The State of State Parks
Playground equipment news: The State of State Parks
The Pew Center for State and Consumer Initiatives recently reported on the state of state economies five years after the worst economic downturn in generations. Their general findings are that while there has been slight economic improvement across the board, “only a handful of states” are truly moving forward, and four states are in danger of slipping backward.
During the past five years, state park systems across the country have taken disproportionately large hits to their budgets compared to some other state functions. Every state but one has a balanced-budget requirement, and as the recession deepened, state agency budgets were especially hard hit by the escalating loss of revenues. State park systems took it on the chin, with some state park budgets suffering additional cuts within the same budget year and double-digit cuts over multiple years.
The percentage of general fund support for state parks was declining long before the recession hit in 2008. In fact, since 1990, the percentage of general fund support for state parks has declined from near 60 percent to less than 35 percent according to a recent report by Margaret A. Walls, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. The recession only accelerated the trend to reduce taxpayer-supported funding for parks, even though state parks are widely credited as being economic engines for states. Some state legislatures — with gubernatorial approval — dramatically reduced general fund support for state parks in the past few years or even wiped out general fund support altogether.
The economic straits led to two approaches to dramatically scale back funding due to extreme budget pressures. In California, the governor proposed closing more than two-thirds of the state’s 278 state parks — virtually all of those that were not paying their way from fees and charges. A gargantuan public outcry caused Governor Schwarzenegger to rethink that plan, but the legislature maintained the draconian cuts, and the state has since followed a tortured path leading it to seek private funding and private sector operation of nearly 70 state parks by conservancies, friends groups and other last-gasp interventions. The Little Hoover Commission made a number of recommendations on how to develop future revenue streams and provide funding for state parks in the future. A new Parks Forward Commission is expected to produce a comprehensive plan for the beleaguered state park system.
In the state of Washington, however, the state took the approach that it would close no parks, but its financial straits were just as dire as California. Governor Gregoire, with legislative approval, proposed eliminating virtually all general fund support for state parks over a two-year period in the 2011–2013 budget and directed the park system to generate its own operating funds from an annual state park pass called the Discover Pass. However, revenues from the Discover Pass have fallen far short of expectations. Some parks advocates and state leaders attributed the shortfall to an inadequate messaging campaign and a rollout period that was insufficient to gain public acceptance and support. But no matter what the cause, the revenue shortfalls have continued. As a result, the state has been laying off professional staff and rangers, converting full-time employees to part-time status, and operating many parks unstaffed and unsupervised for significant portions of the year.
Closing state parks has been a tactic of last resort, but more and more states are turning to that solution to make up for critical budget losses. Nebraska recently approved a plan to close nearly 30 state parks for significant portions of the year in order to meet budget shortfalls, and other states have flirted with the idea of partial or complete closures of certain parks. Georgia recently approved a plan to lease full operations of four state parks to a private concessionaire to reduce costs and avoid closures.
States are looking at a wide range of alternative funding options for immediate needs and for the future including increasing user fees, increasing corporate support and sponsorship, instituting annual passes, creating new dedicated funding from taxes or other revenue streams such as royalties on energy extraction, turning parks over to local governments, leasing parks to private nonprofit foundations and conservancies, privatizing certain functions in parks, leasing entire parks to for-profit businesses, and other strategies to reduce costs and produce new revenue streams. As the Resources for the Future report points out, each approach has advantages and disadvantages. The key to success is the long-term sustainability of any one approach or any combination of strategies. Clearly, developing new partnerships is key to going forward. What is also clear, though, is that present models are no longer working and they will not be sufficient to meet the needs of the future.
More troubling perhaps than the pains of recovering from the effects of the recession is the trend for some states to look at increasing revenues from the sale or exploitation of protected natural resources or even the sale of state parks themselves. The state of Florida recently identified more than 160 parcels of state parks, wildlife refuges and conservation lands totaling more than 5,000 acres in a non-public process that would declare the lands “surplus” and then sell them. Conservationists have reacted swiftly and with deep suspicion, not only to the way the properties were selected without public notice or participation, but also to the rushed way the Department of Environmental Protection seems to be proceeding with the planned sales. Other states, such as Ohio, for the first time ever, approved plans to open state parks to energy exploration and extraction in order to utilize the royalty revenues from oil and gas drilling.
At the recent meeting of the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD), concerns were expressed concerning the cumulative impacts of deep budget cuts and increased pressure for new revenues. Priscilla Geigis, state park director in Massachusetts and president of NASPD, said, “With challenging budgets, succession planning has been a major concern, with long-time employees who have key institutional memory retiring and agencies having limited or no staff on the bench ready to fill in. Some systems have not been able to fill positions when staff retires, leaving even more of a void. Deferred maintenance is also a deep concern.”
With regard to the future, Geigis voiced the hopes of park advocates and professionals alike: “Universally, across the country, while challenging budgets remain discouraging, the pride and dedication of our park professionals is apparent. We promote and protect the things we love and we hope that the more positive experiences people have in our parks, the more they will advocate for appropriate funding for our parks.”
The Pew Center for State and Consumer Initiatives recently reported on the state of state economies five years after the worst economic downturn in generations. Their general findings are that while there has been slight economic improvement across the board, “only a handful of states” are truly moving forward, and four states are in danger of slipping backward.
During the past five years, state park systems across the country have taken disproportionately large hits to their budgets compared to some other state functions. Every state but one has a balanced-budget requirement, and as the recession deepened, state agency budgets were especially hard hit by the escalating loss of revenues. State park systems took it on the chin, with some state park budgets suffering additional cuts within the same budget year and double-digit cuts over multiple years.
The percentage of general fund support for state parks was declining long before the recession hit in 2008. In fact, since 1990, the percentage of general fund support for state parks has declined from near 60 percent to less than 35 percent according to a recent report by Margaret A. Walls, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. The recession only accelerated the trend to reduce taxpayer-supported funding for parks, even though state parks are widely credited as being economic engines for states. Some state legislatures — with gubernatorial approval — dramatically reduced general fund support for state parks in the past few years or even wiped out general fund support altogether.
The economic straits led to two approaches to dramatically scale back funding due to extreme budget pressures. In California, the governor proposed closing more than two-thirds of the state’s 278 state parks — virtually all of those that were not paying their way from fees and charges. A gargantuan public outcry caused Governor Schwarzenegger to rethink that plan, but the legislature maintained the draconian cuts, and the state has since followed a tortured path leading it to seek private funding and private sector operation of nearly 70 state parks by conservancies, friends groups and other last-gasp interventions. The Little Hoover Commission made a number of recommendations on how to develop future revenue streams and provide funding for state parks in the future. A new Parks Forward Commission is expected to produce a comprehensive plan for the beleaguered state park system.
In the state of Washington, however, the state took the approach that it would close no parks, but its financial straits were just as dire as California. Governor Gregoire, with legislative approval, proposed eliminating virtually all general fund support for state parks over a two-year period in the 2011–2013 budget and directed the park system to generate its own operating funds from an annual state park pass called the Discover Pass. However, revenues from the Discover Pass have fallen far short of expectations. Some parks advocates and state leaders attributed the shortfall to an inadequate messaging campaign and a rollout period that was insufficient to gain public acceptance and support. But no matter what the cause, the revenue shortfalls have continued. As a result, the state has been laying off professional staff and rangers, converting full-time employees to part-time status, and operating many parks unstaffed and unsupervised for significant portions of the year.
Closing state parks has been a tactic of last resort, but more and more states are turning to that solution to make up for critical budget losses. Nebraska recently approved a plan to close nearly 30 state parks for significant portions of the year in order to meet budget shortfalls, and other states have flirted with the idea of partial or complete closures of certain parks. Georgia recently approved a plan to lease full operations of four state parks to a private concessionaire to reduce costs and avoid closures.
States are looking at a wide range of alternative funding options for immediate needs and for the future including increasing user fees, increasing corporate support and sponsorship, instituting annual passes, creating new dedicated funding from taxes or other revenue streams such as royalties on energy extraction, turning parks over to local governments, leasing parks to private nonprofit foundations and conservancies, privatizing certain functions in parks, leasing entire parks to for-profit businesses, and other strategies to reduce costs and produce new revenue streams. As the Resources for the Future report points out, each approach has advantages and disadvantages. The key to success is the long-term sustainability of any one approach or any combination of strategies. Clearly, developing new partnerships is key to going forward. What is also clear, though, is that present models are no longer working and they will not be sufficient to meet the needs of the future.
More troubling perhaps than the pains of recovering from the effects of the recession is the trend for some states to look at increasing revenues from the sale or exploitation of protected natural resources or even the sale of state parks themselves. The state of Florida recently identified more than 160 parcels of state parks, wildlife refuges and conservation lands totaling more than 5,000 acres in a non-public process that would declare the lands “surplus” and then sell them. Conservationists have reacted swiftly and with deep suspicion, not only to the way the properties were selected without public notice or participation, but also to the rushed way the Department of Environmental Protection seems to be proceeding with the planned sales. Other states, such as Ohio, for the first time ever, approved plans to open state parks to energy exploration and extraction in order to utilize the royalty revenues from oil and gas drilling.
At the recent meeting of the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD), concerns were expressed concerning the cumulative impacts of deep budget cuts and increased pressure for new revenues. Priscilla Geigis, state park director in Massachusetts and president of NASPD, said, “With challenging budgets, succession planning has been a major concern, with long-time employees who have key institutional memory retiring and agencies having limited or no staff on the bench ready to fill in. Some systems have not been able to fill positions when staff retires, leaving even more of a void. Deferred maintenance is also a deep concern.”
With regard to the future, Geigis voiced the hopes of park advocates and professionals alike: “Universally, across the country, while challenging budgets remain discouraging, the pride and dedication of our park professionals is apparent. We promote and protect the things we love and we hope that the more positive experiences people have in our parks, the more they will advocate for appropriate funding for our parks.”
评论
发表评论