The following report is the result of Better Together’s study of how the St. Louis region provides parks and recreational opportunities to the over 1.3 million residents that call St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and its 90 municipalities home. As a region, we spend over $117 million annually to operate and maintain more than 470 parks. These parks consist of 16,420 acres of land and facilities that are maintained by 47 separate departments, numerous municipalities without a dedicated department, and various non-profits and neighborhood organizations. The diversity of these parks, their locations and amenities, as well as their varying states of condition, reflect both the characteristics of the communities they serve and the resources available.

Forest Park lies at the border of St. Louis City and County and highlights the potential for regional collaboration. Forest Park is home to such world-class institutions as the St. Louis Zoo, the St. Louis Science Center, the recently expanded St. Louis Art Museum, and the Missouri History Museum, all of which would not be possible without regional cooperation and funding. Just as important to the communities they serve are the neighborhood and pocket parks that are spread throughout the City and County. These smaller parks serve as exercise facilities, meeting places for friends and neighbors, and playgrounds for children. While the St. Louis region is home to many beautiful parks and facilities, financial difficulties can quickly manifest themselves in the quality of life in a community. Particularly, the fragmented nature of the region can result in poor conditions and in some parks instances have been rendered unusable for safety concerns. ^[1] These conditions are usually isolated and reflect a lack of resources in a community rather than a lack of commitment. What follows in this report is a snapshot of parks and recreation in the St. Louis region, a summary of best practices nationally and locally, and possibilities for improvement.

Best Practices

Park Accessibility

An important part of any study relating to parks and recreation is an understanding of to whom those parks are available. Ideally, local parks are accessible to citizens of all backgrounds. A critical consideration in determining which populations are able to be served by our municipal parks is assessing whether those parks (or the facilities therein) are readily accessible to individuals with varying levels of abilities. These considerations should include people with minor or severe physical, mental, or developmental disabilities as well as the elderly and the very young. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) offers guidance in ascertaining whether a park or its facilities and programs are able to serve a diverse population in St. Louis.

Enacted in 1990, the ADA “prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life.” ^[2] It does this by requiring new public spacing being built conform to specific regulations that better facilitate use by all people. The ADA also requires existing public facilities to meet certain standards. According to the ADA “Checklist for Existing Facilities,” the regulations in Title III of the ADA “require that architectural and communication barriers that are structural must be removed in public areas of existing facilities when their removal is readily achievable – in other words, easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” ^[3] While full compliance of the regulations set forth by the Department of Justice is required for new constructions, resources like the “Checklist for Existing Facilities” help provide businesses and local governments with guidance on what may be readily achievable to allow fuller access to public spaces.

With the ADA checklist as a framework, Better Together research fellows set out to obtain a basic understanding of how accessible municipal parks in St. Louis City and County are to people with disabilities. Over the course of several months, fellows visited more than 225 municipal parks in the region to determine general accessibility. The criteria considered includes access to handicapped parking, presence of handrails on stairs, presence of alternative ramps, accessibility to any facilities, park programming, and condition of any pathways. Below are the results of the survey.

Of the 228 municipal parks surveyed, 103 had handicapped parking available. Only 15 of the parks that had parking available did not have handicap-accessible parking. No parking was observed for the remaining locations. Two hundred of the 228 parks had pathways that were in acceptable or good repair, while only 3 did not. Twenty-two parks did not have discernible pathways. Of the parks that had stairs, 18 had handrails while 6 did not. Most of the municipal parks surveyed did not have stairs. Twenty-eight of the parks had ramps, while 8 parks had stairs but no alternative ramps. Fellows observed that all 101 facilities present in parks surveyed were accessible. This included restrooms, fitness facilities, and skating rinks, among others. Finally, the data show that programming for youth, adults, or seniors was available in at least 52 of the parks surveyed. When paired with other accessibility data, this information can help paint a clear picture of how much of the programming in municipal parks might be available to individuals with disabilities.

The data presented here is only a portion of what is entailed in determining which parks are most accommodating to populations with varying needs. Overall, most of the municipal parks in St. Louis City and County appear to successfully provide access to their diverse communities. As improvements and maintenance continue over time, it will remain critical to consider who our parks are serving and ensure they are accommodating to as many of St. Louis’ citizens as possible.

National Models

Regional and multi-county parks districts are capable of providing services to large and diverse communities over broad geographic regions.

Improved efficiency and standards of quality are found within the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) , which services nearly two times as many people as the 81 park districts in St. Louis. For over 80 years, EBRPD has provided services to the Alameda and Contra Costa counties of California; managing over 119,000 acres of park land, 1,200 miles of trails, 65 regional parks, 40 miles of shoreline, 10 lakes, and even 2 golf courses. This district constitutes the largest regional parks system in the United States serving 2.5 million residents across two counties.

Additionally, EBRPD describes property value benefits from the well-run park system because the system increases values across the East Bay region, benefitting all those who pay in to the system. The district is also able to provide excellent security and maintenance for the parks it operates, helping to make the parks a more attractive feature, which aids in property value as well. An economic analysis report states that the “parks, open space, trails, and associated recreational and educational opportunities, environmental and cultural preservation, alternative transit modes, and sprawl-limiting characteristics all contribute positively to the quality of life in the East Bay region.” As a result, businesses and the overall economy of the East Bay region are aided in attracting and retaining skilled workers.

The Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (NOVA Parks) is another such regional entity. It has been a positive influence in the region, maximizing the effectiveness of contributed revenue and providing economic benefits as well. Organized under the Virginia Park Authorities Act in 1959, NOVA Parks shares jurisdictions with three counties (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun) and three cities (Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax), serving almost 2 million residents.

NOVA Parks’ early goal in the 1950s was to preserve northern Virginia wilderness from encroaching suburban development, a feat no one of the communities might have been able to accomplish had they not sought a regional solution. Through their consolidated efforts, NOVA Parks has worked to preserve and protect more than 10,000 acres of land in the region. The strength and capability of this regional parks district comes from the ability of the local governments in the region to contribute to the greater whole. Monetary contributions to the district, and the good that money does, is multiplied by the contributions of the member jurisdictions. It has proven a good economic investment for the region.

A region-wide approach can yield positive results for the entire area. It may be in the form of increasing land values due to proximity to parks or in maximizing the impact of money by pooling resources between communities. Both the East Bay Regional Parks District and the Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority display beneficial results from consolidated, regional approaches to parks and recreation service delivery.

Collaboration: Parks and Recreation Cooperative (PARC ^[4] )

Closer to home, three municipalities have collaborated to provide parks and recreation services to their communities. The Parks and Recreation Cooperative (PARC) began in 2003 in an effort to jointly serve the citizens of Maplewood, Brentwood, and Richmond Heights and to increase access and use of recreational facilities. These communities have parks and recreation departments and facilities in close proximity to each other. Residents of the three communities may use parks and access facilities at resident rates, instead of having to pay non-resident or visitor rates.

Access to the Brentwood Ice Rink, The Heights (the Richmond Heights recreation center), and the Maplewood Family Aquatic Center are made possible to members of all three communities by PARC. The benefit includes park and pavilion rentals and programming, such as classes, lessons, and even outings. In addition, the cooperative sends a seasonal publication that lists all classes, events, and recreational activities offered in the three municipalities.

Each of these cities has roughly 8,000 residents ^[5] , and attempting to build each of the three types of recreation facilities listed above would be cost prohibitive and, even if completed, increasingly difficult to maintain. Through collaboration, over 24,000 residents have access to three different types of facilities and no single municipality carries the weight of construction and maintenance for the recreation infrastructure.

While each city runs it respective parks and recreational departments by cooperating on memberships, advertising available programming, and offering resident pricing to anyone from one of the three participating communities, the collaboration gives residents the opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life by being able to experience a wider range of services from the cities in the area.

Regional Funding: Municipal Park Grant Commission of St. Louis County

The Municipal Park Grant Commission of St. Louis County provides an excellent example of a regional collaboration that can transcend the fragmentation present in St. Louis County. The Municipal Park Grant program resulted from approval of a new 1/10th of one-cent sales tax by St. Louis County voters in the fall of 2000 to fund parks and trails. ^[6] The Commission was created to govern the funding to municipal parks through grants.

Currently, the fund is administered by a commission of local representatives from St. Louis County’s County Council Districts, as well as two ex-officio members. ^[7] The Commission works in conjunction with an Advisory Committee of current and former parks and recreation directors. ^[8] The grants are administered by the St. Louis County Municipal League on behalf of the Commission ^[9]

The grants are awarded based upon the strength of the grant application, need, planning, community input, and previous grant awards. ^[10] In addition to funding actual projects, small planning grants are available in order to plan future parks projects with the caveat that any planning grant be matched at 20% from the municipality requesting the planning grant. ^[11]

The funding for the grant program recently doubled in 2013 as the result of voter approval of a 3/16th of one-cent sales tax to increase funding for parks and recreation as well as for renovation of the Arch grounds. ^[12] Since its establishment, the grant program has administered over $33 million to 69 municipalities through 237 grants. ^[13] The table below details the number of grants received and the funding provided through the grant program since its inception.

MUNICIPALITY	GRANTS AWARDED	TOTAL AMOUNT AWARDED
Ballwin	8	$1,308,690
Bellefontaine Neighbors	3	$339,807
Bellerive Acres	1	$30,649
Bel-Nor	1	$20,500
Bel-Ridge	3	$234,049
Berkeley	4	$413,557
Black Jack	3	$305,093
Breckenridge Hills	1	$161,600
Brentwood	4	$381,230
Bridgeton	3	$589,032
Calverton Park	1	$21,850
Charlack	1	$79,900
Chesterfield	8	$1,603,467
Clayton	6	$993,749
Cool Valley	1	$39,712
County Club Hills	1	$59,700
Crestwood	4	$804,444
Creve Coeur	6	$926,920
Dellwood	3	$528,460
Des Peres	4	$500,166
Edmundson	1	$82,232
Ellisville	3	$557,383
Eureka	6	$748,377
Fenton	3	$269,885
Ferguson	9	$1,184,314
Florissant	7	$1,550,857
Frontenac	1	$66,498
Glendale	4	$386,852
Green Park	1	$82,128
Greendale	3	$58,850
Hanley Hills	1	$55,000
Hazelwood	3	$666,386
Jennings	4	$815,930
Kirkwood	7	$1,530,743
Lakeshire	1	$11,258
Mackenzie	1	$2,538
Manchester	5	$885,125
Maplewood	4	$480,546
Maryland Heights	5	$998,794
Normandy	4	$424,755
Northwoods	3	$269,475
Oakland	2	$150,089
Olivette	6	$254,625
Overland	4	$971,457
Pagedale	3	$415,240
Pasadena Park	1	$31,500
Pine Lawn	2	$278,460
Richmond Heights	5	$688,554
Riverview	2	$176,930
Rock Hill	3	$296,348
Saint Ann	4	$602,734
Saint George	1	$50,585
Saint John	5	$276,861
Shrewsbury	4	$422,270
Sunset Hills	6	$739,198
Town & Country	4	$310,885
Twin Oaks	1	$172,665
University City	10	$1,894,743
Uplands Park	1	$7,535
Valley Park	3	$393,323
Velda City	2	$141,452
Velda Village Hills	2	$10,784
Vinita Park	2	$235,382
Warson Woods	2	$178,448
Webster Groves	8	$1,604,558
Wellston	1	$64,820
Wildwood	5	$1,159,108
Winchester	3	$181,016
Woodson Terrace	3	$257,816
Total	237	$32,437,887

Conclusion

As detailed throughout this report and as was evident throughout the many conversations that were part of shaping this study, St. Louis has found ways to successfully transcend its fragmented nature when it comes to parks and recreation. Through collaborations such as PARC or funding mechanisms such as the Municipal Park Grant Commission, the region has created hundreds of parks that serve as anchors for their communities.

However, there is still opportunity to improve. As Dan McGuire, former Director of Parks for St. Louis City and Chairman of the Parks Committee stated, “When a community is strapped for resources, upkeep of the parks and programming is the first to go. Often, those most in need of safe, affordable leisure are the ones who lose out. Continual investment in local parks and infrastructure is critical to a maintaining a healthy, vibrant community.” Such a continued investment can be difficult for smaller and less affluent communities in the region. Opportunities exist to expand collaborations like PARC across the St. Louis region and to examine how we can provide safe open spaces to individuals throughout St. Louis City and County.

Community-Based Studies

• Public Finance
• Economic Development
• Public Health
• Public Safety : ( Municipal Courts , Police , Fire Protection )
• Parks and Recreation
• General Administration

References

1. ↑ 1 In Pine Lawn, Pelton Jackson Municipal Park, which features a playground, basketball court, baseball field, running track and exercise equipment, was gated and locked and open only on weekends in the fall because there had been vandalism. The city could not afford a full-time park ranger. See Jeremy Kohler and Joel Currier “Pine Lawn: 'Poster child of dysfunction?”Available at:
2. ↑ Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act, “Introduction to the ADA.” Available at: http://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm .
3. ↑ The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal, “Checklist for Existing Facilities version 2.1.” Available at: http://www.ada.gov/racheck.pdf .
4. ↑ Information available at http://www.richmondheights.org/departments/parks_and_recreation_cooperative/index.php
5. ↑ Population data available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/2945830.html ,
6. ↑ 2013-2014 Annual Report of the Municipal Park Grant Commission of St. Louis County Comprehensive Report available at
7. ↑ 2013-2014 Annual Report of the Municipal Park Grant Commission of St. Louis County Comprehensive Report available at
8. ↑ Available at http://www.muniparkgrants.org/commission.html
9. ↑ Available at http://www.muniparkgrants.org/contact.html
10. ↑ Available at http://www.muniparkgrants.org/applications.html
11. ↑ Available at http://www.muniparkgrants.org/applications.html
12. ↑ 2013-2014 Annual Report of the Municipal Park Grant Commission of St. Louis County Comprehensive Report available at
13. ↑ Available at http://www.muniparkgrants.org/award.html