A Study of a Special District for Park Maintenance in the City of Bozeman, Montana

Randy P. Wall Montana State University Bozeman May 1, 2011

You can download and read the PDF here

Abstract

As a result of exploding residential growth in the past decade, the city of Bozeman, Montana acquired numerous parks through the subdivision creation process. The city is now faced with the challenge of what will be the best mechanism to maintain all of the parks owned by the city. This paper presents the results of an empirical study of the parks maintenance challenges faced by the city of Bozeman, and recommends a citizen-centered leadership paradigm for the formation of a policy for a special district to maintain the parks owned by the city. Utilizing an action research framework, this study identifies the challenges faced by the city, and the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a special district to maintain the parks. This paper then sets forth policy recommendations, to be presented to the Bozeman city commission, and provides a discussion of how the citizen-centered policy formation process advocated by the researcher could contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”.

Keywords: Action research, leadership, new public service, parks, policy formation, postmodernism, special districts

Introduction

The creation of special districts within municipalities has been well documented, speaking to the delivery and efficiency of public services and the ability of special districts to overcome geographical, financial and political hurdles (Bollens, 1986; Dilorenzo, 1981; Stephens & Wikstrom, 1998). Bollens (1957) predicted special districts would be a necessary and vital evolutionary step toward the adequacy and quality of government in the United States. Foster (1997) points out special districts have both the advantages of local government and private corporations. Furthermore, Benton et al. (2008) comments on the ability of special districts to contribute to the accomplishment of community goals. Given the ability of a special district to efficiently deliver public services, to overcome hurdles, to operate with the advantages of local government and private corporations, and to help accomplish community goals, the question then arises, is a special district the best alternative for the delivery of park maintenance services for the city of Bozeman?

The city of Bozeman is faced with these park maintenance issues since the number of parks dedicated to the city through subdivision development in the past decade has outpaced the city’s ability to maintain the parks (Bozeman, 2010a, §18.50; Wall, 2010). The city maintains some parks, while other parks are maintained by Home Owners Associations (HOA’s). In 2000, the city changed its ordinances to require new subdivisions, which created and dedicated parkland to the city, to have HOA’s that provide park maintenance (Bozeman, 2010a, §18.72.030.G). However, as a result of the explosive growth in the past decade, and the changes to the development ordinances in 2000, the city is unclear which parks are maintained by the city, which parks are maintained by HOA’s, and what the maintenance standards are for all parks within the City. In order to address the park maintenance issues faced by the city, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) originated the Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) plan that sets forth the following recommendation, “Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some other equivalent alternative” (Bozeman, 2007, §10.12).

In order to examine the various aspects of the creation of a special district for park maintenance, a viable, practical strategy requiring a systematic, organized, and reflective investigation is required (Stringer, 1999, 2004, 2007a, as cited by Berg, 2009). The viable, practical strategy to work with the Bozeman city officials, to determine the issues associated with the creation of a special district for parks maintenance, and to originate a systematic, organized and reflective investigation of the issues to originate appropriate policy recommendations, is action research.

Berg (2009) states that action research is a collaborative approach to research that provides people with the means to take systematic action in an effort to resolve specific problems. In effect, working with the stakeholders, the researcher formulations plans for solutions to any problems that have been mutually identified. Berg (2009) also asserts that most action research, then, consciously seeks to study something in order to change it or improve it. The recommendation set forth by the PROST plan to create a special district for park maintenance, or some equivalent alternative, is the starting point for this action research. Working in partnership with the city of Bozeman, this action research study addresses the specific problem of park maintenance, and is accomplished by looking, thinking and acting (Berg, 2009).

The purpose of this study is to research and develop a set of policy recommendations for the creation of a special district for park maintenance to be presented to the Bozeman city commission. In order to form such a recommendation, the researcher’s interactions with the city officials and citizens were grounded in postmodern/citizen-centered theory to facilitate democratic discourse. In order to provide such facilitation, literature on special districts, traditional policy formation, postmodern/citizen-centered policy formation, and action research are reviewed.

This study is informed by social institutional choice theory regarding special districts (Benton, et al., 2008; Bollens, J., 1957; Bollens, 1986; Carr, 2006; Dilorenzo, 1981; Foster, 1997; Heikkila & Isett, 2007; Stephens & Wikstrom, 1998), traditional policy formation theories (Kingdon, 1984; Lindblom, 1959), postmodern, new public service, and citizen-centered theories regarding policy formation (Cook, 1996; Denhardt, 2007; King et al., 1998; Miller, 2002), and action research theories (Berg, 2009; Couch, 2004; Walser, 2009). This study is also informed by a literature review organized by the following themes: special districts, traditional policy formation, postmodern/citizen-centered policy formation, and action research. This paper then describes the case study, the research methodology used to perform the action research, including determination of the sampling regime, interview protocols, data sources, data collection, validity/reliability issues and proposed analysis. Finally, this paper sets forth the results of the analysis, the resulting policy recommendations to be provided to the Bozeman city commission, and reflections and discussion of how the citizen centered policy formation advocated by the researcher could contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”.

Literature Review

The following literature review begins by examining special districts in the context of special purpose governments to determine the appropriateness of a special district for park maintenance. Second, traditional and postmodern/citizen-centered policy formation processes are reviewed to delineate the differences when citizens are kept far away instead of being placed next to the issue in policy inquiry and the policy formation process. And finally, the action research process is examined, and a discussion is provided as to why action research provides the appropriate framework for this study.

Special districts

One of the “Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations” contained in §10.12 of the PROST (Bozeman, 2007) is “Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance [special] district or some equivalent alternative”. The purpose of this section of the literature review is to provide the theoretical basis to proceed with the action research described above, and to evaluate special districts in accordance the recommendation contained in the PROST plan (Bozeman, 2007).

A number of studies speak to the advantages of special districts: there are efficient and functional reasons for the creation of special districts (Bollens, 1986), special districts are conducive to both production and consumption efficiency in the provision of local public services (Dilorenzo, 1981), and special districts facilitate service delivery and can overcome geographical, financial and political hurdles (Stephens & Wikstrom, 1998). Bollens’ (1957) predicted the following for special district governments in the United States:

“In the future, therefore, special districts may be evaluated as having been a necessary and vital evolutionary step toward a general advance in the adequacy and quality of government in the United States” (p. 263).

Foster (1997) foresees the following for the future of special districts:

“As special-purpose governments widen their numerical lead over other local-government types, they will undoubtedly solidify their place as service providers of choice in many metropolitan regions. Together with growth in private home-owners’ associations, business improvement districts, and privatized service alternatives, special-purpose governments are part of a more sweeping pendulum swing toward specialization, compartmentalization, and privatization of the public sphere” (p. 231).

Foster (1997) also comments upon the lack of study of the cause and consequences regarding special districts, “Libraries fills stacks with books on municipalities but offer a relative handful of volumes on special-purpose governments” (p. 4). In his study of special districts, Carr (2006) concludes, “There remain large gaps in our understanding about why locals choose service delivery through special district government” (p. 491). Although special districts are recognized as efficient in the delivery of local public services among other instrumental functions, the opportunity would also appear to exist for special districts to contribute to “the most livable place,” the vision and goals of the city of Bozeman, and to the quality of life for the citizens through the provision of a consistent and high level of park maintenance.

In their exploration of special districts, Heikkila and Isett (2007) note special districts “enjoy the financial reach, tax exempt status, and quasi-monopolistic service delivery advantages of public governments, together with the political isolation, management, flexible and financial discretion of private corporations” (p. 240). Benton, et al. (2008) identified the ability (in the context of land use) for special districts to effectively and fairly balance competing interests while achieving the typical goals of control, prevention, protection and conservation. The ability of special districts to operate with the discretion of a private corporation as noted above, and the ability to address land use issues would allow the special district to set and pursue agency vision and mission directives akin to urban planning directives set forth in city planning documents, such as Bozeman Community Plan and the PROST plan.

Therefore, special districts are conducive to both production and consumption efficiency in the provision of local public services, facilitate service delivery, and can overcome geographical, financial and political hurdles through specialization, compartmentalization, and privatization of the public sphere. Furthermore, special districts enjoy the financial reach, tax exempt status, and quasi-monopolistic service delivery advantages of public governments, together with the political isolation, management, flexible and financial discretion of private corporations. And finally, the ability of special districts to operate with the discretion of a private corporation, and the ability to address land use issues would allow a special district for park maintenance to set and pursue agency vision and mission directives in accordance with espoused values contained in the Bozeman Community Plan and the PROST plan, such as the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”.

Traditional Policy Formation

Literature regarding traditional policy formation (Lindblom, 1959; Kingdon, 1984) is based upon a instrumental model that is dominated by large-scale players and special interests, places too much emphasis upon professional expertise and the results of the process, is constituted and regulated by bureaucrats who are professionally autonomous “who know better”, squanders whatever citizen participation is offered, and is missing a discursive democratic element and authentic citizen participation. According to King, et al. (1998), although there is recognition by public administrators the public must be more involved in public decisions, many administrators are, at best, ambivalent about public involvement, or at worst, they find it problematic. Cook (1996) asserts there is simply a lack of constitutional space for the public to participate:

“. . . the greatly expanded role of federal and state courts and administrative agencies in a system of programmatic liberalism, functioning on an instrumental understanding of politics rather than a comprehensive understanding, fills the constitutional space with brute manifestations of the state” (p. 139).

In his landmark article The Science of “Muddling Through”, Lindblom (1959) asserts that for the method of policy formation by successive limited comparisons [the root method] the test is agreement upon policy itself, which remains possible even when agreement on values is not. Lindblom (1959) goes on to state that agreement on policy becomes the only practicable test of the policy’s correctness, and it is not necessary to undertake fundamental inquiry into an alternative and its consequences; it is necessary only to study those respects in which the proposed alternative and its consequences differ from the status quo. In other words, agreement upon policy trumps agreement on citizen values, and policy evaluation relies heavily on the status quo, essentially eliminating the possibility for innovation through democratic discourse or citizen participation. In conclusion, Lindblom (1959) states that it [successive limited comparison] is in fact a common method of policy formation, and is, for complex problems, the principal reliance of administrators as well as other policy analysts, further confirming the rational, top-down, one-way communication, “public administrators know best” characteristics of old public administration.

Kingdon (1984) asserts that policy formation is contained in three streams of processes that comprise the agenda setting process: problems, policies and politics. According to Kingdon (1984), conditions come to be defined as problems when we [government officials, policy entrepreneurs, special interests, political parties] come to believe we should do something to change them, that independently of problem recognition or the development of policy proposals, political events flow along according to their own dynamics and their own rules, and the generation of policy alternatives is best seen as a selection process analogous to biological natural selection, a “policy primeval soup”. Kingdon (1984) goes on to assert that a complete linkage of all three policy streams dramatically enhances the odds that a subject will be placed upon an agenda, however agendas can be set solely in either problem or political streams, and solely by visible actors. In regard to process, Kingdon (1984) states to describe the roles of various participants in agenda setting; a fairly straightforward top-down model, with elected officials at the top, comes surprisingly close to the truth. Again demonstrating the absence of citizen values, discourse and participation, and the non-recognition of democratic principals in the policy formation and agenda setting paradigm of old public administration.

The common threads running through traditional policy formation practices are: too much emphasis upon professional expertise and the results of the process; regulation by bureaucrats who are professionally autonomous “who know better;” policy evaluation relying on the status quo, essentially eliminating the possibility for innovation through democratic discourse or citizen participation; and policies are validated against the policy itself, which remains possible even when agreement on values is not. In summary, the reliance upon the professional expertise of the public administrators, the status quo, the validation of policy formation against the policy created, and the ignorance of citizen values that forecloses upon the space for citizens to participate and for common values to emerge, are the hallmarks of traditional policy formation and old public administration.

Postmodern/Citizen-Centered Policy Formation

To increase the potential for a policy proposal for a special district for park maintenance to succeed in the city of Bozeman, a process differing from the traditional policy models described above should be utilized. According to Miller (2002), in public problem solving, we inevitably must bring lived experience into the picture – not apologetically but as an integral part of the fabric of policy inquiry. In doing so, the power of universal, rational truth is sacrificed for the power of lived experience. Sacrificing the power of universal truth, such as decisions based solely upon economic rationalizations, that greater citizen participation increases inefficiency because participation creates delays and increased red tape (King, et al., 1998), thereby revealing the power of lived experience, such as the existence of parks and how they are maintained contribute to the city of Bozeman’s goal of being “the most livable place,” could be essential in the determination of whether the creation of a special district will solve the City’s park maintenance problems.

Miller (2002) states that discourse is the best way I can think of to make politics democratic. The universals and the abstractions, the images and the slogans, must now be politicized, and democratic discourse is the way to do it. In the current policy formation bureaucracy, one still faces problems with an instrumental, rational based, top-down, one-way communication process. In order to act in a different way, Miller (2002) asserts it behooves us to pay more attention to the discourse going on around us, both its content and form. This means listening to the plurality of perspectives seeking expression at the microlevel. Furthermore, Miller (2002) states that political vibrancy requires relationship, an aspect of pluralistic political analysis that is often ignored. Openness to the other and a willingness to listen are needed. Miller (2002) concludes by stating that democracy is a pluralistic culture where multiple subcultures are able to constitute their purposes, identities, and projects through engagement and judgment, at success in public policy is a matter of solving more problems that have arisen from the experience of life. In order to pay more attention to the discourse around us, to be able to listen to the plurality of perspectives, and to allow the community and its citizens to constitute their purposes and identities in the democratic discourse regarding the policy formation for a special district for park maintenance within the city of Bozeman, a new approach to leadership is desirable (Denhardt, 2007).

Denhardt (2007) states leadership will need to be dramatically reconceptualized. At a minimum, the role of public leaders will be (1) to help the community and its citizens to understand their needs and their potential, (2) to integrate and articulate the community’s vision and that of the various organizations active in any particular area, and (3) to act as a trigger or stimulus for action. This reconceptualization of public leadership is variously described as shared leadership, value-based leadership, and street level leadership. Denhardt (2007) goes on to describe a highly effective form of leadership, one that not only advances the interests of all parties, but also creates a deep enduring bond between them. “Transformational” leadership occurs when leaders and followers engage with one another in such a way that they raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation, which is clearly consistent with the intent of this action research study. Denhardt (2007) concludes the discussion on leadership by stating in the New Public Service, leadership is based upon values and is shared throughout the organization and with the community, and in short, public administrators must share power and lead with passion, commitment, and integrity in a manner that respects and empowers citizenship. Denhardt (2007) goes on to say the traditional command and control form of leadership doesn’t encourage risk and innovation. Quite to the contrary, it encourages uniformity and convention. It is clear, then, a new form of leadership and policy formation, one grounded in discursive democratic elements, is desirable. Universal truth, instrumentalism, rationalization, and hierarchical one-way communication processes need to be sacrificed so the lived experience of the citizens can be brought into the picture and made part of the fabric of inquiry. Discourse with the citizens will be the best way to make the policy formation process democratic, a discourse that places the citizens next to the issue, and the administrative structures and processes furthest away (King, et al., 1998). By bringing lived experience into the picture, engaging in democratic discourse, expressing openness to the other and a willingness to listen, the public administrators can engage the citizens in a process of inquiry to determine the meaning of an issue, and if a policy needs to be formed to address the issue. This form of policy formation could result in a new way for the city officials to determine the importance of parks to the citizens of Bozeman, and if the creation of a special district for park maintenance would contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”.

Action Research

Berg (2009) asserts for action research the emphasis is not so much What information the researcher can gather and then take away from the setting, but, What information can the researcher gather with the assistance of the stakeholders, to be shared and used to actuate change in the setting or situation(s) for personal and social improvement (emphasis per original). Action research is about discussion, decision, and action by ordinary people participating in collective research on ‘private troubles’ that they have in common (Adelman, 1993, as cited by Berg, 2009), which is congruent with engendering discourse where all participants have an equal footing and where one group is not privileged over the other (Habermas, 1975 as cited by King, et al., 1998), or “getting democracy” as described by King, et al. (1998, p. 321).

In her research regarding the effectiveness of student self-assessment in two university courses, Walser (2009) defines action research as being characterized as research conducted by practitioners who implement a study to improve their own practice (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 2004, as cited by Walser, 2009). She also states that reflection is a key component of the action research process (Mertler, 2009, as cited by Walser, 2009) as action research is inherently about examining one’s own practice (McLean, 1995, as cited by Walser, 2009). Although Walser (2009) seems to be focused upon the improvement of her own practice, she does speak to the positive social changes in her students resulting from her action research and implementation of self-assessment exercises in her courses, such as positive feedback from her students such as “thanks for asking” and better relationships with students. Walser’s article points out the opportunity for positive social change resulting from action research, an important anticipated outcome of this study.

A more compelling discussion of action research is presented by Couch (2004) in his examination of the discourses of science, politics and education, the permeability of boundaries between the discourses, and how the interpretation of scientific research are shaped by the discourses in which they are used. Couch (2004) states there are three elements that all action research has in common: research, participation and action. Couch (2004) describes the action research framework as one where democratic values and practices underlie the collaboration between all the parties involved in the research, with all sharing in developing and carrying out the research process, and all being accountable for the outcomes. Finally, a goal of action research is to empower the community or organization to take action to improve its situation. The generation of knowledge and the production of social change are both goals of action research. Couch (2009) asserts that discourses are implicated in and arise out of the power/knowledge relationship between the groups of people that the discourse themselves constitute and regulate, institutional boundaries are porous and discourses overlap, and warns when research findings overlap into political discourse, the thrust of what transpires is governed by the norms and actions of political discourse.

The most pertinent of the action research literature, however, is presented by Berg (2009), where he defines action research as a collaborative, reflective, experiential, and participatory mode of research in which all individuals involved in the study, researcher and subjects alike, are deliberate and contributing actors in the research enterprise (Gabel, 1995; Stringer & Dwyer, 2005; Wadsworth, 1995, as cited by Berg, 2009, p. 247). Berg (2009) states simplistically, one can suggest that the action research process works through three basic phases, namely, looking (gathering information, considering who the stakeholders are, what their interests may be), thinking (making interpretation and offering some explanation about what the researcher has looked at) and action (come to some resolve and use it to take action toward improving the lives of the stakeholders) (emphasis added) (Berg, 2009).

For this study, the following phases provide the action research framework for the project: 1) looking: determination of the stakeholders and their interests; determination of the issues associated with a special district for park maintenance; 2) thinking: interpreting the data collected; reflect upon what the city officials have been doing; determine the common threads and concepts that emerge from the interviews with the city officials and the most effective course of action; and 3) action: perform research of the common threads and concepts; facilitate alignment regarding special district policy formation; originate policy recommendations; and present policy recommendations for the formation of a special district for park maintenance to the Bozeman city commission.

Summary

The advantages that a special district provides, including efficient delivery of public services, financial reach, tax exempt status, quasi-monopolistic service delivery, and the ability to pursue agency vision and mission directives, could assist in addressing the park maintenance challenges faced by the city of Bozeman. Economic rationalization, the elevation of policy values above citizen values, and the foreclosure on public participation resulting from traditional policy formation processes would prevent the city officials from entering into a process of inquiry and relationship with the citizens of Bozeman to determine citizen values. A postmodern/citizen-centered policy formation process, consisting of bringing lived experience into the picture, engaging in democratic discourse, expressing openness to the other and a willingness to listen, could provide the Bozeman city officials the ability to engage the citizens in a process of inquiry to determine the importance of the park experience, and if a policy needs to be formed to create a special district for park maintenance. Action research, then, appears to be an appropriate framework to engage the stakeholders in an inquiry regarding a special district for park maintenance, to research the potential creation of a special district, and for the researcher to advocate a post modern/citizen centered policy inquiry and policy formation process through the action of presenting the results of this study to the Bozeman city officials.

Research Questions

As a result of this literature review, the following research questions emerge:

• What are the challenges associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman?

• What are the policy recommendations to be presented to the Bozeman city commission regarding the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman?

• And how did the citizen-centered policy formation process advocated by the researcher contribute to the city’s vision: “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”?

Case Study Description

In December of 2007 the city of Bozeman adopted the PROST plan to “provide a framework for integrating existing facilities and programs and further developing a system of parks, recreation facilities and programs, open space and trails”. The PROST plan provides set of guidelines for urban planning and development decisions within the city of Bozeman. Furthermore, the PROST plan states the city’s vision as “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”, and the following (Bozeman, 2007, p. 1-1):

“The City’s parks, recreation programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails play a vital role in defining Bozeman as “the most livable place.”

And

“Parks, recreation programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails are community amenities that contribute greatly to the quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman area residents.”

The city of Bozeman has clearly set forth its intention to be the “The Most Livable Place”, and has established the parks, recreation, open space and trails as an integral component to accomplishing the city’s urban planning goals (Bozeman, 2007). Chapter 10, “Recommendations and Implementation”, of the PROST plan, §10.12, provides the “Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations”, one of which being to “Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative” (Bozeman, 2007). However, the PROST plan is silent in regard to the challenges facing the city officials to formulate a policy for the formation of a special district for park maintenance.

This is a case of the city of Bozeman seeking a solution to the park maintenance challenges resulting from the rapid growth within the city limits over the past decade. This case study utilizes action research to look, think and act (Berg, 2009). The researcher, as part of this study, sought to provide leadership with passion, commitment and integrity in a manner that respects and empowers citizenship (Denhardt, 2007), to facilitate a bottom up policy formation process for a special district for park maintenance that emerged as the result of discourse, and equal opportunity for all to enter the discourse and to influence the outcomes (King, et al., 1998).

Methodology

Research Strategy, Framework and Methodology

This study utilizes a qualitative research strategy in an action research framework with a case study design to work with the Bozeman city officials to originate and present policy recommendations to the Bozeman city commission to implement a parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative. Berg (2009) asserts that an action research procedural routine involves four stages: 1) identifying the research question(s), 2) gathering the information to answer the question(s), 3) analyzing and interpreting the information, and 4) sharing the results with the participants. Berg (2009) goes on to say that action research follows a kind of spiraling progression rather than the more traditional linear one. For this action research project, sharing the results with the participants is synonymous with the presentation of policy recommendations to the Bozeman city officials regarding the implementation of a special district for parks maintenance.

The first step in the research methodology consists of semi-structured interviews with key informants consisting of city officials and quasi-City officials. The City officials interviewed consist of the Director of Parks and Recreation, City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Services, Finance Director and the five City Commissioners. The quasi City officials are the fourteen volunteer members of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB), who were interviewed in a public meeting format at the RPAB’s regularly scheduled meeting on May 13, 2010 (this was counted as one interview in the context of data collection). The semi structured interviews consisted of six open ended questions (see Appendix A). The results of the interviews with the city officials were transcribed, coded and analyzed in accordance with the “Analysis” discussion below.

In addition to the interviews performed, various sources were utilized to gather additional data in order to accomplish the action research goal of formulating and presenting a policy recommendation for the creation of a special district for park maintenance to the city of Bozeman. These data sources included, but were not limited to the following: the city of Bozeman departments of Parks & Recreation, Community Development, Finance, Geographical Information Services (GIS); the Gallatin County Recorder’s office; the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB); Peak property Management (managers of the Cattail and Valley West HOA’s in the city); the city of Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department; and the Montana Code Annotated (MCA).

Step two of the action research process consists of gathering information associated with the structure of a special district and other data. The other data gathered consisted of, but was not limited to: 1) a verification and inventory of existing parks owned by the city of Bozeman and parks maintained by the city; 2) acquisition of a listing of business and residential parcels potentially subject to park assessment; 3) determination of approximate maintenance costs for park facilities; 4) determination of HOA dues and an approximation of what percentage of HOA fees are attributable to park maintenance; 5) determination of how much money the city is currently spending on park maintenance, and 6) meetings and discussions with the city officials and citizens.

The information gathered was compiled and shared with the city officials to determine completeness. Again, an iterative process was utilized, consisting of sharing the information gathered with the key informants to determine what additional information would be needed to answer the research questions, gathering of the additional information identified, and sharing the additional information with the city officials through a series of meetings until the information gathered was deemed complete by both the researcher and the city officials. The information being deemed complete by the researcher and the city officials signified the completion of step two of the action research process.

Population

Bozeman city officials and the RPAB were the focus population, and a non-probability purposive sample was utilized to gather the data for step one of this study. Berg (2009) describes a purposive sample as that where the researchers use their special knowledge or expertise about some group to select subjects who represent the population. Purposive sampling is essentially strategic and entails an attempt to establish a good correspondence between research questions and sampling. In other words, the researcher samples on the basis of wanting to interview people who are relevant to the research questions (Bryman 2008). The city officials interviewed for this research paper were selected due to their familiarity with the parks, the parks department, city leadership policies, and the policy origination processes in the city. A total of ten interviews with city officials were performed for this study.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability in qualitative research describes how far a particular test procedure, or tool, such as a questionnaire, will produce similar results in different circumstances, assuming nothing else has changed (Roberts 2006). Reliability can also be thought of as the trustworthiness of the procedures and the data generated (Stiles 1993, as cited by Roberts 2006). Bryman (2008) asserts that reliability is concerned with the question of whether the results of a study are repeatable. One method of assuring reliability of qualitative data is to have an independent researcher verify how much agreement there is about findings and analysis – a form of inter-rater reliability (Weber 1990, as cited by Roberts 2006).

Bryman (2008) states that validity is concerned with the integrity of the conclusions that are generated from a piece of research, and in many ways is the most important research criterion. Validity is assessed in terms of how well the research tools measure the phenomena under investigation (Punch 1998, as cited by Roberts 2006). One form of validity checking is reflexivity, where researchers reflect openly on their own ability, or otherwise, to be unbiased, and to consider the effects of this on the research and on themselves as researchers (Roberts 2006).

The researcher has made every attempt to maximize reliability and validity in the research presented herein. In accordance with that effort, the researcher performed detailed analysis of the literature and the interviews performed, which revealed consistency across the sources regarding special districts. In other words, the data collected across multiple sources did not reveal any grave inconsistencies, which contributes to the reliability and validity of this study. Furthermore, the researcher has provided a reflection upon his experience regarding the development of policy recommendations for a special district for park maintenance to the city of Bozeman. However, given the scope and time challenges associated with this study, additional reliability and validity checking, such as inter-rater reliability and peer review was not performed.

Proposed Analysis

The data collected through the interview process was analyzed utilizing the coding method outlined in grounded theory by Strauss & Corbin (1990, as cited by Bryman 2008). As Charmaz (1983) puts it, “Codes . . . serve as shorthand devices to label, separate, compile, and organize data” (emphasis as in original) (as cited by Bryman 2008). Specifically, the three types of coding practice that Strauss and Corbin (1990, as cited by Bryman 2008) drew from their grounded theory approach were utilized to analyze the data. First, transcriptions were open-coded into nodes or concepts utilizing NVivo9. Secondly, axial coding was performed in order to put the data into constructs by linking codes to contexts, to consequences, to patterns of interactions, and to causes. Thirdly, the data was processed using selective coding in order to select the “core constructs”, systematically relating the constructs together, and filling the constructs that needed further refinement and development.

The overall effort for the analysis of the information gathered in step two of the action research process was to create descriptive accounts based upon the information captured by the various data-collection technologies. Responses to questions (from city official interviews) and statements from field notes (ethnography) were recorded, summarized, and organized into a data file for the project. The summaries of the data collected were then used as a basis for the origination of the policy recommendations for the creation of a special district for park maintenance.

Analysis and Interpretation

Based upon an inductive analysis of the interviews, a concept map (see figure 1) emerges revealing the issues of the citizens as perceived by the city officials associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance. Two core constructs emerged from the analysis of the interviews, the challenges faced by the city, and the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a special district. A third core construct, policy recommendations, emerges as a result of the analysis and the interpretation of the data. The challenges faced by the city officials consist of two categories, fairness and capacity building, which reveal the city officials concerns associated with citizen perceptions and education in regard to changing the current system of how parks are maintained in the city. The advantages and disadvantages consist of four categories, efficacy, financing, other city priorities and local-neighborhood control associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance. The policy recommendations are based upon the conclusions drawn from the challenges and advantages and disadvantages identified in the results of the analysis of the interviews, and the results of the analysis of the structural data.

Most importantly, though, are the common threads between the three core constructs contained in the concept map and the citizen-centered leadership model advocated by Denhardt (2007) and the author; these common threads consist of:

1. City officials helping the citizens to understand their needs an potential through the identification of fairness issues and the building of capacity in the citizenry to understand how a special district for park maintenance could contribute to the accomplishment of the city vision and goals.

2. The city officials working with the citizenry in a discursive and democratic process to verify and identify any additional advantages and disadvantages, integrate the citizen’s views and articulate a shared vision for a special district for park maintenance.

3. City officials acting as a trigger or stimulus for action by originating a policy through participation, democratic discourse, and collaborative efforts with the citizens that expresses the shared vision for a special district for park maintenance, or some equivalent alternative, and then bringing the policy to the citizens for a final decision through a referendum.

The core constructs and selected categories are discussed in further detail below.

Figure 1 – Concept Map Structure

The concept map shows three main core constructs: Challenges, Advantages & Disadvantages, and Policy Recommendations.

• Challenges: City Official Perceptions of Citizen Issues (33 references total)

    ◦ Fairness (20 references)

    ◦ Capacity Building (13 references)

• Advantages & Disadvantages:

    ◦ Efficacy of a Special District (68 references total)

        ▪ Contribution to City values (12 references)

        ▪ Quality of park maintenance (12 references)

        ▪ SD Structure (10 references)

        ▪ More efficient than existing system (9 references)

        ▪ Retain current system (7 references)

        ▪ Divide City into separate districts (4 references)

        ▪ MCA requirements (4 references)

        ▪ Reduced Liability (4 references)

        ▪ County Parks District (3 references)

        ▪ Less efficient than existing system (3 references)

    ◦ Special District Financing (56 references total)

        ▪ How to finance (13 references)

        ▪ A new tax (10 references)

        ▪ HOA dues to City assessment (9 references)

        ▪ Foundation (5 references)

        ▪ Property Assessment – SD (5 references)

        ▪ Separate from General Fund (5 references)

        ▪ Park parcel inventory (3 references)

        ▪ Property Assessment – General Fund (3 references)

        ▪ Recreation Bond (2 references)

        ▪ Out-of-Towners (1 reference)

    ◦ Other City Priorities (13 references total)

        ▪ Stormwater (7 references)

        ▪ Swim Center (3 references)

        ▪ Curbs, sidewalks & streets (1 references)

        ▪ Fire Protection (1 references)

        ▪ Law & Justice Center (1 references)

    ◦ Local-Neighborhood Control (9 references total)

        ▪ Loss of (5 references)

        ▪ Retention of (4 references)

• Policy Recommendations (implicitly influenced by Challenges and Advantages & Disadvantages)

Note: The inclusion of the counts of the properties are included to assist the reader in understanding the “weightiness,” common threads, or themes that emerged within each category; the counts are not the result of a quantitative analysis of the interviews.

Challenges

Fairness.

The common threads regarding fairness were associated with the level of maintenance, park use, and funding. Regarding the level of park maintenance, a number of city officials stated in order for fairness to be achieved, a special district would need to be managed so that all parks in the city would receive the same level of maintenance. One city official commented unfairness would result if all of the parks were not maintained to a certain standard, stating “ . . . the voters will think it’s [the special district] a failure”. Park use and financing appeared to be intertwined, with comments focusing upon issues such as a higher level of fairness that would be accomplished by the special district since no matter what park a citizen would go to the park would have the same level of maintenance, citizens being concerned about paying for park maintenance “even if I don’t use the parks,” and paying for the maintenance of a park “across town that I don’t use”. From an aspect of finance alone, fairness would need to be achieved through fair end equitable funding, “ . . . have that funding be equitable, have that be fair, have that be reasonable”.

For the city to move towards an equitable, fair and reasonable assessment, an offset to existing taxes should be accomplished through the removal of existing funding for park maintenance from the general fund, property taxes should be reduced in an amount commensurate with the removal of the park funding from the general fund, and finally, dues should be reduced in HOA’s that maintain parks in an amount commensurate with the amount the residents are paying for park maintenance.

The fairness issues identified by the city officials can be summarized as follows:

1. The level of maintenance for all parks in the city would need to be established and implemented by a special district.

2. The same level of maintenance for all of the parks in the city will provide an unvarying park use experience resulting in a greater level of fairness for the citizens of Bozeman.

3. Fairness in funding would be realized through general fund property taxes and HOA dues being reduced in amounts comparable with the assessments for a special district.

Capacity Building.

The challenges of capacity building was described clearly and concisely with the question posed by one city official, “Why are we doing this?”. A dominant common theme emerged from the analysis of the interviews, consisting of getting information out to the citizenry so that a shared vision can be created for the policy for a special district for park maintenance. This common theme was demonstrated by comments from city officials that concentrated upon: the citizens need to be provided with information so they can determine the purpose of a special district; a strong case having to be made to the citizens; the pros and cons are well explained to the citizens so it can be seen the creation of a special district is for the long-term common good; “Convincing policy makers, staff and the public that this has value, and it’s an improvement over the way we currently do business;” and, the challenge is getting the citizens to understand what we’re doing and how it is going to work.

Funding of the special district was also present the category of capacity building, with comments in regard to: the policy is known and accepted by the public, “ . . . often when tax increases go through, and they are successful in the public, is because people see direct return;” and the feasibility of the maintenance district needs to be determined and communicated to the citizens, “ . . . essentially overall what that will entail, and more specifically, what’s the financial impact on the tax payers of Bozeman”.

It is clear, then, in order to effectively build capacity with the citizens, city officials need to determine the feasibility and the specific details of a policy proposal for a special district, engage the citizenry in a discursive, democratic discourse, and innovate the policy proposal through the integration and articulation of the citizen’s vision prior to bringing the policy proposal to the citizens for a referendum.

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Special District

Efficacy of a Special District.

Contribution to city values.

Bozeman city values are grounded in the in the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place,” and the city’s mission, “To enhance the quality of life through excellence in public service” (City of Bozeman, 2010b). City values are also expressed by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) through the vision of, “An active community with parks, recreation facilities and programs, trails, and open spaces that are ample in quantity and outstanding in quality to meet the needs of all of our citizens,” and the mission statement of, “To enhance the quality of life of the City’s citizens through the provision of high quality parks, recreation facilities and programs, trails and open spaces” (Bozeman, 2007).

Two major themes emerged from the analysis of the interviews, that the parks, trails and open space in the city of Bozeman: 1) clearly contribute to a livable and attractive community, and 2) contribute to the quality of life for the citizens. These themes were revealed by comments from city officials that spoke directly to the livability and attractiveness of a community, such as, “ . . . parks and recreation and being outdoors is a huge part of what this community really enjoys, that’s why allot of us live here, and so the more of that we provide the community, which I think is good, the more upkeep and all of that it takes,” and, “I think they’re [parks, open space and trails] a valued asset that makes Bozeman’s neighborhoods a good place to live, a good place to raise a family”. One city official postulated a city that didn’t invest in park infrastructure and stated, “I don’t know if I would be attracted to that town, I wouldn’t be interested in the philosophy that governs it, nor the outcome of that philosophy, of a town that simply doesn’t have open space”. The comments regarding quality of life focused upon how the existence and promotion of outdoor recreation by city officials greatly contributes to the quality of life for the citizens of the city, demonstrated by comments that spoke to how outdoor recreation is a hallmark of a city that has an attractive environment.

Therefore, the advantage would be that a special district for park maintenance would contribute to city values through a consistent, high level of park maintenance that would enhance the park experience, and increase the livability of the city and the quality of life for citizens of Bozeman.

Quality of park maintenance.

Comments regarding quality of park maintenance consisted of two major themes, consistency and the possibility of a reduction in the level of park maintenance. The majority of comments spoke to a consistent level and a general, overall improvement in park maintenance resulting from the creation of a special district. One city official summed up the consistency issue by stating, “So when everything is average, it’s all average”. The concerns regarding a reduction in the level of park maintenance focused upon the possibility that a poorly managed district could result in a reduction in service at a higher cost, a special district could be under-funded, under-staffed, and unresponsive, and the possibility that the level of service by a special district would be less than some HOA’s. One city official stated, “I think there’s probably some HOA’s that maintain their parks to a higher level than we would ever maintain them”.

In summary, the advantages would be a special district could provide more consistent and generally higher quality of maintenance for all of the parks in the city, and the disadvantages would be the potential reduction of the quality of maintenance and responsiveness by the parks department due to poor management, under-funding or under-staffing, and the possibility that parks previously maintained by HOA’s would be maintained at a lower level.

More efficient than existing system.

The comments of the city officials regarding efficiency fell into two categories, ease of administration and enhanced delivery of public services. The comments regarding ease of administration predicted that a special district would potentially be easier to administer and budget since the funding is stable from year to year and would not be subject to general fund priorities and demands, with one city official stating, “ . . . you know where the funds are, where they are coming from, and what they are meant to be used for”. Comments regarding enhanced delivery of public services identified a special district for park maintenance would potentially provide better service due to economies of scale, and would provide a better system because the citizens would know who to contact regarding park maintenance issues.

The advantages would be a special district for park maintenance would be more efficient than the existing system due to the stability of the funding, ease of administration, and enhanced delivery of public services.

Montana Code Annotated (MCA).

A number of the city officials made comments about what the MCA requires in regard to the creation and operation of special districts. A synopsis of the requirements of the MCA for a special district is outlined below:

• §7-11-1002 provides definitions for “Governing body,” “Local government,” and a “Special district;” for this case, the governing body is the city commission, and the special district would be a “park district” as defined in §7-11-1002. (3) (b) (note: although the street maintenance district in the city of Bozeman is administered in a similar manner, it is not defined as a special district in accordance with §7-11-1002. (3) (c)).

• A special district may be created by the governing body, or by petition, in accordance with §7-11-1003.

• The governing body must hold a public hearing in accordance with §7-11-1007 to hear public testimony and to adopt a resolution of intent to create a special district.

• An owner of property that is liable to be assessed by the special district has 30 days from the date of the first publication of the notice of passage of the resolution of intent to make a written protest in accordance with §7-11-1008.

• The governing body may order a referendum on the creation of a special district in accordance with §7-11-1011.

• The governing body may create a special district and establish assessments or fees if the governing body finds that insufficient protests have been made in accordance with 7-11-1008 or if the eligible registered voters have approved a referendum as provided in 7-11-1011, in accordance with §7-11-1013.

• The financing of a special district shall be made by assessing the “assessable area” of a lot or a parcel that is benefited by the special district in accordance with §7-11-1024; a number of mechanisms for assessing lots or parcels are defined in this section, including, but not limited to §7-11-1024. (3) (i) which states, “each lot or parcel of land within the special district may be assessed for that part of the cost that its assessable area bears to the assessable area of the entire special district, exclusive of roads, streets, avenues, alleys, and public places”.

The balance of the statutes for the operations of a special district can be found in Title 7, Chapter 11, Part 10, of the MCA (Montana, 2009). The advantage here is the operation of the special district would be governed by the city in accordance with state law, with the disadvantage being that the special district would be tied to the state special district laws, which would result in a loss in flexibility in how to assess parcels in the city.

Liability.

The analysis of the interviews revealed, from a legal perspective, if a park is dedicated to the city, and the park is not maintained by the city, then the city might have liability associated with the park. According to one city official, “If we are not overseeing the liability issues and keeping track of them and mitigating them we may be on the hook at some point. So an advantage of having all dedicated parks under the management of the parks department would be that we have greater oversight of those potential liability issues”. The advantage, then, would be if liability issues do exist for the city, a special district for park maintenance would provide greater oversight, and be able to keep track of and mitigate liability issues.

Special District Financing

How to finance.

Although a number of alternatives for the mechanism to maintain the parks within the city (e.g., retain existing structure, dividing the city into separate special districts, a county-wide park maintenance district) and funding sources (e.g., an additional property tax into the general fund or a park foundation) were discussed by city officials during the interviews, in consideration of the scope and time limitations of this research project a single, city-wide special district for park maintenance (in accordance with MCA Title 7, Chapter 11, Part 10, Special Districts – Creation and Governance) was analyzed. The analysis of a potential financing mechanism for a special district for park maintenance was based upon the framework of the tree maintenance district for the city of Bozeman, in accordance with the recommendations contained in §11.3.3 of the PROST Plan (Bozeman, 2007).

The dominant theme resulting from the analysis of the interviews regarding finance can be summarized by a comment made by one of the city officials, “I think the biggest challenge is obvious, it’s going to be the money”. Nearly all of the city officials stated their concern regarding how a special district would be funded, with comments concerning: who is going to pay for the special district; paying for a special district is going to be difficult; the number one issue is the funding; and “What kind of assessment, what kind of a fee, what kind of a tax would be created if it were determined that these HOA maintained parks should in fact be city maintained parks. Where are we going to come up with the funding to do that?”.

The tree maintenance district is considered a special district in accordance with the MCA. Parcels within the city are assessed based upon an assessable area (square foot (sf)) as follows: residential parcels, R-0 and R-S zoning at actual size; R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning at actual size up to a cap of 15,000 sf, 11,250 sf, and 7,500 sf, respectively; R-4 zoning at actual size up to a cap of 7,500 sf; public parcels, PLI zoning, are assessed at 0.25 x parcel size; and business and commercial parcels are assessed at actual size (L. Clark, personal communication, March 16 and April 10, 2011). Appendix B sets forth an analysis of a funding model, based upon the MCA §7-11-1024 and the tree maintenance district in the city of Bozeman, that could be utilized for the creation of a special district for park maintenance.

Referring to Appendix B, the estimated annual cost to maintain parks provided by the city parks department is $2,313/acre (D. Eisenman, personal communication, March 18, 2011) and the total verified park acreage in the city is approximately 769 acres (Wall, 2010), which would result an annual estimate to maintain all of the parks in the city of $1,778,697, an increase of approximately $751,559 over the existing general fund appropriation of $1,027,138 (A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 31, 2011). Also referring to Appendix B, the approximate average maintenance cost for parks in HOA’s is $2,284/acre, which is comparable to the estimate of $2,313/acre to maintain city parks.

Traditionally, residential parcels are considered to be the generator of recreation demand within a city, so the mechanisms to mitigate recreation demands (e.g., a special district for park maintenance) are typically focused upon residential parcels; such as the case with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.50 of the UDO, Park and Recreation Requirements (Bozeman, 2010a). However, an argument can be made there is a nexus between the use of business, commercial and manufacturing properties and the generation of recreation demands within the city of Bozeman, with the reasoning that quality, well maintained parks draw business customers, new businesses, and employees to city. The argument can be grounded in the Bozeman Community Plan (Bozeman, 2009) and the PROST Plan (Bozeman, 2007).

Community Plan – Chapter 10 Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails:

• §10.1 Intent and Background: “Support and enhance the community’s economy,” and “Bozeman’s facilities and programs contribute to the City’s role as a regional service provider and benefit the local economy.”

• Goal R-3: “Promote business growth and economic development. Rationale: Excellent recreational facilities attract tourists, residents, and businesses to the community.”

• Objective R-3.1: “Encourage economic vitality in the community by providing excellent recreational facilities.”

PROST Plan:

• §1.0 Community Resource 6: Developing the Economy – “Attract knowledge workers and talent.”

• §1.3.2 Guiding Principles: “Support and enhance the community’s economy.”

• §9.1 Goal 14, Objective 1: “Encourage economic vitality on the community by providing recreational facilities that attract tourists, as well as new residents and businesses to our City.”

Therefore, two financing scenarios were analyzed in Appendix B: 1) assessment of residential parcels only; and 2) assessment of all parcels within the city. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 1 below (for the full calculation, refer to Appendix B).

Table 1: Calculation of Approximate Park Maintenance Assessments

Residential Parcels Only:

• Unit SD assessment = $0.0169 /SQ FT

• Average residential parcel size = 7,652 SQ FT Note 1

• Average annual SD assessment = $130 /year

• General fund reduction = $34 /year Note 2

• Net assessment increase = $96 /year

All City Parcels:

• Unit SD assessment = $0.0097 /SQ FT

• Average parcel size = 11,783 SQ FT Note 1

• Average annual SD assessment = $114 /year (All city parcels)

• Average residential parcel assessment = $74 /year (Residential parcels only)

• General fund reduction = $34 /year Note 2

• Net assessment increase = $40 /year (Residential parcels only)

Notes:

1. LaMeres, 2011.

2. A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 31, 2011.

The advantages to providing funding through the creation of a special district for park maintenance would be a step towards the accomplishment of the following Community Plan (Bozeman, 2009) goals and objectives:

• Goal R-1, “Provide for accessible, desirable, and adequately maintained public parks, open spaces, trail systems, and recreational facilities for residents of the community;”

• Objective R-1.3, “Establish regular and sufficient funding sources to acquire, develop and maintain public parks, trails, and recreational facilities, and to meet the community’s recreational programming needs;”

And the following from the PROST plan (Bozeman, 2007):

• §10.12, “Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative;”

• §11.3.3, “A Citywide SID has been discussed for park maintenance, similar to the City’s existing Citywide SID’s for street and tree maintenance.”

A new tax.

A number of city officials stated the citizens of Bozeman would view the assessment associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance as a new tax, with comments expressing concerns such as, a new tax implies the city isn’t doing a good job controlling costs, a new tax would probably not be very popular, and it would be a challenge to get it approved. The disadvantage is clear, the citizens of Bozeman would most likely view an assessment associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance as a new tax.

HOA dues to city assessment.

Two dominant themes emerged regarding this category, the origination of a special district for park maintenance would not be successful unless there was some assurance that property owners in HOA’s having park maintenance responsibilities would not be “taxed twice,” and the city would be able to acquire funds that would otherwise be going to HOA’s for park maintenance. The disadvantage would be that unless the city can find a way to provide assurance to HOA residents their dues would be reduced in an amount commensurate with the city special district assessment, a referendum on a special district for park maintenance would most likely not be supported by HOA residents. On the other hand, the advantage would be if the city can somehow reach agreements with HOA’s to reduce their dues if the city takes over park maintenance, the “taxed twice” issue would be mitigated, and an existing funding stream could be captured to fund the special district and mitigate the perception of a “new tax” on the citizens of Bozeman.

Separate from general fund.

Comments regarding this category focused upon the advantages that would be realized in regard to the impact on the city’s general fund. In 1986, the citizens of Montana passed the citizen-initiated measure I-105 freezing property taxes, effectively placing a cap on the general fund for local governments (Weaver & Lachapelle, 2010). For the current fiscal year (June 2010 – July 2011), the parks department has an approved budget of $1,027,138 in the general fund, representing approximately 4.4% of the general fund’s total appropriations of over $23M, and the city’s all purpose tax levy was 29.03 mills ($2,344,757) below the state imposed cap (A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 24, 2011). If the budget for the parks department, $1,027,138 (the equivalent of 12.7 mills), was funded by a special district and removed from the general fund, that would translate into a reduction of the mill levy on the median home in Bozeman of approximately $34/year (A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 31, 2011). Therefore, referring to Table 1 above, if the mill levy on a median home in Bozeman was reduced by $34, then the net increase for an average sized residential parcel would be approximately $130-$34 = $96/year if only residential parcels were assessed for the special district, and $74-$34 = $40/year if all parcels were assessed in the city of Bozeman for a special district for park maintenance.

If the cost of park maintenance was increased to maintain all of the parks in the city without the creation of a special district, then the parks department budget would increase by approximately $751,500, which would represent approximately 32% of the 29.03 mills ($2,344,757) currently remaining below the state imposed cap, which would most likely result in the city not funding something that is currently in the general fund (A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 24, 2011).

The advantages of the creation of a special district, then, could be the removal of park maintenance costs from the general fund, could provide the parks department with a stable and ongoing funding source for park maintenance, could allow park maintenance fees to be increased without being subject to the general fund cap, and could release money in the general fund to support other city priorities.

Other City Priorities.

A number of city officials commented upon other city priorities in relation to a special district for park maintenance, and how those projects could potentially be a higher priority. Currently, it appears the highest city priority would be the creation of a special district for stormwater quality management, referred to by one city official as a “rain and snow tax”. The requirement for local governments to address stormwater quality has been mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and according to one city official, “ . . . we deferred all this stuff, you know, until the EPA came down and said by golly you’ve got to do it”. A new swim center also appears to be a priority for the city, being referred to by city officials with comments such as, at some point a referendum will need to be put to the citizens for a new swim center, and, “I mean we flat out need a new swimming pool”. And finally, one city official commented, “ . . . a couple of other things in front of the park district are some kind of curb, sidewalk, and street replacement program,” and another city official commented the city needs a new law and justice center.

The other city priorities, especially the “rain and snow tax,” would appear to be disadvantageous to the creation of special district for park maintenance, since, particularly with the “rain and snow tax,” a federally mandated program would take precedence over a non-essential local program.

Local-Neighborhood Control.

City officials commented upon how the creation of a special district for park maintenance would affect the current condition of local-neighborhood control of parks within certain neighborhoods or HOA’s. Two categories emerged, the loss, or the retention of local-neighborhood control of park maintenance. In regard to the loss of local-neighborhood control, city officials expressed concern that citizens would have less flexibility to act on issues affecting the parks in their neighborhood, since under a special district, they would be required to adhere to city processes and requirements. City officials were also concerned citizens might be less motivated to adopt and take care of their park if it is maintained by the city, and local choices regarding neighborhood parks would be taken away (e.g., having a say in the level of maintenance of a neighborhood park).

Regarding retention of local-neighborhood control, city officials stated perhaps maintenance by the HOA’s is exactly what we need to be doing, and some neighborhoods (e.g., Beall Park) have a local neighborhood group that helps maintain their park, but they are volunteers and it is on their time, and went on to say, “ . . . it’s wonderful to have volunteer groups, but you can’t hold them to the task”. Essentially, the city officials expressed concerns the creation of a special district would result in loss of local-neighborhood control, thereby reducing the citizens desire to be involved with their neighborhood park; and by not creating a special district and keeping the status-quo would result in the retention of local-neighborhood control, and perhaps this is exactly what the city needs to be doing. Either way, it appears a disadvantage of a special district for park maintenance is that it will have a negative affect on local-neighborhood control.

Conclusion

We can now draw from the discussion provided so far to address the research questions posed earlier in this study. Each of the research questions is addressed below.

What are the challenges associated with the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman?

The biggest challenges to the creation of a special district identified by the results of this research are fairness and capacity building with the citizens of Bozeman. Three distinct fairness challenges were identified:

1. The level of maintenance for all parks in the city would need to be established and implemented by a special district.

2. The same level of maintenance for all of the parks in the city will provide an unvarying park use experience resulting in a greater level of fairness for the citizens of Bozeman.

3. Fairness in funding would be realized through general fund property taxes and HOA dues being reduced in amounts commensurate with the assessments for a special district.

Fairness, based upon consistent park maintenance that provides the same park experience no matter what park a citizen visits, and that each citizen pays the same for that experience, is comprised of lived experiences that must be brought into the picture as an integral part of the policy inquiry for the creation of a special district for park maintenance (Miller, 2002).

One city official described one of the challenges presented by capacity building is getting the citizens to understand what we’re doing and how it is going to work. In order to build capacity with the citizens of Bozeman, Miller (2002) asserts it would behooves the city officials to pay more attention to the discourse going on around them, both its content and form. Capacity building can aid a group, an organizations or a community in recognizing its own vision and then learning how to move in a new direction (Heifetz, 1994, as cited by Denhardt, 2007). Capacity and community building should be the primary focus of policy implementation, and furthermore, government can’t create community; but government, and more specifically, political leadership can lay the groundwork for effective and responsible citizen action (Denhardt, 2007). Therefore, in order for not only the citizens, but also the city officials of Bozeman to understand “what we’re doing and how a special district for park maintenance is going to work,” capacity building should be accomplished through citizen participation, collective efforts, and collaborative processes (Denhardt, 2007).

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman?

Based upon the literature review and the analysis of the interviews with city officials, the following potential advantages and disadvantages of a special district for park maintenance were identified.

Advantages.

• A special district for park maintenance could give the parks department the ability to accomplish the following city goals by providing a consistent, high level of park maintenance that would enhance the park experience for the citizens of Bozeman (Benton, et al., 2008; Bozeman, 2010b; Bozeman, 2007).

    ◦ Bozeman’s vision: “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place.”

    ◦ Bozeman’s mission: “To enhance the quality of life through excellence in public service.”

    ◦ Bozeman’s goals:

        1. Encourage and promote opportunities for citizenship.

        2. Provide and communicate quality customer service.

        3. Build a strong team of staff, elected officials and citizens.

        4. Anticipate future service demands and resource deficiencies and be proactive in addressing them.

        5. Develop a visually appealing and culturally rich community.

        6. Commit to a strong financial position.

        7. Provide excellent and equitable public services that are responsive to the community within available resources.

    ◦ Bozeman’s Community Plan:

        ▪ Goal R-1: “Provide for accessible, desirable, and adequately maintained public parks, open spaces, trail systems, and recreational facilities for residents of the community.”

        ▪ Objective R-1.3: “Establish regular and sufficient funding sources to acquire, develop and maintain public parks, trails, and recreational facilities, and to meet the community’s recreational programming needs.”

    ◦ PROST plan:

        ▪ “The City’s parks, recreation programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails play a vital role in defining Bozeman as “the most livable place.”” And, “Parks, recreation programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails are community amenities that contribute greatly to the quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman area residents” (p. 1-1).

        ▪ §10.12 (in part): “Evaluate and implement a citywide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative.”

        ▪ §11.3.3 (in part): “A Citywide SID has been discussed for park maintenance, similar to the City’s existing Citywide SID’s for street and street tree maintenance.”

• A special district for park maintenance could create a more consistent and generally higher level of park maintenance for all of the parks in the city because special districts are conducive to both production and consumption efficiency in the provision of local public services (Dilorenzo, 1981), and special districts facilitate service delivery and can overcome geographical, financial and political hurdles (Stephens & Wikstrom, 1998).

• Since a special district has both the advantages of local government (financial reach, tax exempt status, and quasi-monopolistic service delivery) and private corporations (political isolation, management, and flexible financial discretion), a special district for park maintenance could be more efficient than the current system of park maintenance, due to specialization, compartmentalization, ease of administration, and enhanced delivery of public services (Heikkila and Isett, 2007; Foster, 1997).

• A special district would be governed by the city in accordance with state law, which could eliminate discretion on how park maintenance is funded, provide a stable funding source, provide the opportunity for long-term strategic planning, and provide management structure and stability to the parks department.

• A fairer, more equitable system of assessment for parks maintenance could be established through the creation of a special district for park maintenance, since citizens who live in HOA’s that maintain parks would no longer be “double taxed” for maintaining HOA and city parks.

• A special district for park maintenance could reduce the city’s liability exposure since the parks department would maintain all dedicated parks.

• Through the creation of a special district for park maintenance, maintenance costs would be removed from the general fund, which would provide the parks department with a non-discretionary, stable, and ongoing funding source for park maintenance; parcel assessments would not be subject to the general fund cap, and could either reduce the current mill levy on residential parcels, or release money in the general fund to support other city priorities.

Disadvantages.

• Potential underfunding of a special district could result in a lower level of park maintenance and responsiveness due to understaffing and poor management.

• Citizens who currently have local control of their parks through HOA’s would have less flexibility regarding the level of maintenance of their park(s), since the special district would be more bureaucratic because it would be governed by the city in accordance with the MCA state special district laws.

• Unless property taxes were reduced as a result of the removal of park maintenance costs from the general fund, an assessment for a special district for park maintenance could be viewed as a new tax, and could be difficult to get approved by the citizens of Bozeman.

• If assurances were not provided to members of HOA’s that dues would be reduced as a result of park maintenance shifting to the city, then a referendum for a special district for park maintenance would most likely not be supported by citizens living in HOA’s with park maintenance responsibilities.

• A special district for park maintenance could supersede other city priorities, in particular, a special district for stormwater quality management as mandated by the US EPA, as well as a new swim center, a special district for curb, sidewalk and street replacement, and a new law and justice center.

• The city taking over neighborhood and HOA maintained parks could result in the loss of local-neighborhood control, and could diminish citizen desires to be involved with their local-neighborhood park.

What are the policy recommendations to be presented to the Bozeman city Commission regarding the creation of a special district for park maintenance in the City of Bozeman?

The initial step in the formation of a policy for a special district for park maintenance would consist of the city officials engaging the citizens of Bozeman in a process of inquiry and capacity building. Miller (2002) asserts policy inquiry has a long tradition of self-discipline, liberty, democracy, and protection of free speech. This process will recognize that public interest is paramount, and the public interest is identified through the discovery of the needs and the potential of the citizens as the result of dialogue between the city officials and the citizens about mutual or overlapping interests (Denhardt, n.d., 2007).

The City of Kalispell conducted what was considered to be a successful capacity building campaign for the creation of a special district for their parks department in the spring and summer of 2008. Leading up to the referendum, all indicators showed the majority of the citizens of Kalispell supported the special district for parks. The referendum was held in November of 2008, approximately two months after the start of the great recession, and was defeated by the voters. However, voter sentiment and the defeat of the referendum were attributed to the advent of the great recession, not the capacity building campaign conducted by the city officials (M. Baker, personal communication, March 23, 2011).

The following recommendations for a capacity building campaign are modeled after the lessons learned by the Kalispell parks department. However, it should be noted the purpose of a capacity building campaign would be to engage the citizens in reciprocal communication, which will deepen the city official’s understanding, and promote an effective process of determining a common vision between the citizens and city officials for park maintenance in the city of Bozeman (Stivers, 1994); a common vision for park maintenance that may, or may not be, a special district.

• Initially, the city of Bozeman should conduct a cooperative study with HOA’s with park maintenance responsibilities to determine, at a minimum:

    1. How many parks are being maintained by HOA’s;

    2. How many residential units are contained in the HOA’s that maintain parks;

    3. How much does each residential unit pay in HOA fees;

    4. How much of the HOA fees are attributed to park maintenance;

    5. How much would HOA fees would be reduced if a park maintenance district was created;

    6. And how much would the city mill levy be reduced if the budget for park maintenance was removed from the general fund.

• An outreach program should be implemented that covers a wide range of institutional settings, including, but not limited to HOA’s, Neighborhood Councils, Parent Teacher Associations (PTA’s), churches, social and service clubs, sports organizations, etc. The purpose of this outreach program would be to inform the citizens of the city’s desire to engage the citizens in a participatory process to determine the best mechanism (e.g., a special district or some equivalent alternative) to maintain the parks within the city of Bozeman.

• Conduct a work session with the Bozeman city commission, parks department, city administrators, the RPAB, HOA representatives, citizens and other stakeholders to present the background, history, basic information and advantages and disadvantages, encourage feedback and promote discourse regarding the proposed special district, or some equivalent alternative, for park maintenance.

• Based upon the results of the work sessions, create a parks information, team consisting of members of the parks department, the RPAB, city officials, and interested citizens to visit citizen-based clubs within the city of Bozeman. The purpose of this information team would be to present information and engage the citizens in reciprocal communication and democratic discourse to create a shared vision for the best mechanism to maintain the parks within the city of Bozeman.

• The parks information team should visit local radio talk shows to disseminate information and promote reciprocal communication and democratic discourse with citizens.

• Create a blog on the city of Bozeman web site where the schedule for public information sessions, talk radio programs, and new information can be posted, and how the citizens of Bozeman can participate in the creation of a shared vision for the maintenance of parks within the city of Bozeman.

• Create a facebook page to post information from the city of Bozeman blog page.

• Create an electronic newsletter and obtain email addresses of involved citizens for distribution.

• The parks information team should compile, address, and answer questions from the citizens, and provide timely responses to the citizens through the City of Bozeman blog, face book page, and electronic newsletter.

• The overarching goal for the capacity building campaign would be for the city officials to develop the kind of relationship with the citizens that would allow the best mechanism for park maintenance to emerge; in order to accomplish this goal, the parks information team should:

    ◦ Create value with the citizens by participating with the citizens and distributing information to the citizens of Bozeman at least once a week.

    ◦ Consistently encourage the citizens to participate in reciprocal communication and provide feedback to the parks information team and city officials.

    ◦ Operate in a responsive, prudent, and transparent manner in order to consistently and persistently build relationship and accountability with the citizens, by continually asking the citizens “what we want to do next” (McSwite, 1997, p. 261).

• The capacity building campaign should be conducted for approximately twelve months.

Upon completion, the city officials should proceed with the formation of a policy proposal based upon the information gathered during the capacity building campaign. One of the intended outcomes of the capacity building campaign is to develop a common language and common values between the city officials and the citizens of Bozeman to facilitate the formation of a policy proposal that will identify the needs and potentials of the community, integrate and articulate the community’s vision, is fair, addresses the advantages and disadvantages, and acts as a trigger or stimulus for the citizens of Bozeman to take action and approve a referendum for the special district, or some equivalent alternative, for park maintenance (Denhardt, 2007).

The recommended process for the formulation of a policy proposal for a special district, or some equivalent alternative, for park maintenance is provided below:

• The city officials should prepare a policy proposal, in conjunction with the parks information team, based upon the information gathered during the capacity building campaign.

• The city should perform a start-up study that would analyze, at a minimum, the additional staffing and capital expenditures required to maintain all of the city parks, to be included in the policy proposal (A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 31, 2011).

• Conduct a series of work sessions (instead of formal public hearings) with the Bozeman city commission, the parks information team, parks department, city administrators, the RPAB, HOA representatives, citizens and other stakeholders to assure that shared community values are identified and are integral to the policy proposal.

• Gauge community support through citizen surveys, letters to the editor, and feedback from citizens through the City of Bozeman blog and facebook page.

• Based upon the results of the work sessions, the city officials should originate a final policy and conduct a formal public hearing to adopt a resolution of intent to create a special district in accordance with the MCA §7-11-1007, or some equivalent alternative.

• The process for the formation of a policy proposal and the adoption of a resolution of intent should last approximately 18 months, which would allow the referendum to be placed on the general election on November 6, 2012.

An overarching responsibility for the city of Bozeman officials through the process of inquiry, capacity building, creating a common vision for park maintenance, policy origination, referendum, and policy implementation will be to assure that democratic processes are maintained and that ultimately the public interest is served (Denhardt, n.d.). Furthermore, the above process would give the Bozeman city officials the opportunity to create accountability with the citizens by attending to law, community values, political norms, professional standards and citizen interests, foster citizenship, and to identify, create, and manage public values through a highly effective form of leadership, one that not only advances the interests of all parties, but also creates a deep enduring bond between them (Denhardt, n.d., 2007).

How did the citizen-centered policy formation process advocated by the researcher contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”?

This research project was conceived in November 2010 at a meeting between the author and Mr. Sean Becker, who had just been elected as the new mayor for the city of Bozeman. The author’s intention was to enter into an inquiry with Mr. Becker to determine if there was a project that had been tabled at the city that could be utilized as a research project to satisfy the professional research paper requirement for the author’s Masters in Public Administration (MPA). What was identified at that meeting was the evaluation and origination of policy recommendations for a special district for park maintenance, as it turns out, a project that had been sitting on the “back-burner” at the city of Bozeman for about the last ten years. Along with the studies in the MPA program, the author offered a unique skill set to accomplish the project, developed though working with local governments during sixteen years owning a Land Planning and Civil Engineering practice. The author has also been a quasi-city official with the city of Bozeman for the past three years, being a member of the Design Review Board.

At the inception of the project, working in partnership with the city to evaluate and provide policy recommendations to the Bozeman city commission appeared to be a “win-win” from many perspectives, including, but not limited to: becoming a member of the city of Bozeman team in accordance with the city’s core value of “Teamwork: Respect others, welcome citizen involvement, and work together to achieve the best result” (Bozeman, 2010Bb); to work in partnership with the city to achieve the city goals of, “1. Encourage and promote opportunities for citizenship,” and, “3. Build a strong team of staff, elected officials and citizens” (Bozeman, 2010b); the opportunity to facilitate the development of a town-and-gown relationship between the city of Bozeman and Montana State University; satisfying the professional paper requirement for the author’s MPA program; and being in service and a committed citizen to the city of Bozeman through the accomplishment of a significant project.

The author’s initial research identified an essential item to be researched for the project, the identification and verification of all of the park parcels owned by the city of Bozeman. This was identified as an essential item because unless the actual number of park parcels was known by the City with a high level of accuracy, only then would any policy recommendations for the creation of a special district for park maintenance have credibility with the city commission, and in particular, the citizens of the city of Bozeman. The MPA curriculum encourages an internship with an organization, so the author created an internship with the city to verify all of the park parcels, which was completed by the author in conjunction with the GIS department in the summer of 2010. The park parcel verification process resulted in the verification of 325 city owned park parcels consisting of 769 acres (Wall, 2010). An unanticipated outcome of the park parcel verification was the provision of a long desired, highly accurate data set to the city of Bozeman GIS department, which provided the basis to complete the City of Bozeman Park Inventory web site, http://gis/bozeman.net/park_inventory, where any member of the public can, among other things, search and view park parcels, and retrieve the plat for any city owned park parcel.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1982), in part, defines a citizen as, “A resident of a city or town, esp., one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there”. Tocqueville (1969, as quoted by Denhardt, 2007) defines citizenship as a way of life that involves a commitment to the community and to its members, a significant level of involvement in public affairs, and an occasional willingness to put one’s own interest below those of the broader society, what he later called “self-interest properly understood”. Weaver & Lachapelle (2010) note the Montana’s 1972 constitution explicitly state the people of Montana have the right to participate in the decisions of their state and local government (Section 8), and the right of the people to know, examine and observe the deliberation of all public bodies (Section 9) (emphasis per original). The common threads of citizenship that emerge from these definitions are commitment, involvement, and participation, clearly synonymous with the espoused values of the city of Bozeman (Bozeman, 2010b).

Reflecting upon the author’s experience as a collaborative and participative researcher and citizen of the city of Bozeman, the question then is, was the experience of the internship and the completion of the research project for a special district for park maintenance with the city of Bozeman consistent with the citizen-centered policy formation process advocated by the author, and more importantly, did the citizen-centered policy formation process advocated by the author contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”?

For the most part, the author’s experience throughout the process of working with the city of Bozeman was that of dealing with an organization grounded in old public administration. To begin with, the origination and execution of the internship contract became mired in the city seeking to discover the most predictable, regularized, and “correct” procedures and rules to implement the internship, and then used management techniques and controls to ensure that people in the organization did what they were supposed to do (Denhardt, 2007). This was demonstrated by the city initially executing the contract with Mr. Becker as the internship supervisor, then the city deciding it would be more procedurally “correct” for the city manager to be the internship supervisor, then the Human Relations department determining that it would be procedurally “incorrect” for the city manager to be the internship supervisor, finally ending up back to Mr. Becker being the internship supervisor. This process resulted in multiple contract iterations, and over a month of non-productive time waiting for the city to internally discover the most predictable, regularized and “correct” way to execute an internship contract with a graduate student. Furthermore, upon completion of the internship and the park parcel verification (approximately 300 hours of work), not a single city official acknowledged its completion, leaving the author with the experience that providing acknowledgement might be an inefficient use of a city official’s time, or perhaps, be democratic.

Other tenants of old public administration were revealed through working the city on the origination of this professional paper, consisting of a top-down, hierarchical, and unidirectional organization, with the public administrators executing policies passed by the commission as neutrally as possible, the sole focus being on the management of the city and the people who were responsible for providing city services and functions in support of enacted policy, as well as the predominant value being efficiency, and delivering city services at the lowest cost consistent with the law (Denhardt, 2007). During the research process, the city officials and staff members were personable, courteous, and willing to assist and provide information when requested, however, the author’s experience was more of an individual on the outside looking in, certainly not a member of a “ . . . strong team of staff, elected officials and citizens” (Bozeman, 2010b). Furthermore, during the research, the city officials seemed to be preoccupied with the best way to achieve an efficient, neutral, and law-abiding administration, where thinking strategically and implementing programs democratically were both inappropriate and unnecessary (Denhardt, 2007).

Denhardt (2007) asserts the primary focus of citizen-centered policy formation is citizen engagement and community building. Peter deLeon (1992) argues convincingly, for example, that by placing greater emphasis on democratic, participative forms of implementation, combined with a more postpositivist methodology, we will gain a much better understanding of how policy origination and implementation can be successful, which is really the point of this study, which is to define the process for the city of Bozeman to originate and implement a successful policy for a special district for park maintenance, or some equivalent alternative.

Based upon the research, the analysis and the conclusions presented in this paper, it can be seen the creation of a special district for park maintenance could enhance the park experience and the quality of life for the citizens of Bozeman, thereby contributing to the city’s vision, “Bozeman, The Most Livable Place”. However, as long as the city of Bozeman retains the leadership framework of old public administration, where the city officials are focused upon legal and political standards, and insist upon designing and implementing policies based upon limited, politically defined objectives (Denhardt, 2007), originating and implementing a successful policy for a special district for park maintenance seems unlikely.

It is unclear whether the citizen-centered policy formation advocated by the researcher will contribute to the city’s vision, “Bozeman, The Most Livable Place,” only time will tell. What is clear though, is that in the absence of the city officials adopting a dramatically reconceptualized leadership framework, a citizen-centered framework focused upon citizen engagement and community building, the city of Bozeman will find it inherently and increasingly more difficult to accomplish the city’s vision of “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place”.

References

Benton, J. E., Byers, J., Cigler, B. A., Klase, K. A., Menzel, D. C., Salant, T. J., Streib, G., Svara, J. H., & Waugh, William L. (2008). Service challenges and governance issues confronting american counties in the 21st century: an overview. State & Local Government Review, 40(1), 54-68.

Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (Seventh ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bollens, J. C. (1957). Special district governments in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bollens, S. A. (1986). Examining the link between state policy and the creation of local special districts. State & Local Government Review, 18(3), 117-124.

Bozeman, City of. (2007). Parks, recreation, open space and trails plan. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman.

Bozeman, City of. (2009). Bozeman community plan. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman.

Bozeman, City of. (2010a). Unified Development Ordinance. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman.

Bozeman, City of. (2010b). Approved operating and capital improvement budget: Fiscal year 2010-2011. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman.

Bozeman, City of. (2011). City of Bozeman park inventory. Retrieved from http://gis.bozeman.net//park_inventory/.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (Third Edition ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Carr, J. B. (2006). Local government autonomy and state reliance on special district governments: a reassessment. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 481-492.

Cook, B. (1996). Bureaucracy and self-government. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Couch, S. R. (2004). A tale of three discourses: doing action research in a research methods class. Social Problems, 51(1), 146-153.

deLeon, P. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 125-129.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (n.d.). Governance process and the new public service: An issue paper prepared for the ASPA strategic planning conference.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service; serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Dilorenzo, T. J. (1981). Special districts and local public-services. Public Finance Quarterly, 9(3), 353-367.

Foster, K. A. (1997). The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238-248.

King, C., Feltey, K., & Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Admministration Review, 58(4), 317-326.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

LaMeres, B. (2011). Bozeman Parcels Maintenance Districts. Bozeman, MT: LaMeres, B.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

McSwite, O. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration; A discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Miller, H. T. (2002). Postmodern public policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Roberts, P., et al. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 41-45.

Montana, State of. (2009). Montana Code Annotated. Helena, MT: State of Montana.

Stephens, G. R., & Wikstrom, N. (1998). Trends in special districts. State & Local Government Review, 30(2), 129-138.

Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.

The American Heritage Dictionary: Second college edition. (1982). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wall, R. (2010) A report for the internship with the city of Bozeman. Bozeman, MT: Wall, R.

Walser, T. M. (2009). An action research study of student self-assessment in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 299-306.

Weaver, K. L., & Lachapelle, P. R. (2010). Governing Montana at the grass roots level. Bozeman, MT: Local Government Center.

Appendix A

City of Bozeman Parks Maintenance Special district Interview Protocol

After reading the Informed Consent, I will begin with the following:

“Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. To give you some background on my project, I am working on developing a set of focused questions for my research project that is a requirement for the completion of my Masters in Public Administration program at Montana State University in Bozeman. As an official of the City of Bozeman, the information you provide will assist me in developing the questions to research the creation of a special district, or equivalent alternative, for parks maintenance within the City of Bozeman. This interview consists of six broad questions.”

1. What do you want to know about the creation of a special district for park maintenance within the City of Bozeman?

2. What do you see as the potential challenges to the formation of a special district for park maintenance?

3. What do you see as the potential advantages of a special district for park maintenance?

4. What do you see as the potential disadvantages of a special district for park maintenance?

5. What do you see as the possible funding mechanisms for a special district for park maintenance?

6. What do you see as the possible alternatives to provide the services as a special district would for parks maintenance?

Appendix B

Calculation of Approximate Park Maintenance Assessments

City of Bozeman Maintained Parks

• Comments: Includes trail maintenance

• Irrigated/Developed = 252 acres

• Non-irrigated/Non-developed = 185 acres

• Total maintained parkland = 437 acres

• Non-parkland = 40 acres

• Total = 477 acres Note 1

• Approximate maintenance unit cost = $2,313 /acre Note 1

• Approximate total cost = $1,103,301

• Verified park acreage = 769 acres Note 2

• Approximate cost to maintain all park acreage = $1,778,697

Approximate HOA Park Maintenance Costs Note 3

Cattail Creek:

• Mowing $23,513

• Fertilization $3,260

• Weed control $2,925

• Trail maintenance $556

• Snow removal $5,158

• Approximate total budget = $35,411 Includes trail maintenance

• Approximate park acreage in Cattail = 18.8 acres Note 4

• Approximate unit cost = $1,884 /acre

• Approximate number of units = 500

• Approximate park maintenance cost per unit = $71 /year

• Yearly dues = $168 /unit

• Yearly dues less park maintenance = $97 /unit

Valley West:

• Park/lawn maintenance $43,423

• Sprinkler system $9,110

• Weed control $2,925

• Snow removal $6,000

• Approximate total budget = $61,458 Includes trail maintenance

• Park acreage in Valley West = 22.9 acres Includes open space, Note 4

• Approximate unit cost = $2,684 /acre

• Approximate number of units = 457

• Approximate park maintenance cost per unit = $134 /unit

• Yearly dues = $350 /unit

• Yearly dues less park maintenance = $216 /unit

Average HOA Park Maintenance Costs:

• Average park maintenance cost per acre = $2,284 /acre

• Average park maintenance per lot = $103 /year

Proposed Park Maintenance SD

Residential Parcels Only:

• Total assessable parcel area = 105,087,277 SQ FT Note 5

• Approximate total park maintenance cost = $1,778,697

• Unit SD assessment = $0.0169 /SQ FT

• Average residential parcel size = 7,652 SQ FT

• Average annual SD assessment = $130 /year

• General fund reduction = $34 /year Note 6

• Net assessment increase = $96 /year

All City Parcels:

• Total assessable parcel area = 183,221,473 SQ FT

• Approximate total park maintenance cost = $1,778,697

• Unit SD assessment = $0.0097 /SQ FT

• Average parcel size = 11,783 SQ FT

• Average annual SD assessment = $114 /year All city parcels

• Average residential parcel assessment = $74 /year Residential parcels only

• General fund reduction = $34 /year Note 6

• Net assessment increase = $40 /year Residential parcels

Notes:

1. D. Eisenman, personal communication, March 18, 2011 .

2. Wall, 2010 .

3. D. Hillman, personal communication, March 18, 2011 .

4. Bozeman, 2011 .

5. LaMeres, 2011 .

6. A. Rosenberry, personal communication, March 31, 2011 .