University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 1979 Regional Planning and the Special Purpose District: A Case Study of Rhode Island John F. Lenox University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation Lenox, John F., "Regional Planning and the Special Purpose District: A Case Study of Rhode Island" (1979). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 624. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/624 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REGIO AL PLANNING AND THE SPECIAL URPOSE DISTRICT : A CASE S'IUDY OF RHODE ISIAND BY JOHN F. IENOX /1 THESIS PROJECT SU1 I':FT"'D IN PARTIAL PULFIW""' OF THE REQUIREIB!JTS FOR THE !EGREE OF T'!ASTE? OF CO. f'TI _ MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING THE SI S-PROJECT of JOHN F. LENOX APPROVED : DEPARTMENT C UNIVER SITY OF RHODE ISLAND 1979 (iv) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In comp leting a task such as t his it s virtually impossible not to accrue a number of debts . I wish to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to th s work , bot h in substance and i n moral support . Specific thanks are offered to Dr. Riad Mahayni , who s responsible for kindling my interest in .regional planning ; to Dr. Denn s Muniak , my advis r and Major Professor; a d to Diane Long , my typist. Finally, particular thanks are offered to my parents, whose confidence through the years, and whose under­ standing as to why I couldn ' t come home very often to visit recent ly made my work alot easier. (v) TA BLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Ackno "le gernent s ........•. ...... ... .. ... .. .. .. iv '11able of Co nt e nts. v List o f Tables . .... ..... ..... ....... ... .. .. vi Tabl e of Diagrams . ... ... ... ......... .... .. vli Introduct ory Comment s ........... ~... ... .......... 1 Chapt e r I : Regional Planning and he Special Purpose D tri ct · · · ... 2 A) Ba e kgr ound. • . • . 2 B) The Spec a l Dist r ct: orkable De n tion ... ... 5 C) ationa l Overview . .. ... .. ...... .. 7 D) A Reg on a l Pl n ng Commen ar y . 111 E ) E a 1 ua t i on . 16 II : The pec ial Pur pose D s tr~c I n Rhode Isl r .. .. .. 19 A) ethodo logy . .. .... .•... .. .. • . 19 B eneral Ove r view... .... ... ·. • . • . 2 2 C Inventory of Spec a l D s ·r _cts ...... 27 D) F un ct~onal Analys . .. .... ..... 79 III : onc lus ons and Re commendat ions .. .... .. 90 Concluding Remar ks ... ... ..... ...... .. .. .. 103 Selected Bi bliography .. .... ... .. .. ... ... 105 (vi ) LIST OF TABLES TABLE IA : Units of Local Go vernment i n the Unite d States, 1942 - 1977 - ............. ....... .. .. 4 IB: Size of Special Di stricts i n the United States by Relative Percent .. .. .. ........ .. 8 IC : Special District Functions by Number and Percent ...... .... .. ........ ... .. .. .. 9 IIA : Number of Special Districts in the State of Rhode Island : 1952 , 1962 , 1967 , 197 2 ' 1977 ..... .. .. .... •...... .. ... 19 IIB: Numb er of Specia l Districts i n Rhode Island by County and Municipality , 1979 . ..... ... ...... .. ...... .. .. ... 25 IIC : Services Provided Through Special District Device by Numbe r of Districts Providing Them . ........... .. ........ ... ... .. .. .. 27 IIIA : Projected Population for Town of Coventry , 1970- 2000 .. .. .. ... .. ....... ....... 96 (vii) TABLE OF DIAGRAMS PAGE Diagram IIa : State of Rhode Island ................. ~ Towns in Rhode Island According to Included Special Districts Diagram IIb: Burrillville .... ............ .. ...... 30 IIc : Charlestown/Westerly . ......... ....... 34 IId : Coventry . ...................... .. ...... 38 Ile : Cumberland ............................. 43 !If: East Greenwich ............ ............ 45 Ilg: Glocester .. ......... .. .. .. .. ..... ... 48 IIh: L ncoln . .......... .. ..... .. ... .. .. .. 51 II1: Narragansett . .......................... 55 IIj: orth Kingstown . .•.... .. .. .......... 57 IIk: North Providence/Smith eld ..... ...... 59 IIl: Portsmouth . ............................ 61 IIm: Smithfield/North Prov dence ............ 63 IIn : South Kingstown .... ............ .. .... 66 IIo: Tiverton . ....... .... ... ......... ... 70 IIp: Warwick . .. ........ .... .. .. ... ...... 73 IIq: Westerly /Charlestown ................... 75 hrough the years, the special purpose district has quiet y been Pxpan ing and growing more important. rhis is true b:> h in our own state of ho e Islan , as well as across the nation . Today the special district plays a very significant role in the governmental pattern of the United States. In icators of their importance incl e their number, geogr phica extent , unctions, and finances. Despite the importance of this emerging power the special district i s often i gnored and seldom understood, s the istrict device comes into increasing use it is irnport~t that the tanner und.Prstand what it is, what it can be used for , and what imp ications this special administrative and financing device may have upon planning at a11 levels of government. It is the ' ntention of this paper to Pva1uate the special purposP istrict in terms of the general princi les of r gional planni ng, and to relate this study specifical to the State of Rhode Is and. Chapter I consists of background regarding the role f the spPcial distri t, a definition of terms , a nationa ovPrviev.·, an a regional p anning commentary. hapter II dPa s specifica ly with the ro e of the specia district in Rho Is and and provides a detai ed current inventory. Chapter I I presen s conclusions which are drawn from the study, as v.·e as resultin J recommendations. The Rubstance of thiR paper ref ects etailed research, ann ysis, and pr ctic 1 r~comm n ation.:. It provides a better undPrstanding of an important lasso go ern1enta units. ( 2 ; ) B~CKGRO ND One of the recurring problems faced by government is the question of how to perform functions which do not conform to estab ished or Pasily recognizable boundaries. This problem is not unique t o the r ni .ed t3tes, but rat r it h a s been c ommon to al societies through the ages. Wnrs have been fough over imaginary lines of boundary and much energy has gone into servicing lands and people which are divided only by n l i ne on the map. The historian can go back through the years and gather many examples of the problem referred to hPre. Perha s the c1earest example and one which is rrost -v.-idely known , is the boundary ispute ''hich occurred between Spain and Port gal upon the iscovery of the New World by Columbus. Each government believed that they had certain rights of exp oration an settlement in the \ mericas and they turned to ope i\lexand r VI to make a decision . "Line of -;)emarcation'' ··as arbitrari y dra1.<n through South \merica , with lands to the w st to be recognized as Spanish, and those to the east as ortugese. The initial support for this arrangement soon dissolved f or the ocation of the imaginary line had no rational basis. -dmi tedly, this examp e represents an extreme case which occurred almost five centuries ago. However, the same basic sort of problem exists today in our own countr y in regards to governmental boundaries. The Tnited states is organized as a federal system, with ( ~I many s~parate governmenta bo ies coming tog~ther in what some be ieve to be a hierarc1ica fashion. Goodman and reund cl~im t1a the relationship between these bodies may be cl~ssified into two general ategories for thP purpose of rii scu ssi on. 1) Vertical Relationships: rhe link between jurisdictions to governments of higher and broader jurisdictions. 2) Horizontal Relationships~ \ government • s relation with its nei ghbors across adjacent boundary lines. In the discussion at hand we are primarily concerned wit 1 those relationships classified as "horizontal . " It is extremely important that we understand the associated interaction and at empt to refine it in a rational manner. The particular perspective taken here to analyze cer.ain relationships in ~merican government is that of " regional pl;'\nning," \n explanation of this perspective is in order. The 7",merican Institute of Planners in their cons ti tu ti on defined p anning as that particular sphere of activity which deals -vdth: the unified deve opment of urban communities and their environs, and of states, regions , and the n tion, as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses, land occupancy , and the regu ation thereof . ;1though this definition does provide a general framework regarding the role of the planner, much is eft open for persona interpretation. It is useful to emphasi ze that pl nning is concerned with rational advancement and with preparation for the future as opposed to mere reaction to present occurrences. The term "regional planning" generally ( ,, refers to the application of basic planninJ p1inciples to an area 'Khich " cu ts across the existing boundaries of government to embrace some under lying social, economic or natural ent1' t y . " 2 This brings us back to our initi al to ic regarding the problems of governmental boundaries. The United states Bureau of the Census co ducts a ensus of 3overnments every f i ve years. This process of enumeration is an attempt to get somewhat of a ho d on the structure of ·merican government, at least to the point of having basic reference data . One needs on y to c cunt the stars on our flag to know the number of state governm01ts. However, it is the determination of total sub-state units which becomes quite a bit more confusi ng. Table I\ show~ the number of units of local government in the United States between 1942 and 1 977. T ~L R I ------ I T T J<" u F ~, 194?-1 977 Coun s 3, 0 3,0S? 3,oc;o 3,04 3,049 ,0 44 3,04 M ni<'ipa i i es 16, 22 16,807 17 ,?15 18,000 ~ 048 'C) 17 , 862 Tow hips 18,9 9 7 ,202 17 , 198 7 14? 17, oc; 16 991 ,822 chool istr· c s 10 8, 579 fl7' 55 50, 454 14, 678 21, 782 15 781 15 , 174 on-, choo pecial i r icts 8, 99 ?,140 11l ' 424 18, 32 21' 24 ?3, 85 25 '962 To al 15 5, 67 111 7r:;f) 102 , 341 91, 18 1, 24 8 7'i,?1P 7 , 86 2 Sour e U.