Re-benchmarking Virginia State Parks<= /p>

Operating and Maintena= nce Funding

To Achieve Proper Stewardship and Programming in an Effort to Meet the Commonwealth’s Three Main Objectives for State Parks

State Parks= are a part of a healthy lifestyle. = They serve as a therapeutic tonic for the mind, body, and spirit of our citizens. They are a respite = from the pressures of

daily life, outstanding outdoor recreational base camps, and platforms for

education a= bout our natural world and our rich historical past.

Our state p= arks are preserves where the natural world’s flora and fauna thrive. In an era of unbridled development= with the rapid disappearance of farmland, forestland, and open space, it is crit= ical that the Commonwealth maintain and grow these special places. Otherwise, the plants, animals, and special landscapes so critical to our culture

will be gon= e.

Our state p= arks are economic engines that generate positive revenues through tourism and recreational spending by both in and out-of-state visitors. Virginia competes in a regional marketplace for these important tourism dollars.

Historical Context

Virginia has been a leader in the state parks movement= since the concept was first promoted by Governor Harry F. Byrd in 1926-1929. Virginia became the first state to launch an entire system of parks on a single day = on June 15, 1936 with the opening of Hungry Mother, Douthat, Fairy Stone, Staunton River, Westmoreland and Seashore (= now First Landing) State Parks.

Today Vi= rginia manages thirty-four state parks statewide and has six new parks in the acquisition and planning stages.

(over)

Following the successful 1992 General Obligation Bond Referendum, Virginia’s Governors and General Assembly began to understand that the nearly $95 mill= ion spent to improve existing parks and to acquire and develop new parks was placing an operational and maintenance burden on the system. Operational funding was not re-benchmarked to reflect the cost of operating these new facilities. This situation placed enormous str= ess on the entire system.

Beginning in 2000, the Parks and Land Use Subcommittee of the Commission on Virginia’s Future co-chaired by Senators Emme= tt Hanger and Creigh Deeds (then a member of the House of Delegates) visited p= arks throughout the state, reviewed documentation, and held meetings to determine the needs of Virginia’s State Parks.

In its report to the Governor and General Assembly in 2002, the Commission reported that state parks needed funding for 112 additional full-time staff= ; additional wages for part-time and seasonal staffing, supplies, materials, preventive maintenance funding, vehicles and equipment totaling about $12.2 million; a= nd an additional $8 million annually for maintenance reserve projects.

The Commission’s work did not consider the impact of the successful $119 million General Obligation Bond Referendum passed in 2002 since this refere= ndum passed subsequent to the Commission’s Report.

Thus, in 2004, the Virginia Association for Parks adjusted the Commission’s recommended $12.2 million to $15 million to account for inflation (increasi= ng cost of building materials resulting from various natural disasters and war= s), for new facilities brought on line from the 2002 GOB, and to increase full-= time staffing to 400 positions to address the new workload created by both the 1= 992 and 2002 GOB programs. Fundin= g and staffing at this level has been supported, but not yet provided, by both the Governor and members of the legislative money committees.=

Actions/Conc= lusions

In 2005, operatio= nal appropriations totaling $4.5 million with 57 new positions were provid= ed.
In 2006 another $= 2.1 million and 21 new positions were provided.
The re-benchmarki= ng needs for state parks based on previous targets is now about $8.4 mill= ion, including 127 new full-time positions. ($15 million – ($4.5 + 2.= 1) =3D $8.4 million) (400 total positions objective – 273 authorized = =3D 127 additional positions needed).
However, given the accelerated inflation and the speed with which new GOB funded faciliti= es are being brought on line, VAFP now believes that the $8.4 million remaining balance should be adjusted to about $11 million to more fully achieve the goals of the Commission, the VAFP, and state park users.
In the summer of = 2006, Governor Kaine, at a meeting at First Landing State Park, publicly committed to achieving fu= ll re-benchmarking and a total of 400 full-time positions during his administration.
Initially, DCR an= d VAFP were encouraged that the full re-benchmarking would be considered for = the Governor’s budget bill.
Subsequently, how= ever, DCR was asked to reduce that amount to 38 positions and about $4 milli= on.
Ultimately, the Governor’s budget proposal did not include any new positions or operating money.
Thus, the General Assembly needs to amend the Governor’s budget to continue making progress on re-benchmarking staffing and funding for our great state p= ark system.

&= nbsp;