April 2012 - Parks & Recreation - 49

" I feel like it is the ultimate example of giving up, when a government decides that they no longer can effectively manage a
recreation resource, " O'Rourke says. " NRPA has schools, seminars, classes, and programs currently in place that can assist
any agency with becoming a successful business enterprise. It
isn't as if there is not a multitude of examples of effective recreation management in governments. "
O'Rourke has concerns, shared by many park and recreation
professionals, about the nature and impact of a private for-profit
business model. When the emphasis is exclusively on profit, other key aspects of operating parks and recreation programs suffer, he says.
" A privately operated park that exists only for people with
money has nothing to do with public parks and recreation, "
O'Rourke says. " For most government recreation agencies our
main emphasis is on our mission, our vision, and our values. For
us, the events, programs, and parks that we manage all are tools
used to make our communities better. For a private business it
is about making a profit. "
O'Rourke believes an emphasis on money and fees can get
in the way of the bigger picture. " Some of the most successful
recreation agencies in the country charge few fees, " he says.
" For example, the Houston Park and Recreation Department is
arguably the best agency in the country and they collect very
few fees. They are great because they know why they exist, and
I would stack their management up against any private recreation company.
" I find it unbelievable that a community would let private business make money on public land, " he continues. " I think elected
officials will open themselves up to legal challenges when the
citizens who paid for the parks through their tax millage for capital projects are kept from using their land because they cannot
afford the fees that the new private businesses are charging. "

Degrees of Partnership
At this point in time, outsourcing the management of the entire
operations of the traditional park and recreation model is still
more a notion than a reality. State parks appear to be the category most likely to be courted by the private sector. That's a model
that dovetails more easily with the experience of programs outsourced by the Forest Service.
Maricopa County, Arizona, however, embodies many of the
elements of the more universal public-private partnership models. R.J. Cardin, director of the Phoenix-area county's department of parks and recreation, has seen mostly pluses in his
relationship with private vendors.
" We do many public-private partnerships at Maricopa County, " Cardin says.  " Much like a good stock portfolio, we have tried
to diversify our service delivery system. One, we have a dedicated staff that provide direct service through facility maintenance,
development, and interpretive/educational programming. Two,
we have an impeccable volunteer corps that nearly triples our
staff during the peak season. Volunteers provide everything from

maintenance to customer service to guided hikes and other programs. Three, we work with other government and not-for profit
organizations to develop facilities and programs that are mutually beneficial-such as the wildlife viewing ponds and watchable wildlife programs that we have partnered with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife and our State Game and Fish Department. Fourth,
and finally, we have been very successful in developing publicprivate partnerships that supplement our operating budget, and
more importantly, provide recreation facilities and services that
we could not otherwise provide. "
Cardin says that in most instances, his agency views " privatization " as service privatization. In this interpretation, government
pays a contractor to provide public services or the government
receives money for the lease of revenue-producing facilities or assets. In some instances, Cardin says, that could be an entire park.
" We tend to have a different approach in that we look at
these truly as public-private partnerships, " Cardin explains.
" We look to the private provider to not only come in and provide
service but also to invest in the parks by putting capital development into the parks. In return, our residents benefit through additional amenities and we generate revenue that can be used for
other services and programs. We look to our residents and visitors to express their facility and program needs and we find the
most efficient and effective manner to provide for that need when
feasible. "
Private partners contribute approximately 20 percent to Maricopa's overall park system operating budget. Those partners
handle approximately 24 percent of
the agency's annual visitation of 2.1
million visitors.
Maricopa's model does have
downsides, Cardin says. He worries
about the potential for pricing visitors out of agency programs as well
as the additional level of management needed to monitor private providers. When a contractor takes over
For most
a property or facility, there can also
be a loss of control. Such arrange- government
ments are often open legal chal- recreation
lenges from various sectors, Cardin
agencies our main
advises. Lastly, he says, there should
be concern about " private providers emphasis is on
who do not share your mission re- our mission, our
lated to environmental education or
vision, and our
environmental stewardship. "
One criticism leveled at private values
park managers is the potential for
-Tom O'rourke,
" cherry-picking " the best opportuexecutive Director,
nities, leaving less viable locations
Charleston County Park &
recreation Commission
to weather fiscal storms on their
own. Meyer says agencies most often prevent this by spreading less

w w w . N R P A . O R G    A P R I L 2 0 1 2    Parks

& Recreation

47
April 2012 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of April 2012 - Parks & Recreation
