Partnering for Parks Intergovernmental Options in Providing For - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Partnering for Parks

Intergovernmental Options in Providing For Parks and Recreation Harry Burkholder, AICP

Community Planner II

February 29 , 2012

324 Munson Avenue Traverse City, MI 49686 231-929-3696 burkholder@liaa.org

Ann Conklin, CPRP

Chief Operating Officer

2465 Woodlake Circle, Suite 180 Okemos, MI 48864 517-485-9888 aconklin@lmrpaonline.org

Partnering For Parks

2

What we’ll cover:

Why are communities considering options for cooperation? Part I. Part II. Questions What are some of the barriers to cooperation? What are some of the options for cooperation and what’s right for your community? Recreational Authorities Act (Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.) The millage option - can your community do it? The important role of local parks and recreation

3

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Literature Touts the Value/Benefits of Recreation

• Physical
• Environmental
• Social
• Economic and Sense-of-Place

Physical Benefits Increased physical activity - reduce the risks

• f chronic diseases and mental illness

53% of Michigan residents get less than 30 minutes a day of leisure-time physical activity 24% of Michigan adults reported no leisure-time physical activity

Michigan Surgeon General Report, 2004

Partnering For Parks

4

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Physical Benefits Combat obesity epidemic

• 1/3 of U.S. adults are considered obese
• 12.5 million children & adolescents are considered obese
• In Michigan, just over 26% of the population is considered obese

Partnering For Parks

5

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Environmental Benefits Greenspaces help reduce water runoff - prevent septic system overload Parks (with large mature trees) help remove smoke, dust and other air pollutants Parks protect wildlife and support biodiversity Social Benefits

• Help reduce crime
• Support child development
• Create stable neighborhoods

Fundamental element of community development

Partnering For Parks

6

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits Iconic symbols that define community and shape identity

Partnering For Parks

7

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits Iconic symbols that define community and shape identity (Michigan)

Partnering For Parks

8

Cost: $475 million Annual Visitors: 4 million Estimated Economic Impact: Over $5 billion Millennium Park - Chicago

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits

Partnering For Parks

9

• St. Louis: City Garden

$25 Million Dallas: $20 Million Oklahoma City: $130 Million

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits

Tampa: $43 Million

Partnering For Parks

10

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits

Traverse City: $2.3 million

• DNR Grants
• DDA Contributions

Partnering For Parks

11

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits

City of Charlevoix - East Park (2009): $13 million

• Michigan Waterway Commission Grant
• DDA Contributions

Partnering For Parks

12

Important Role of Local Parks and Recreation Economic & Sense-of-Place Benefits Increase Property Values Increased Revenue Increased Tourism Attracts affluent retirees and knowledge workers

Oakland County properties within a ½ mile to bike paths have increased property value by as much as 6.3%

MSU - Land Policy Institute (2008)

The Rifle River Recreation Area (4,450 acres) in Ogemaw County created 37 jobs and had an economic impact of $1,788,095

MSU - Land Policy Institute (2010)

Partnering For Parks

13

Why are communities considering options for cooperation? Michigan’s Municipal Funding Crises In every year since 2000, the State has not fully returned revenue sharing, as required by state statute Ten consecutive years of cuts have left local communities more than $4 billion short in revenue sharing

Source: Michigan Municipal League

“Given all the circumstances, we need to look at service consolidation, service sharing between jurisdictions, how we can be more cost effective, how we can work better together.”

• Michigan Governor Rick Snyder; State of the State Address, January 2011

Increased Costs Falling Revenue

• Cut Services
• Raise Revenues
• Share and/or Consolidate Services

Results

Partnering For Parks

14

Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2008 - 2012 Department of Natural Resources Survey Findings (Recreation Administrators of communities who have recreation plans filed with the state) Suggested Initiatives for Michigan: 1.More funding 2.Cooperation/collaboration 3.More advertising/marketing $460 million needed for capital improvements - more than what’s available

Partnering For Parks

15

Projected Funding Sources for Capital Improvements

• Approximately ¼ will come from tax dollars
• Approximately ¾ will come from grants (state and other)

Over the last five years, the proportion of agencies increasing their dependence on user fees, millages and private gifts increased for each type of government Over the next five years, most local units of government expect to further increase their dependency on user fees, millages, private gifts and volunteers and decrease their dependency on general fund dollars Survey Findings - Continued

Partnering For Parks

16

What are some of the barriers to cooperation? Turf Lack of incentives General resistance to change Gain is too far out in time (not in my term of office) Distrust Lack of shared vision More work to do Debt Fear of large government Lack of knowledge Lack of leadership Unequal partners Elections Win-lose attitudes Where to start More work to do History of past disputes Fear of losing control Reluctance to give up control of legacy investments

Partnering For Parks

17

• Financial benefits - economies of scale, less duplication, easier

to leverage recreational assets

• More effective management of natural resources, parks and

recreation

• Strengthens common heritage & helps preserve sense-of-place
• Plans are more defensible & better defended
• Residents expect governments to work together

We need to work across jurisdictions to better understand the potential benefits Overcoming the Barriers Sharing parks and recreation has proven to be one of the more agreeable forms of inter-jurisdictional cooperation

Partnering For Parks

18

What are some of the administrative options for cooperation?

Partnering For Parks

19

Inter-Departmental Cooperation

Parks & Recreation Department and Public Works Department (same municipality) Parks & Recreation Department and/or Public Works Department (neighboring municipalities)

Friends Groups & Volunteers

• Recruiting other volunteers
• Maintenance
• Fundraising
• Youth service organizations
• Equipment
• Staff
• Programs

Partnering For Parks

20

Administrative Tools for Cooperation Public/Private Partnerships

• Local Businesses
• Corporate Sponsors
• Local non-profit organizations with shared interests

(e.g. land conservancy, trail advocacy group)

Example Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy Glacial Hills Pathway & Natural Area

• Assist in MNRTF grant applications
• Conducted environmental assessment
• Cleaned up waste
• Fundraising
• Promotions
• Purchase property
• Organize trail building efforts

Partnering For Parks

21

What are some of the legislative options for cooperation? and What’s right for your community?

Partnering For Parks

22

Basic Cooperation Local Jurisdictions Adopt Joint Recreation Plan

• Coordinate on implementation
• Coordinate on funding (grant applications)
• Especially useful in small communities
• Allows community to focus on resources that fall within both jurisdictions

Example: Fife Lake Community

• Village of Fife Lake
• Fife Lake Township

Partnering For Parks

23

Act Title Government Units Governing Body

1905 - PA 157 Township Parks and Places of Recreation Townships Board of Commissioners 1913 - PA 90 Parks, Zoological Gardens and Airports Counties County Park Trustees 1917 - PA 156 Recreation and Playgrounds Cities, Villages, Townships, Counties and School Districts Recreation Board 1929 - PA 312 Metropolitan District Act Cities, Villages, Townships, Counties and Parts Thereof Charter Commission 1965 - PA 261 County and Regional Parks Counties Parks and Recreation Commission 1989 - PA 292 Metropolitan Councils Act Cities, Counties, Villages and Townships Metropolitan Area Council Part 721 of 1994

• PA 451

Michigan Trailways Counties, Cities, Villages, and Townships Michigan Trailway Management Council 1967 - PA 7 Urban Cooperation Act Counties, Cities, Villages, and Townships Recreation Board 2000 - PA 321 Recreational Authorities Act Cities, Counties, Villages, Townships and Districts Board of Directors

Michigan Enabling Legislation for Joint Provision of Recreation Most Well Known: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority - Act 147 of 1939

Partnering For Parks

24

County and Regional Parks Act

[ Public Act 261 of 1965]

Allows a county (by resolution adopted by 2/3 vote of its board of commissioners) to establish a parks and recreation commission - to study and ascertain: 1. Park, preserve, parkway and recreation and other conservation facilities; 2. The need for such facilities and the extent to which needs are being currently met; and 3. Prepare and adopt a coordinated plan of areas and facilities to meet such needs.

Partnering For Parks

25

County and Regional Parks Act

[ Public Act 261 of 1965]

Powers of Parks and Recreation Commission Under Sections 46.355 - 46.367 The commission may plan, develop, preserve, administer, maintain, and

• perate parks and recreational places and construct/re-construct facilities

The commission may acquire property (by gift, purchase, lease, agreement and condemnation) The commission may accept gifts, bequests, grants, contributions and appropriations The commission may levy a tax (subject to vote of citizens), borrow money and issue bonds The commission may charge and collect fees Hire staff

Partnering For Parks

26

County and Regional Parks Act [ Public Act 261 of 1965] Membership - Parks and Recreation Commission Under Section 46.351 The Parks and Recreation Commission shall be made up of 10 members:

The chair of the county road commission or another road commissioner appointed by the road commission The county drain commissioner or employee of the drain commission office The county executive - if it is an elected position

• r

The chair of the county planning commission Seven members appointed by the county board (at least one, but no more than three of whom shall be members of the county board of commissioners) A neighborhood representative (only for counties with a population between 750,000 and 1,000,000)

Partnering For Parks

27

County and Regional Parks Act

[ Public Act 261 of 1965]

Joint Provisions Under Section 46.352 The county board of commissioners of two or more contiguous counties, by resolution adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of each board, may create a regional park and recreation commission

Partnering For Parks

28

• St. Clair County Parks and Recreation

Commission

Established in 1995 Funded by .5 mills (approximately $3 million) 25% is distributed back to local units of government (based on population) for local parks, recreation facilities and programs Manages county parks, non-motorized trails, specialized mobile recreation units for community events, and some special events Millage renewed several times - 73% approval in August 2010 Wadams to Avoca Trail Between 1995 - 2011: $9.8 Million distributed to 33 local jurisdictions

Partnering For Parks

29

• Political support for parks and recreation
• Support for County Parks and Recreation

millage

• Leverage additional grant funds for local

parks and recreation projects

• Create new parks in rural communities
• Eliminate complaints about where the

County Parks money is spent Benefits

Source: Mark Brochu, Director

• St. Clair County Parks & Recreation Commission

Partnering For Parks

30

Metropolitan District Act

[ Public Act 312 of 1929: MCL 119.1 - 119.18 ]

Allows two or more municipalities to incorporate (by charter) into a metropolitan district or districts for the purpose of acquiring,

• wning, operating and maintaining parks

Partnering For Parks

31

Metropolitan District Act

[ Public Act 312 of 1929: MCL 119.1 - 119.18 ]

Powers of Metropolitan District Under Section 119.4 The District may levy taxes in a sum not to exceed ½ of 1% of the assessed value of all real and personal property in the district The District may borrow and issue bonds on the credit of the district in a sum not to exceed 2% of the assessed value of all real and personal property The District may collect rents and tolls The District may establish a special assessment district

Partnering For Parks

32

Metropolitan District Act

[ Public Act 312 of 1929: MCL 119.1 - 119.18 ]

Powers of Metropolitan District Under Section 119.4 - Continued The District may acquire private property by purchase, gift or condemnation for public use The District may acquire, by lease, purchase or otherwise and succeed to any or all of the rights, obligations and properties of the participating jurisdictions The District may sell or lease lands The District may pass and enforce laws, ordinances and regulations

Partnering For Parks

33

Southern Lakes Regional Metropolitan Parks and Recreation District (2000)

• City of Fenton
• City of Linden
• Fenton Township
• Argentine Township
• Tyrone Township

Approved a permanent .4 mills tax for the

• peration of a year-round Metropolitan Park

and Recreation District Works closely with local school districts and each participating municipalities Hired a full-time director and support staff

Metropolitan District Act

[ Public Act 312 of 1929: MCL 119.1 - 119.18 ]

Partnering For Parks

34

Urban Cooperation Act

[ Public Act 7 of 1967: MCL 124.501 - 512]

Permits, “public agencies” (including school districts) of the state to exercise jointly A joint exercise of power pursuant to this act is made by contract or contracts in the form of an interlocal agreement, which may provide the purpose, function, organization, funding, allocation of resources, and other specifics for the new arrangement Two or more local governmental units that levy a property tax may enter into an inter-local agreement to share the revenue derived from the tax Powers of Urban Cooperation Act

Partnering For Parks

35

Lowell Area Recreation Authority Directed by a seven member board consisting of

• fficials from both township boards, the city

council and residents from the community

• City of Lowell
• Lowell Charter Township
• Vergennes Township

Established to help develop a new non-motorized trailway connecting the three municipalities Under the inter-local agreement, the Authority can purchase and acquire property, build and operate trails, hire employees and seek and accept funding (e.g. state and federal grants, private donations)

Partnering For Parks

36

The Urban Cooperation Act is mentioned in the Michigan Trailway Act (PA 451) for creating Trailway Authorities. Trailway Authorities develop manage and maintain multi-jurisdictional trailways. However, they do not have any bonding or taxing authority.

• The Mid-West Michigan Trail Authority
• The Polly Ann Trails Council
• Betsie Valley Trails Council
• Walled Lake Wixom Trails

Partnering For Parks

37

Recreation and Playgrounds Act

[ Public Act 156 0f 1917]

Allows any city, village, county, township or school district (separately or in cooperation) to operate a system of recreation and playgrounds; acquire, equip and maintain land, buildings and other recreational facilities; employ a superintendent; vote and expend funds May vote a tax to provide funds for operation Local municipality or school district may delegate the operation of the system to a recreation board and appropriate money to the board Any municipal corporation or board given charge of the recreation system is authorized to conduct its activities on: (1) property under its custody and management; (2) other public property under the custody of other municipal corporations or boards; and (3) private property (w/consent of property owners)

Partnering For Parks

38

Greater Romeo-Washington-Bruce Parks and Recreation Commission

Community approved a .75 mill in 1986 (and successive millage renewals) Created in 1983 to conduct and supervise public parks, athletic fields, recreation centers and other recreation centers…conduct any wholesale and constructive form

• f recreation and public service designed to enhance the standard of living and the

leisure time of adults. Village of Romeo withdrew Originally funded through federal and state revenue sharing Works closely with community schools - use same facilities Four commissioners - one at large member

• Washington Township
• Bruce Township
• Romeo Community Schools

Partnering For Parks

39

Metropolitan Councils Act

[ Public Act 292 of 1989: MCL 124.651 - 685]

Allows 2 or more local governmental units in a metropolitan area to form a metropolitan area council and plan, promote, finance, issue bonds for, acquire, improve, enlarge, extend, own, construct, replace, or contract for public improvements and services including but not limited to recreational facilities

Partnering For Parks

40

The Grand Valley Metropolitan Council (Grand Rapids) is: membership-based alliance dues-paying governmental units The Council: allocates transportation planning funds aspires to “plan for the growth and development … maintain and improve the quality of life extensive regional planning effort called the “Blueprint” provides its members a collection of services, including the GIS agency known as REGIS

Partnering For Parks

41

Municipal Partnership Act

[ Public Act 258 of 2011]

Allows 2 or more villages, cities, townships and counties (and/or a public agency) to enter into a contract with each other to form a “joint endeavor” or Authority for the purpose of operating parks and recreation.

New

Contract must be approved by resolution of the governing body of each participating local government - the contract must include (section 4 (1):

• 1. The purpose of the joint endeavor and the method by which the purpose

will be accomplished

• 2. The duration of the contract and provisions for early termination and

withdraw

• 3. The method of financing the joint endeavor and each participant’s

contribution

• 4. The method of submitting a tax levy (if any)
• 5. If creating a separate Authority, the precise organization, composition,

nature and powers of the Authority (including the designation of officers)

Partnering For Parks

42

Municipal Partnership Act

[ Public Act 258 of 2011]

Acquire property Operate, maintain, repair, replace, construct and improve property Determine the entity or entities that will function as the employer of personnel and staff, as needed for the joint endeavor Use existing tax revenues Levy a tax of not more than 5-mills Powers - Section 4 (2) Levy is on all taxable properties in the areas served by the joint endeavor (could include special districts) Prior to placing funding initiative on ballot, governing body of each participating government must first adopt resolution agreeing to place tax initiative on ballot Tax Levy

Partnering For Parks

43

Municipal Partnership Act

[ Public Act 258 of 2011]

Tax Levy, Continued Tax must be approved by a majority of voters in each participating municipality (if only portions or districts of a local government are located within the service area of the joint endeavor, only the electors in that portion are eligible to vote and the tax shall only be levied against the property within that service area) The joint endeavor may increase an existing tax if a majority of electors in each participating municipality, served by the joint endeavor, approve the tax The joint endeavor may levy the renewal of an existing tax if majority of people, served by the joint endeavor, approve the tax Tax levy is subject to constitutional and statutory millage limits (if tax is approved, it must be reduced annually as necessary to insure that the total millage levied does not exceed the constitutional and statutory millage limits of each participating municipality)

Partnering For Parks

44

Municipal Partnership Act [ Public Act 258 of 2011]

Partnering For Parks

1 3 2 4 5 6 7 11 10 9 8 12

Public Transportation Sewer &Water Library Fire & Police

Millage Limit: 12 Mills Total Millage Levied:10 mills

1 3 2 4 5 6 7 11 10 9 8 12

Senior Center

Total Millage Levied:11mills Park and Recreation: 2 mills Park and Recreation: 1 mill

Millages

2012 2013

45

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Allows two or more municipalities and/or districts to establish a Recreation Authority for the acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of:

• 1. Swimming Pool
• 2. Recreation Center
• 3. Museum
• 4. Auditorium
• 5. Historical Farm
• 6. Conference Center
• 7. Park

Definition of “Park”

• 1. Recreation Purposes - Including but not limited to: landscaped tracts; picnic

grounds; playgrounds; athletic fields; camps; campgrounds; zoological and botanical gardens; living historical farms; boating, hunting, fishing and birding areas; swimming areas; and foot, bicycle and bridle paths

• 2. Open or scenic space
• 3. Environmental, conservation, nature or wildlife areas

Partnering For Parks

46

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

What About Programming?

Act 321 does not explicitly allow for the provision of recreational programming However, a number of the current Recreation Authorities provide for a wide range of recreation programs under the guise of the “operation” definition The sponsor of Act 321 believes the Act can provide for recreational programming Consult your municipal attorney

* Definition for Public Historic Farm……“provides agricultural and historical programs”

Partnering For Parks

47

Authority Year Participating Municipalities Nature of Effort

Southeast Livingston County Recreation Authority (SELCRA) 2001 City of Brighton & Brighton, Green Oak Townships Future park/recreation facilities Greater Reed City Area Recreation Authority 2003 City of Reed City, Village of Hersey & Lincoln, Richmond Twps. Trail development City of Traverse City/Charter Township

• f Garfield Recreational Authority

2003 City of Traverse City & Charter Township of Garfield The purchase and maintenance of land and buildings for open space Charlevoix Recreational Authority 2004 City of Charlevoix & Hayes, Charlevoix Townships Community swimming pool Flushing Area Parks and Recreation Authority 2006 City of Flushing & Flushing Charter Township Future park/recreation facilities Newaygo Community Recreational Authority 2006 City of Newaygo & Brooks, Garfield & Croton Townships Future park/recreation facilities Howell Area Recreation Authority 2006 City of Howell & Oceola, Marion, Genoa Townships Future park/recreation facilities South Lyon Area Recreation Authority 2007 City of South Lyon, Lyon Charter Township and portions of Green Oak Charter Township Future park/recreation facilities Iron Ore Heritage Recreation Authority 2007 Marquette Area (2 cities, 6 townships) Iron Ore Heritage Area - Trail Tahquamenon Area Recreation Authority 2008 Luce County, Village of Newberry & McMillan, Pentland Twps. Community Center Northwest Ottawa Recreation Authority 2009 City of Grand Haven, City of Ferrysburg, & Grand Haven Charter, Robinson Townships Future park/recreation facilities. Headwaters Recreation Authority 2010 City of Hillsdale, Village of Jonesville, & Hillsdale, Fayette Twps. Non-Motorized pathways Windsor Recreation Authority 2010 City of Iron River, Bates, Iron River & Stambaugh Townships Recreation/Community Center South Haven Area Recreation Authority 2010 City of South Haven, South Haven Charter Twp. & Public Schools Community park Civic Center South Recreation Authority 2011 Village of Kingsley and Fife Lake, Mayfield and Paradise Twps. Community park Recreation Authority of Roseville and Eastpointe 2011 City of Roseville and City of Eastpointe Recreation programs and services River Country Recreation Authority 2012 City of Three Rivers and Fabius Township Non-Motorized pathways

48

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Recreation Authorities in the northern portions of Michigan tend to support single items, open space and trail development How Has It Worked? Recreation Authorities in the southern portions of Michigan tend to support park departments and recreation programming A singular focus can help direct community funding and support and allow local municipalities to focus on broad recreational services (especially if the municipality already has a plan filed with the DNRE) Be careful of duplicative & competitive grant applications - plan ahead

Partnering For Parks

49

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

• 1. The name of the Authority
• 2. The names of the participating municipalities
• 3. The purpose for which the Authority is established
• 4. A description of the territory of the Authority
• 5. Characteristics of the Board (e.g. number of members, qualifications,

method of selection, terms of office and terms of filling vacancies)

• 6. The procedures and requirements for a municipality to join and withdraw

from the Authority Establishing A Recreation Authority Articles of Incorporation must include a number of parameters:

Partnering For Parks

50

Territory of the Authority: All property situated within and outside the corporate boundaries of the participating municipalities - as long as they are owned by one of the participating municipalities.

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

District(s): “A portion of a municipality having boundaries coterminous with those of a precinct used for general elections.” In Green Oak Charter Township, (Livingston County) Precincts 1, 4 and 6 are part of the South Lyon Area Recreation Authority and other portions are part of the Southeastern Livingston County Recreation Authority Example Portions of the Howell Area Parks Recreation Authority have precincts that align with the Howell Area School District

Partnering For Parks

51

The Authority may apply for & accept grants, hire employees & professional services, maintain property, assess fees, receive revenue, and enter into contracts.

Powers of Recreational Authority

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

The Authority may acquire and hold real and personal property inside or

• utside the territory of the Authority through purchase, lease, land contract,

installment contracts, bequest and other means.

Partnering For Parks

52

Powers of Recreational Authority (Continued) Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Under Sec. 11, the Authority may levy up to 1 mill for not more than 20 years on all taxable property within the territory of the Authority only with approval of the majority of electors in each of the participating municipalities

• f the authority.
• Sec. 21 - 23 permits the Authority to borrow funds and manage

indebtedness (not to exceed 2 mills of the taxable value), including the issuance of general obligation bonds - upon the approval of a majority of the electors in each of the participating municipalities. Millage proposal at statewide or primary election

Partnering For Parks

53

Recreational Authorities Act

Traverse City/Charter Township of Garfield Recreation Authority - 2006 Approved a .27 General Obligation Bond for 20 years to purchase 3 properties Approved a .10 Operational Millage for 20 years

The Millage Option - a Mixed Bag Charlevoix Recreational Authority - 2004 Approved a .30 Millage to operate a community swimming pool for 10 years Howell Area Parks and Recreation Authority - 2006 Rejected a 1.0 Millage for 20 years for general recreation purposes Iron Ore Heritage Recreational Authority - 2008 Rejected a .20 Millage for 6 years to improve the 48-mile Iron Ore Heritage

• Trail. Proposal was overwhelmingly supported, but defeated in two (out of ten)
• f the least populated municipalities, by just 38 votes. - Approved in 2010 for

reconstituted Authority Recreation Authority of Roseville and Eastpointe - 2011 Windsor Recreation Authority - 2010

Partnering For Parks

54

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Membership Provisions - Governing Board Only Stipulation: The Recreation Authority Board must be comprised of an

• dd number of board members

If an equal number of board members have been appointed from each participating municipality, the last (odd) member is often appointed by either another local government, school board or organization closely associated with the goals and mission of the Authority Example Typically required to be either an elected or appointed official and registered voter Typically serve two-year, staggered terms

Partnering For Parks

55

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Membership Provisions - Governing Board (continued) The Board shall select a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer (who may not be a member of the board) The Board may establish formal by-laws - in most instances the Articles of Incorporation suffice Board members shall not receive compensation, but are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred while carrying out official duties

Partnering For Parks

56

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Withdraw Provisions A municipality can withdraw from the Recreation Authority by adopting a formal resolution - unless a millage has been levied In some cases, the Articles of Incorporation require that a certified copy

• f the formal resolution must be presented to the Board of the Authority

at least 3 to 12 months prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. Any participating municipality that withdraws from the Recreation Authority is liable for a proportion of the debt and liabilities incurred while participating Any property owned by the Authority that lies within a municipality that has withdrawn from the Authority shall remain in the Authority

Partnering For Parks

57

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Dissolution Provisions Not explicitly required in the Act In general, the Authority can be dissolved by a concurring resolution in each municipality A municipality can withdraw from the Recreation Authority by formal resolution - unless a millage has been levied Example Howell Area Parks Recreation Authority: Included stipulations which stated that in the event the millage didn’t pass, the Authority would dissolve (later amended)

Partnering For Parks

58

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

All debts must be paid Assets and land shall revert back to the originating municipality Any funds obtained via a levy or property purchased by such funds shall be assigned by the participating municipalities for public purposes Land acquired or developed with grants from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund must be maintained in perpetuity and will be maintained by the municipality in which they are located

Tahquamenon Area Recreation Authority: Did not include a reversion clause in their Articles for MNRTF funds and was not recognized by the DNR

Upon Dissolution Example

Partnering For Parks

59

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Joining Provisions Amended articles must be approved by the municipality wishing to join the Authority and each participating jurisdiction During the period in which a property tax has been levied, a majority of the electors wishing to join the Authority must approve the tax

Partnering For Parks

60

Iron Ore Heritage Recreation Authority

• City of Marquette
• City of Negaunee
• City of Ishpeming
• Chocolay Township
• Marquette Township
• Negaunee Township
• Tilden Township
• Ely Township
• Humbolt Township
• Republic Township
• City of Marquette
• City of Negaunee
• City of Ishpeming
• Chocolay Township
• Marquette Township
• Negaunee Township
• Tilden Township
• Ely Township
• Humbolt Township
• Republic Township
• City of Marquette
• City of Negaunee
• City of Ishpeming
• Chocolay Township
• Marquette Township
• Negaunee Township
• Tilden Township
• Ely Township
• Humbolt Township
• Republic Township

Authority Established 2007 Authority goes for Millage (Failed) 2008 Reconsider Authority 2010 - Millage Passes

• City of Marquette
• City of Negaunee
• City of Ishpeming
• Chocolay Township
• Marquette Township
• Negaunee Township
• Tilden Township
• Republic Township

Authority Expands - 2011 Republic Twp. Passes Millage

Partnering For Parks

61

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Small contributions from each participating jurisdiction can pay for small construction projects, marketing materials and/or grant writing assistance Budget Provisions Only stipulation is that the Authority must conduct an annual audit Budget depends on the scope of the Authority Budget can consist of a equal contribution from each jurisdiction or based on a formula

Newaygo Area Recreation Authority: Budget is based on a formula that factors a base contribution, the population of each jurisdiction and the taxable value of each participating municipality

Example

Partnering For Parks

62

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Publish the Articles of Incorporation in the Newspaper - Beware of Publishing Costs Launching the Authority Have a municipal attorney review the Articles of Incorporation - share legal services Regularly update your legislative body during the drafting process The Articles must be adopted by the legislative body of each participating municipality - The Authority becomes effective when the last participating municipality adopts the Articles and files a copy with the Secretary of State, Office

• f the Great Seal. Authority is considered a “Michigan Municipal Corporation” - tax

exempt The Authority is subject to the Open Meetings Act (1976 PA 267), and the Freedom of Information Act (1976 PA 442)

Howell Area Recreation Authority: Mailed draft Articles to the DNR to make sure they would be eligible for grant funding

File with the IRS to get Employee Identification Number (EIN)

Example

Partnering For Parks

63

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Senate Bill 270 Sponsor: Sen. John Gleason 27th District - Western Genesee County An amendment to include “School Districts” as a participating entity Committee on Local, Urban and State Affairs recommended the Bill with Immediate Effect (IE) Pass by the Senate Pass by the House without (IE) Back to the Senate - now must pass it again with (IE), requires 2/3 majority (2009)

• School Districts have facilities
• However, in many instances, school districts cradle the line between communities
• Opposed by the State Chamber of Commerce because of taxing authority

History Despite rescinding opposition by Chamber & late-night haggling, no action taken at the end of 2010 - likely re-introduced in 2012

Partnering For Parks

64

The Millage Challenge In 2008, about 75% of recreation proposals passed in Michigan The Trust for Public Land (TPL): Conservation Finance Handbook Not the same story in 2009 - recreation expansion has been funded almost entirely with foundation grants and private donations. Nationally, just a little more than half of the conservation finance measures passed (70% in 2008) Resources Between 1996 - 2002 TPL assisted in the passage of local and state measures that set aside more than $25 billion for parks and open space

• Previous collaboration
• Preserving something that

already exists

• Know what your buying
• Location

What Helps

In the 2010 August primary, voters approved 86% of the 623 overall ballot initiatives that affected how much they would pay in taxes or fees and 96%

• f the requests to renew or restore rates that had been reduced by Headlee

(Approved initiatives for recreation in Oakland, St. Clair and Saginaw Counties - Springfield Township - City of Lansing)

In 2011, ballot initiatives were approved in several communities

(Oak Park, Republic Township, Windsor Rec. Authority, Holland Community School District, Roseville & Eastpointe Recreation Authority)

Partnering For Parks

65

The Millage Challenge

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

• 1. Conduct a feasibility assessment - next step should be based on the assessment

Demographics: growth rates, population distribution, ethnicity, education level TPL’s Recommendations Economics: economic growth, un-employment, income trends Quality of life issues: growth, environmental & land use issues Investigate Finance Options and Crunch the Numbers Research Legal Constraints: filing requirements, who is responsible Analyze Previous Election Results

Partnering For Parks

66

The Millage Challenge

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

• 2. Measure Public Opinion

Interview community leaders Conduct a survey(s) - can help define ballot language Threshold Question - Can you win?

Partnering For Parks

67

The Millage Challenge

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

• 3. Designing a winning measure

Broad-based goals should be reflected in the ballot language Priorities should be tied to scientific analysis and experts Determine effective ballot title and wording Ballot language is the last thing voter sees before decision

Partnering For Parks

68

OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION BOND PROPOSAL This proposal will allow the Recreational Authority of Traverse City and the Garfield Township to purchase and improve land to preserve open space and scenic views of the Bay and protect wildlife habitat and natural areas. Properties to be purchased include the West Bay Waterfront property, the Barns at the Commons, and the property next to Hickory Hill. State law requires an annual independent audit of the Recreational Authority. This proposal, if approved by the voters, will only be effective if both it and the Open Space and natural Area Millage Proposal pass. Shall the City of Traverse City and Charter Township of Garfield Recreational Authority formed by the City of Traverse City and the Charter Township of Garfield borrow the sum of not to exceed Six Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($6,650,000) and issue its general

• bligation unlimited tax bonds for all or a portion of that amount, payable in not to exceed

twenty years from the date of issuance for the purpose of open space and scenic view preservation and wildlife habitat and natural areas protection by purchasing and improving land for public parks including West Bay Waterfront property, the Barns at the Commons, and the property next to Hickory Hills? The estimated millage to be levied in 2004 is 0.27 mill ($0.27 per $1,000 of taxable value) and the estimated simple average annual millage rate required to retire the bonds is 0.27 mill ($0.27 per $1,000 of taxable value). This is expected to result in an increase of $13.50 in the tax levied on property valued at $100,000 for a period of 20 years.

Partnering For Parks

69

OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREA MILLAGE PROPOSAL This proposal will allow the Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township to maintain natural areas, wildlife habitat, public parks, and open space. The proposal would levy a property tax of up to 0.1 mill that would cost the owner of a home with a value of $100,000 $5.00 per year. State law required an annual independent audit of the Recreational Authority. This proposal, if approved by the voters, will only be effective if both it and the Open Space and natural Area Millage Proposal pass. Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the City of Traverse and the Charter Township of Garfield Recreational Authority. Be increased by up to 0.1 mil ($0.10 per $1,000 of taxable value) for a period of twenty (20) years, as a new millage for the purpose of protecting natural areas, wildlife habitat, and open space by acquiring, maintaining and improving public parks? It is estimated that 0.1 mill will raise Approximately $125,000 when first levied in 2004.

Partnering For Parks

70

The Millage Challenge

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

The design of a measure that is compelling, affordable and accountable Once the measure is designed, a good campaign must be conducted to build broad support from community leaders and organizations and to communicate (media) the key benefits of the measure to undecided voters Make sure all activities of the campaign are legal

• 4. Running a successful campaign

Partnering For Parks

71

Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

City of Ishpeming, on behalf of the Authority secured a $354,800 DNR Trust Fund Grant and $118,000 MDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant Authority secured a $15,000 DNR Trust Fund Grant Marquette County, on behalf of the Authority applied for a $740,000 MDOT Grant Authority awarded $460,000 DNR Trust Fund Grant Iron Ore Heritage Recreation Authority 3 Cities & 5 Townships Iron Ore Heritage Trail: 48-mile non- motorized trail (and motorized)

The Grant Challenge

2008: 2009: 2010: Newaygo Community Recreation Authority - 2006 City of Newaygo, Brooks Township and Garfield Township Secured over $309,500 in grant funding from the Fremont Area Community Foundation to improve a number of facilities

Partnering For Parks

72

Draft a plan then create the Authority? Recreational Authorities Act

[ Public Act 321 of 2000: MCL 123.1131 et seq.]

Getting Started - What’s First? Step I. Local officials meet to discuss and assess whether or not they work together

• Consider staff requirements
• Available resources
• Costs of planning process

Step II. Appoint a steering committee Step III. Initiate the community planning process Create the Authority then draft the plan?

• r

Partnering For Parks

73

Legislative Acts: Key Differences, Opportunities and Challenges Urban Cooperation Act County and Regional Parks Act

• Establishes a Parks and Recreation Commission
• May operate jointly with other counties - may levy a tax, subject to voter approval

Metropolitan District Act

• Must first establish a “Charter” - which is subject to voter approval. Creates an opportunity to

have a smaller organization if not approved by voters - charter may include a taxing provision

• Cannot include counties - Can work closely with school districts
• Extremely flexible - arrangement (or Authority) is created through an inter-local agreement
• Can utilized/share existing tax revenue (not a “new” millage) - can include school districts

Recreation and Playground Act Recreation Authorities Act

• Can include school districts in the agreement - school district can operate independently
• May levy a tax, subject to voter approval
• Local jurisdictions can delegate operation to a “recreation board”
• Permitted to conduct activities on own property and other public/private properties
• Established by resolution from each jurisdiction (separate from millage) - can work with schools
• Millage must be approved by each participating jurisdiction to become effective

Municipal Partnership Act

• “Joint Endeavor” or Authority is created by resolution
• May include school district and other service districts
• May levy a tax, subject to voter approval in each jurisdiction - tax levy must be annually

adjusted to insure that the total millage does not exceed the constitutional and statutory limits

74

Thank You

Partnering For Parks

75

Harry Burkholder, AICP

Community Planner II

324 Munson Avenue Traverse City, MI 49686 231-929-3696 burkholder@liaa.org

Partnering For Parks

Ann Conklin, CPRP

Chief Operating Officer

2465 Woodlake Circle, Suite 180 Okemos, MI 48864 517-485-9888 aconklin@lmrpaonline.org

76

Partnering For Parks

77

Historic Barns Park (56-acres)

Partnering For Parks

78

Interior - Cathedral Barn

Partnering For Parks

79

West Bay Waterfront Property (Last piece of non-public waterfront property)

Partnering For Parks

80

Hickory Meadows (117-acres)

Photos by Carl Ganter and Robert Kline

Partnering For Parks