48 Illinois Parks and Recreation www.ILipra.org

by Diane Stanke, CPRP and David T. Kindler The evening of April 5, 2005 was a rough one for park and recreation agencies with referenda on the ballots. Of nineteen park-related initiatives across the state, only five concerned tax increases for park and recreation agencies. (The remaining propositions included advisory and bond-related referenda.) Out of the five agencies that sought tax increases, only one park district celebrated a victory that evening — the Park District of Oak Park. In an era of no new taxes, 62 percent of Oak Park voters passed a levy increase of 25 cents for every $100 of equalized assessed valuation of property to fund park renewal and capital improvements. On the night of the election victory, Park Commissioner Mark Gartland said it best: "Due to our community's enthusiastic and dedicated involvement, the future of parks and recreation in Oak Park looks bright." But that community involvement didn't start with the referendum campaign. In fact, it may be safe to say that the referendum itself was an outgrowth of vigorous community involvement with the district. And the district, recognizing its place as a valued and responsible entity in Oak Park, has responded to its citizens with the adoption of its new mission statement: "In partnership with the community, we provide quality parks and recreation experiences to the residents of Oak Park." New mission statements and ballot box successes more naturally occur when citizens view their park district not as a provider of services but as an integral, responsible and responsive member of the community. To become part of the heart of the community, an agency may first need to take the pulse of the community. At Oak Park, this was accomplished with a yearlong comprehensive planning process that engaged citizens in evaluating Oak Park's parks and planning for their future. www.ilparks.org September/October 2005 49

The Dynamic Community of Oak Park

How well do you know the culture and temperament of your community?

Demographics tell part of the tale. For example, even before any comprehensive planning process, the district knew that Oak Park is a thriving community of more than 52,000 people, known for its architectural heritage. Within its 4.5 square miles live a diverse mix of people with different cultures, races, ethnicities, professions, lifestyles, religions, ages and incomes. The median age of Oak Park residents is 37.1 years with 70 percent of the population white, 20 percent black or African American, 4 percent Asian, and the rest a variety of races. The mean income per household is $81,703. Oak Park boasts numerous Frank Lloyd Wright-designed buildings, including his own home and studio. Ernest Hemingway also called Oak Park home in his youthful days. This diversity and rich cultural heritage is embraced, routinely celebrated, and seen as a defining characteristic of community life.

Another aspect to community culture is the history of its local institutions. This history especially informs the views of longtime residents and subtly spills over to newcomers as well. In our case, the Park District of Oak Park was established in 1912 and a Village Recreation Department was organized nine years later. Beginning around 1980, the park district took over all responsibilities from the village's recreation department. However, the transfer of funding and properties was never completed, causing confusion with governance of parks and recreation in Oak Park.

50 Illinois Parks and Recreation www.ILipra.org

But some aspects of a community can't be found in history books and are difficult to quantify. A key ingredient to understanding the temperament of any community is getting a sense of its level of citizen involvement. Oak Park is a community that values public involvement at all levels of decision-making. Local governments expect regular citizen comments and rely on the motivated resident volunteers that take seats on the village's more than 25 separate boards and advisory commissions.

The park district has a long history of working with affiliate organizations, as well as partnering with the local school districts, the library, the village and numerous community organizations. However, unlike the village, the park district did not have an advisory commission to provide input and feedback regarding current programs and facilities or future planning. This missing link in the organization may have made some citizens feel at arm's length from their park district.

The Park District Infrastructure Committee

Things changed in fall 2001. The park district's aging infrastructure demanded a reinvestment in facilities and parks in order for the agency to continue to provide quality parks and recreational opportunities. The Oak Park Board of Park Commissioners decided to appoint an infrastructure committee, made up of community volunteers, to inventory and assess the district's properties and make recommendations regarding immediate and long-range capital planning.

The caliber of those who submitted letters of interest in the infrastructure committee was so astounding that all who applied were appointed to the committee, 23 residents in all. The youngest committee member was in her early 20s and the oldest was over 60. They came from diverse backgrounds and fields of expertise, such as architecture, business, engineering, urban planning, communications, construction management, finance, law and psychiatry, to name a few. Most importantly, they were all park users and came from a cross section of Oak Park.

After 14 months of climbing through attics, looking through storage areas and walking the park grounds day and night, this committee developed and presented a comprehensive analysis of the current condition of the district's infrastructure. Had the district hired a consultant to complete this study, it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. The committee, working with staff, made detailed lists of life safety concerns, regulatory compliance issues and facility renewal suggestions for each of the district's 26 facilities and parks. Analysis of the park district's current vehicle fleet and technology systems was also included. All in all, the committee concluded it would cost the district $13.6 million over 10 years to bring the current facilities up to good condition. This valuable study, developed by community residents, placed park renewal as a priority on the park district's agenda and set it on a course for change.

The learning process was a two way street. While the district learned about necessary rehabilitation and upgrades, committee members learned about the district's physical properties and gained an intense understanding of the district's finances, operations and staffing. By touring other park district facilities, they learned about possibilities for the future.

Ultimately, this group of dedicated individuals became park district advocates, a voice to the community and steadfast supporters of the organization. After their final report was issued in October 2002, infrastructure committee members met with the press. Committee member Kim Miller remarked, "My experience with the infrastructure committee was eye opening. I am amazed at what the park district does on such a limited budget." Committee member Jack Chalabian II anticipated the next step. "After spending over a year on this committee, I can't recall how many times it has been reinforced that there is a definite need for capital infrastructure improvements. These problems can be solved. It will take the residents, parents and users to assist in this endeavor," he said.

The committee recommended a three part planning process, including the completion of a comprehensive plan to map out the future direction of the district. Infrastructure Committee Chair Rick Kuner commented, "People determine programs and programs determine facilities. The plan has to consist of plenty of citizen involvement including a citizen preference survey. A look at recreation trends and an analysis of our crucial partnerships should also be part of the plan." The preparation of site master plans for every facility was another committee

www.ilparks.org September/October 2005 51

The park district and the village distributed fliers to citizens to alert them thot they might be asked to participate in the park assessment survey. More than 820 residents completed surveys.

recommendation, as well as the development of a capital improvement program addressing the $13.6 million cost of park and facility renewal.

Oak Park's Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan

Through the cooperative efforts of the Village of Oak Park and the park district, the development of a comprehensive plan was initiated in summer of 2003 with the preparation of request for proposals. This RFP defined the purpose as follows:

Multi-faceted community involvement is a cornerstone for the proposed project strategy and to develop a Comprehensive Master Plan that is visionary, reflective of community needs and priorities, achievable, and sustainable. Our process will allow for the effective empowerment of the Oak Park community, local groups, stakeholders and decision-makers in the Master Plan. The project strategy will allow for a final Comprehensive Master Plan which is truly reflective of the comprehensive range of issues which are most important and supported by the Oak Park community.

Creating a Citizen Committee

Concurrently, recruitment flyers were distributed throughout the community to organize a Park District Citizen Committee (PDCC), another recommendation of the infrastructure committee. The PDCC would play an advisory role in the comprehensive planning process, providing feedback and increasing the quality of communication from residents, ultimately assuring accountability for the process.

Village and district officials received nearly 30 applications. Rather than selecting those individuals representing particular interest groups, the village and district officials selected people who had a broad, community-wide perspective to serve on the PDCC. Eleven members were jointly appointed, with two alternates.

Within six months after the conclusion of the infrastructure study, two members of that committee had run and successfully been elected to the district's board of commissioners, and the park board chair had appointed another member of the infrastructure committee to chair the PDCC.

Gathering Information

Leisure Vision/ETC Institute, a nationally recognized consulting firm specializing in parks and recreation, was hired to develop the parks and recreation comprehensive plan. The first order of business was to collect information from residents to identify key issues facing the community and the organization.

Thirty-one stakeholder interviews of government, nonprofit and community leaders were conducted. Interviewees were strategically selected based on their particular areas of expertise and the significant roles they played in the community. In addition, six focus groups were held concentrating on seniors, youth advocacy, community centers special properties, indoor sports and outdoor sports. More than 75 residents attended two public forums designed to listen to any others who wished to comment.

At a strategic directions workshop, the Leisure Vision consultants presented their findings from this information gathering process and identified eight key issues to be addressed by the comprehensive plan. All PDCC members, the park district and village boards, and staff members from the village and park district attended the

52 Illinois Parks and Recreation www.ILipra.org

strategic directions workshop.

The next step was a community needs assessment survey based on the eight key issues identified by our stakeholders, focus groups and the public. A PDCC survey subcommittee provided suggestions and guidance in the survey's development, ensuring that the survey was specifically geared to Oak Park residents. They understood that the results of this survey were going to be invaluable in shaping the future of the community's parks. At the PDCC's request, the scope of the project was changed to yield a guaranteed 800 survey responses rather than the original 600. This was to ensure a broader sample of residents' views on programs, facilities and future planning. Some 3,500 Oak Park residents selected at random were asked to share their views and desires for parks and recreation facilities and services. More than 820 surveys were completed and returned, providing an excellent correlation of respondents to the village's diverse population.

Benchmarking

During the survey process, another PDCC subcommittee worked with the consultants to develop, collect and review benchmark information. Residents, stakeholders, PDCC members and many others gave suggestions of more than 50 communities they felt were comparable to Oak Park. The subcommittee sifted through this list (using measures of education, income and housing values) and selected 22 communities. Thirteen agencies responded to a mailed survey, providing information regarding a wide range of issues and statistics key in identifying park district areas of growth and improvement.

Using Committees to Address Community-Specific Issues

Governance and indoor spaces subcommittees were also formed to collect and analyze data to be addressed in the comprehensive plan.

The issue of governance was especially difficult. The Village of Oak Park owns seven community centers run by the park district and provides a financial subsidy equal to 20 percent of the park district's budget to run them. This division of accountability, responsibility and funding created frequent tension and undermined park district autonomy. The key governance question was: Should the park district continue with all park and recreation

www.ilparks.org September/October 2005 53

functions, or should these operations be reverted to a village recreation department?

Due to the importance and sensitivity of this issue, Leisure Vision worked closely with the governance subcommittee to provide tools for analyzing the situation and making a recommendation. Separately, Leisure Vision did the same. Both groups concluded that an independent park district with its own funding would serve the community best. The PDCC grappled with how to resolve this issue since it knew its recommendation was very important to residents.

The governance subcommittee also worked closely with the consultants and park district staff to develop a new mission, vision and values statement. The citizens on that committee drove the process and provided input resulting in the final statement.

Keeping the Public Informed and Involved

After the Park District Citizens Committee guided the development of the comprehensive master plan, the district held a reception to thank the members for their effort. Park District of Oak Park Executive Director Gary Balling presented a certificate of appreciation to PDCC Chair Doug Varn.

It was of utmost importance to keep residents apprised of each stage of the planning process. People needed to be assured that this was an open and credible process with results that would be fairly arrived at by all parties. Part of the plan included regular updates in the district's seasonal brochures. The village established a Web page, which posted meeting minutes, updates and all reports developed by the consultants.

Updates were also included in the bimonthly employee newsletter. When key reports were issued, a special meeting of the full-time district staff was held to update staff and prepare them to address questions from the public.

The PDCC communications subcommittee put together a list serve of more than 200 people to keep all stakeholders and focus group participants current on the progress of the comprehensive plan.

As usual, each season the district sent brochures to numerous community leaders and legislators accompanied by a cover letter. During this yearlong planning process, the cover letter reported key findings and milestones in the plan's development. The phone number and e-mail address of the executive director was always included in these updates to guarantee anyone could contact him regarding comprehensive plan questions. Through these various means of communication, many residents became engaged in the process. Their interest and enthusiasm helped build momentum for the approval of the final plan and its execution.

Presenting the Plan

Leisure Vision presented its report, including a list of recommendations, to the PDCC and the village and park district boards and staff at a joint meeting in October 2004. The PDCC also compiled a list of specific steps they recommended the park district take to ensure a solid future. The lists were quite similar, identifying key actions that needed to be taken to shape the future of the community's parks, including the transfer of ownership of the community centers to the park district. Both groups strongly recommended the pursuit of appropriate funding to ensure sustainability and the aggressive pursuit of partnerships. They advised the park district to initiate a capital improvement plan and to retain the PDCC to act as a voice of the community during the implementation of the comprehensive plan.

Shaping the Future of Oak Park Parks

Having citizens involved throughout the planning process helped build community support for the comprehensive plan and, ultimately, for the park district. With the continued involvement of the PDCC, the district rolled out its comprehensive plan in public meetings, in the newspapers and in all of its printed and electronic communications. Due to its length, the entire report is not posted on the park district Web site. However, a brief summary of the district's progress is available.

Engaging the community in the process, along with the support of the infrastructure committee and the PDCC,

54 Illinois Parks and Recreation www.ILipra.org

Commissioners Mark Gartland (left) and Marty Bracco (right) walked in Oak Park's 2005 4th of July parade with a banner thanking residents for their support.

provided the park board with the impetus needed to make the decision to go to referendum two months after the comprehensive plan was presented. Members of the PDCC and the infrastructure committee stepped up to play instrumental roles on the steering committee organized to support the referendum. (The effort was so successful that members of the steering committee, along with park district commissioners and staff, will make a presentation on the referendum process at the upcoming IAPD/IPRA Annual Conference. See the description of session 904 on page 31.)

Bottom line, involving the entire community in the comprehensive planning process ensures that the Park District of Oak Park currendy meets and will continue to meet the needs of its citizens. An editorial in the village's Wednesday Journal stated:

It's unfortunate that this referendum comes at a time when Oak Parkers are more frustrated with their tax bills than ever before. But, even in these times, we wholeheartedly endorse the park district referendum because it's based on sound, citizen-driven planning; planning that is, in fact, more rock solid than we've seen in years. From climbing through rec center crawl spaces, surveying community needs, and seeking (along with the village) a report from professional consultants, the parks have gone through greater pains than most to make a case for this referendum.

In the same election, a member of the PDCC ran unopposed (unusual during a referendum vote) and was elected to the park board. The other available park board seat was filled by a citizen who attended one of the public forums organized to roll out the comprehensive pian. She walked into the meeting questioning the process and outcomes and left with a newfound respect for the district and a willingness to get involved in order to see the plan come to fruition.

The infrastructure study and the comprehensive plan were developed and ultimately endorsed by a group of committed volunteer citizens whose only desire was to make parks and recreation better in Oak Park. They have succeeded.

The Park District has created numerous new partnerships and built relationships that will benefit Oak Park now and for years to come. The district has earned our citizens' trust.

We have made it evident we listen. Together, with our community, we are shaping the future of Oak Park Parks.

www.ilparks.org September/October 2005 55