational services and policies, have an ethical, moral, legislative and historical obligation not to deny non-resident handicapped individuals' participation in SRA programs. To do otherwise is a violation of public service and trust.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jon D. Sommer is Executive Director of the Oak Brook Park District and, as mentioned in this article, a founding member of the North Suburban Recreation Association (NSSRA).