bes t prac t i ces Money on the Table Park and recreation directors too often fail to utilize the valuable funding potential of parkland dedication. By John L. Crompton 40 Parks & Recreation I n most A m erica n citie s where builders and subdivision builders want to do business, they must agree to requirements by the local governments that mandate dedication of land or payment of fees to be used for acquiring and developing park facilities. It's a common strategy that facilitates new development without burdening existing residents. Call it a user fee, since the cost of generating demand for new park facilities should be borne by the developer, landowner, or new homeowner. Parkland dedication ordinances therefore tend to come under the purview of city planning departments. Elected officials view the mechanism as a partial solution to their capital funding problems. And for park administrators, parkland dedication would appear to be a valuable source of funding for park administrators. Yet in a recent analysis, the overarching conclusion is the ordinance is grossly underused. Their unrealized potential suggests that many park and recreation directors have not taken a proactive role in the development and promotion of these ordinances. This is unfortunate given that many agencies are struggling to find resources to expand and/or renovate their park systems. Parkland dedication ordinances offer a mechanism for doing this, but the field's leaders in a community must be centrally involved in advocating for the improvement and enhancement of these ordinances if their great potential is to be realized. MARCH 2 0 1 0 w w w . NR P A . ORG