• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Page 1
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METROPOLITAN PARK & RECREATION DISTRICTBOARD OF COMMISSIONERSPOTENTIAL STATE PARK TRANSFER7/21/09 PUBLIC MEETINGShould the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation District accept the offer by the StateParks and Recreation Commission to transfer ownership of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge StateParks to BIMPRD?
As a result of the 2009-2011 State Budget process, State Parks has offered permanent ownership of FortWard and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to BIMPRD. The BIMPRD Board of Commissioners is seeking publicinput on whether or not the District should accept the offer. The Board is also interested in what issues andconcerns citizens have in relation to a possible transfer of the two parks.
How did this issue evolve to the point where it is now?
1. On November 4, 2008, the citizens of Bainbridge Island voted in favor of a lid lift to support acquisition
and development of park properties on the Island. Funds were also included in the lid lift to “operateand maintain” parks
. Transfer of the State Parks was not anticipated at the time. Without the passageof the lid lift the Board would not be in a position to discuss the transfer of State Parks to the BainbridgeIsland Metropolitan Park & Recreation District (BIMPRD).2. On December 29, 2008, the
Governor’s 2009
-2011 Budget was released. Budget reductions for theState Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) include the transfer of 13 State Parks to local jurisdictions. Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks were included on that list. State Parksindicated that if the Parks are not transferred, they will be closed. The Parks slated for transfer werethose that had not been formally evaluated as to their consistency with the 2013 Centennial Vision of theState Parks and Recreation Commission.3. In early January, State Parks approached BIMPRD to determine if the District was interested inaccepting a transfer of the two State P
arks. BIMPRD’s
stated interest was to keep the 2 parks open.4. On January 14, 2009, BIMPRD Board Committee and senior staff met with State Parks regional director.BIMPRD requested information from State Parks, including their costs to run the parks, revenue fromthe parks, deed restrictions, liability issues, infrastructure details, etc.5. On February 5, 2009, BIMPRD Board Committee and senior staff met with Senator Rockefeller and
Representatives Appleton and Rolfes to discuss the State Legislature’s approach to the State Park
budget cuts and the implications for Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge.6. On February 20,
 
2009, State Parks held a public meeting on the potential transfer of the two parks atIsland Center Hall.7. On March 26, 2009, BIMPRD sent a letter to Senator Rockefeller and Representatives Appleton andRolfes with the list of information the District requested from State Parks, but had not received. Includedin the letter was a list of identified maintenance needs in the Parks.8. On April 16, 2009, the State Parks Regional Director delivered the requested background informationon the two State Parks to BIMPRD.9. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed a voluntary donation program to support State Parks. Underthis bill, a $5 donation will be added to vehicle registration to support the State Park system unless one
“opts
-
out” of the donatio
n. The Governor signed the bill on May 15, 2009.
 
Page 2
10. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed the 2009-2011 capital budget. The capital budget was signedby the Governor on May 15. The capital budget includes funds designated to: 1) upgrade the restroomfacilities at Fay Bainbridge ($100,000); and 2) conduct a hazardous materials assessment at Fort Ward($30,000).11. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed the 2009-2011 operating budget. Included in the budget werethe following provisions:a.
“
Proceeds received from voluntary donations given by motor
 
vehicle registration applicants shall beused solely for the operation
 
and maintenance of state parks.
”
 b.
“The commission shall actively pursue transferring ownership of 
 
state parks to local governments,tribes, or other entities that have
 
expressed an interest in operating the park. The commission shall
 
provide biannual updates of this effort to the office of financial
 
management and the appropriatefiscal committees of the legislature.
 
The first report shall be submitted no later than December 1,
2009.”
[This section was vetoed by the Governor. See below]c.
“
With the passage of Substitute House Bill No. 2339 (state parks
 
system donation), the legislaturefinds that it has provided sufficient
 
funds to ensure that all state parks remain open during the 2009-11 biennium. The commission shall not close state parks unless the bill
 
is not enacted by June 30,2009, or revenue collections are
 
insufficient to fund the ongoing operation of state parks. By January
 
10, 2010, the commission shall provide a report to the legislature on
 
their budget and resourcesrelated to operating parks for the remainder
 
of the biennium.
”
 12. On May 19, 2009, the Governor signed the operating budget, but vetoed the section on transferringparks (second bullet above), stating that State Parks
“
is already pursuing the transfer of certain stateparks that are inconsistent with its long-range strategic [2013] Centennial plan.
”
The governor went onto encourage
“
the Commission to pursue the transfer of parks to other operators when it is appropriate
and mutually beneficial.”
 13. On May 19, 2009, State Parks issued a Press Release reiterating the language in the operating budget:a.
“
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission today approved a budget implementationplan that keeps all state parks open in 2009-11, provided that a new donation program tied tovehicle license tabs brings in adequate
revenue to operate state parks. ….
The legislation creatingthe [donation] program specifically says that state parks will remain open in 2009-11 unlesssufficient funds are not collected to keep them open.
”
 b.
“
The Legislature and Governor directed State Parks to continue working toward transferring parksthe Commission deems appropriate for transfer to other willing and able operators. Any newoperators would need to keep parks open to the public and care for them to Commission standards.Parks that are candidates for transfer will remain open in the 2009-11 biennium, along with all otherstate parks, provided adequate donation revenue is collected to support operations.
”
 14. On June 12, 2009, the State Parks and Recreation Commission passed a resolution, formally offeringFay Bainbridge and Fort Ward State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation
District, stating BIMPRD has “expressed interest in taking ownership” of the parks.
 15. To date, BIMPRD has not voted on a resolution stating it is interested in accepting a transfer of eitherFay Bainbridge or Fort Ward State Parks.16.
All along, BIMPRD’s
stated interest has been to keep the parks open. If State Parks is forced to closeFay Bainbridge and/or Fort Ward, BIMPRD would likely step in to operate the Parks.
 
Page 3
Next Step
Sometime in August, based on public input, staff and Board analysis, the Board expects to make adecision on how to respond to the offer from the State Parks and Recreation to transfer ownership andoperation of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park &Recreation District.
Financial Information
One of the key issues related to the possible transfer of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks toBIMPRD is the cost implications for the District.If and when a transfer of the Parks is complete, BIMPRD would be responsible for all costs related to theoperation, maintenance, and capital needs of the Parks. BIMPRD would also receive all revenue generatedby the Parks.
What does it cost State Parks to operate and maintain Fay Bainbridge and Fort Ward?
State Parks estimates it costs over $635,000 to operate and maintain the two parks for the biennial budgetperiod. This does not include any capital improvement costs which are budgeted separately by the State.These costs include:Fay Bainbridge Fort Ward Total/Biennium Total/AnnualizedDirect Park ExpendituresStaffingUtilitiesMaintenance$273,000 $137,000 $410,000 $205,000Other Operating CostsLaw Enforcement TrainingStewardshipPlanningRegional Support$89,000 $44,600 $133,600 $66,800Headquarters SupportPayroll/Financial ServicesHuman Resources$54,800 $38,600 $93,400 $46,700Total Expenditures $416,800 $220,200 $637,000 $318,500Revenues $95,200* $0* $95,200 $47,600Totals $321,600 $220,200 $541,800 $270,900*Fort Ward revenue (from boat launch) included in Fay Bainbridge totals
Information from State Parks handout at the February 20 
th 
public meeting. Figures based on 2008 expenditures 
.
When Regional and Headquarters support are factored out, it is estimated that the direct costs to operateand maintain the two parks are about $500,000 per biennium ($250,000 per year)
[Direct costs were estimated by subtracting all of the HQ support and 33% of the Other Operating Costs] 
.These costs are offset by over $95,000 in revenue biennially (~$48,000 annually). Revenue is derivedprimarily from camping fees at Fay Bainbridge.The District estimates that the net direct cost for State Parks to operate and maintain these parks is about$450,000 biennially ($225,000 annually).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...