DOCUMENTS COLLECTION ^i^R 2 5 2003 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY Report and Recommendations "^''-^q^'Va'!^^^^^ for the Montana State Park System A Report to Governor Judy Martz and the 58 Legislature Submitted by the State Parks Futures Committee II November 2002 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 3 0864 0014 9005 4 Memorandum TO: Governor Martz; Montana Legislature; Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission; and State Parks Visitors FROM: State Parks Futures Committee II Date: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Final Report and Recommendations During the past 14 months, the nine-member State Parks Futures Committee II met in communities across Montana to review the condition of the state parks and explore ways to improve your parks systera At the end of July 2002, the committee released its Drafi RefKM and RecmtrieiidatiorTS, and solicited public comments through the end of September 2002. Written and email comments were received from a total of 19 individuals and organizations. The Futures Committee also held a statewide public meeting on September 11, 2002, through MetNet, the interactive video conferencing network. About 30 people participated via links in Billings, Bozeman, Dillon, Glasgow, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell, Miles Qty, and Missoula. The committee reviewed all of the public comments and incorporated a number of changes in the attached final report. The recommendations in this report are intended to maintain and improve Montana's state parks system as we move into the 21" century. To help meet these goals, we urge Montana's citizens and public officials to constructively monitor and evaluate implementation. We encourage the Governor's Office; the Legislature; the FWP Commission; and FWP Director to work with Parks Division throughout this process and to hold one another accountable to the mission and vision of the parks system. The committee also recommends that Parks Division periodically report to the public on progress through articles in its newsletter and on the department web site. Further, we encourage the Legislative Audit Division to review Parks Division progress at appropriate intervals. As committee member?, we support the overall vision of this report. We recognize that some of our recomniendations may face challenges to their implementation, particularly during lean times such as we now face. We are confident, however, that the parks staff, volunteers, and advocates we met during our travels are up to the task. We hope you will join us in the ongoing effort to maintain, strengthen, and support Montana's parks system for today's visitors and future generations. The committee gives its thanks and appreciation to Parks Director Doug Monger, Administrative Assistant Debbie McRae, regional and parks managers, and division staff for their courtesy, cooperation, and professionalism shown throughout our review of their work. We also thank the many members of the "friends of the park" groups and other parks advocacy organizations who shared their passion and insights for Montana's parks. Finally, we want to acknowledge the valuable facilitation and communication assistance provided by the Montana Consensus Council. ^^ man (Rep., Poison) Bob Keenan (Senator, Bigfork) (Senator, Trout Qeek) Sa^^Lj /Gke Penfold,.^dr Montana, Inc., lie Big Mountain, Whitefisn) , Helena) State Parks Futures Committee II Final Report AND Recommendations December 3, 2002 State Parks Futures Comrittee, DeoenherS, 2002 Contents Introduction 1 Parks Mission & Vision Statements 4 Statutory Framework. 4 Planning and Management 5 Funding 9 Other Policy Considerations 13 Monitoring and Evaluation 14 Appendices 17 Jim Elliott (Senator, Trout Qieek) Ed Henrich (Fairmont Hot Springs Resort, Fairmont) Dave Kasten (Rep., Brockway) Quistine Kaufmann (Rep., Helena) Bob Keenan (Senator, Bigfork) Mai^aret Moddison (chair. Great Falls) Mike Penfold (Our Montana, Inc., Billings) Michele Reese (The Big Mountain, Whitefish) Purpose Introduction During 2001, the Legislative Audit Division conducted a performance audit of the programs within the Parks Division of Montana of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). The audit recognized the "world class" recreational opportunities and significant contributions to quality of life provided by the parks system. But auditors also noted that the number of people recreating in Montana state parks is on the rise, and that many changes had occurred in the 12 years since the previous review of parks programs by the first Sute Parks Futures GDmmittee in 1989. That first Futures effort led to a host of recommendations and subsequent improvements in the field and in parks program administration. FWP agreed with the Legislative Auditors that the time was ripe for another Parks Futures review, and they joindy recommended that Governor Judy Martz create a State Parks Futures Committee II. Futures Committee Members The Futures Committee II was appointed under Executive Order 27-01, signed October 3"*, 2001, by Governor Martz (see Appendix A). The nine members represent a variety of interests and communities across the state. They include: John Brueggeman (Rep., Poison) As outlined in the Executive Order, the purpose of the Futures Committee is to make recommendations to the Govemor, the 2003 Legislature, and FWP regarding changes that have occurred in the parks system and new challenges and trends that have arisen since the original state parks futures committee met in 1989. In that time, the number of parks in the system shrank from 60 to 42, largely through the transfer of sites (including Canyon Ferry, Nelson Reservoir, East Gallatin, and Bears Paw Battlefield) to other public agencies. The total number of visitors to state parks is now lower, given that there are fewer parks, but actual visitation has remained steady. Montana residents are a larger portion of visitor use (72 percent in 2000) than in past years. Many parks anticipate increased visitation during the bicentennial of the Lewis and Qark expedition. TTie work of the first Futures Committee led to a number of improvements across the parks system. Parks fees were laised to help defray rising costs. Parks Division established a new paid intem program with the Montana University system, providing one intem per year for each region. Six new "friends of the park" groups were formed. OveraU, the division standardized planning, policies, publications, and signage, and added over $30 million in improvements, including new visitor centers at three parks. 1 State Parks Futures Coimittee, Decerrixr3, 2002 The park system's legal landscape also changed during the 1990s. Passage of the Primitive Parks Act (23-1-115 through 23-1- 118, MCA) eliminated entrance fees and curtailed further development at 15 designated parks. Also, to prevent impacts to landowners adjoining state parks, the legislature established the Good Neighbor Policy (23-1-126, MCA), which requires FWP to place maintenance as a higher priority over additional development at all state parks and fishing access sites. While responding to these and other changes and trends, parks management must also confront challenges related to funding. Costs continue to rise, but revenues— particularly from existing fees and taxes— remain flat. On the current course, FWP projects that expenditures will eclipse revenues by 2006. In light of these and other trends, the Executive Order directed the Futures Committee to consider: Park fee revenues and funding sources Park resources Statutory park designations Park designations Potential long-term policy changes Distribution of state parks across the state Other policy considerations These items are covered in this report under the broader headings of Statutory Framework, Planning and Management, and Funding. The Executive OnJer also stated that the Futures Committee's recommendations mtast: • Consider the original futures committee report, the 2020 Vision for Montana State Parks SystemPlan, and the 2001 performance audit conducted by the Legislative Audit Division. • Consider the social and economic effects, both positive and negative, of state changes. . Consider the values and needs of all recreational users. • Consider the financial and staffing needs of the state parks system. . Be technically, legally, socially, and economically feasible to implement. A Deliberative Prcx:ess The Futures Committee met eight times in nine months in communities across the state to gather information, discuss the issues, and develop its recommendations. Meetings were facilitated by the Montana Consensus Council and staffed by the council and Parks Division personnel. Futures Committee members also toured ten state parks, met with all seven regional parks managers, and held public meetings in Helena, Billings, Three Forks, Missoula, Dillon, Glasgow, Glendive, and Bigfork Representatives of a number of interest groups, notably the Montana State Parks Foundation and several local "friends of the park" associations, attended meetings and provided information, insights, and a broad range of perspectives on the park system. The Committee received written comments and provided an opportunity for public comment through the FWP web site. The State Parks Futures Committee II Ehaft Report and Reoommsndations was released at the end of July 2002, and public comments were accepted through the end of September 2002. Parks Division also held a statewide public meeting on September 11, 2002, through MetNet, the interactive video conferencing network. About 30 people participated via links in Billings, Bozeman, Dillon, Glasgow, Great Falls, Flelena, Kalispell, Miles Qty, and Missoula. Written and email comments were received from a total of 19 individuals and organizations. Some comments praised the work of the committee, while others were critical of specific recommendations. The main themes regarding the committee's State Parks FtOures Carmttee, Decembers, 2002 recommendations that emerged from all of the public comment included: • Concem over and opposition to the recommendation to repeal the Primitive Parks Act. • Opposition to proposed fee increases. • Support for some fee increases. • Concem and questions about Parks Division budget allocations. • Support for the budget priorities listed in Recommendation 15 (and specifically support for giving priority to maintenance of existing park resources and facilities). Support for increasing and improving law enforcement in the parks system. Support for enhancing the tourist and economic development potential of state parks. Support for developing thematic links among parks. Support for developing policy on the commercial use of parks. Opposition to allowing tourism and commercial use to drive parks management. Support for improving relations with tribal governments. The committee reconvened in Helena on November 14, 2002, to revise the report based on public comment and the committee's own further deliberations. Significant changes were made to several recommendations and are incorporated in this final report. Most notably, the recommendation to replace the Primitive Parks Act was dropped in favor of asking Parks Division to develop, under administrative rule, a systematic management and planning framework, after which the act would be revisited to determine whether it would be appropriate to amend or repeal it at that time (see Recommendation 3). The committee also clarified that actions to enhance the parks' economic development potential and visitor experiences should be consistent with the park system mission and vision and with the budget priorities listed in Recommendation 15. These budget priorities were revised to more clearly emphasize maintenance of existing park resources and faciliues (with the exception of Region 6, where acquisition is the first priorit)^. History and Status of the State Park System Montana's state park system began in 1939 with the acquisition of Lewis and Qark Caverns from the federal government. Since then, the system has grown— largely through the initiative of local citizens and communities— to include 42 state parks (see Appendix B for a map of state parks across the state). The system features natural areas, cultural and historical sites, and recreational areas, all providing a broad range of recreational and educational opportunities, from the historical and cultural resources at Pictograph Cave and Bannack, to the water- based fun of the Smith River and Flathead Lake, from the fossils and nature trails of Makoshika, to the near-urban developed swimming holes of Whitefish and Spring Meadow lakes. Nearly 1.4 million people visit Montana state parks each year. In 2000, 72 percent were Montana residents. According to FWP, the most popular park activities are learning about Montana history, fishing, boating, picnicking, camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Parks Division had an operations budget of about $12 million, including 110.66 full-time equivalents (FTEs). This budget and staff are responsible for the state parks system as well as more than 320 fishing access sites (which are managed by the Parks Division but are not part of the parks system), a community grants program, and a trails program, with a total land base of more than 60,000 acres (33,532 of which are in parks). The primary focus of the Futures Committee II was the Sute Park program. State Parks Futures Cormittee, DeoenixrS, 2002 During the 2000 recreation season, more than 1,300 volunteers logged over 36,000 hours as campground hosts and visitor center attendants, and doing maintenance and interpretive work. In exchange for $8 an hour and college credit, 24 student interns from the Montana University system also worked in the parks system in 2000. For more information on the Montana state parks system, see the publications listed in Appendix I. Parks Mission and Vision Statements The Futures Committee agreed to adopt the mission and vision statements from 2020 Vision for Montatja State Parks, with several modifications. The mission statement is framed to capture why the state park system exists, what it is intended to accomplish, and who it serves. The statement draws heavily on the language in the 1939 state park enabling legislation, as well as the statement included in the 1990 State Park Futures Committee report. The vision statement seeks to broadly describe what sort of park system should be in place by the year 2020. Mission The nission cfthe Montana State Park system is to presene, erhznoe, and interpret a diierse representation cfMmtana's wost outstanding natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources, for the personal, sodal, and economic ben^ cf present and Juture ^nerations. Vision In the year 2020, the Montana State Park system ■uill more accurately r^lea the natural, cultural. historic, and recreational dmrsity (f Montana, liith a broader ^ographic and cultural representation than at present The fioure system mil prmide a greater dvuersity cfpark types, such as recreational imteniays, railtratls, and historical routes. The system wU also (ffera broad ran^ cffadlities, experiences, and pro-ams -uhich meet an assortrrtnt cfchangng vsitor reeds and interests, irtdudir^rrare educational and interpretiiE opportunities. Staff wU contiruK to irrpraie resoune protection, rmintenanoe, pro-ams, pknmng rrtmtorir^ site desi^T, lisitor irfomtttion, and ouerall pnfasionalisrn, with enhanced connections and oommurdcution wth odxr programs both inside and outside FWP. The quality cfthe system vill be rrvre consistent and reooffrizahle betueen units, and staff and finandal resources mil be stffident to meet vsitor needs. From one end cfthe state to Mother, vsitcr expectations mil be routindy exceeded by the hi^ quality cfthe experierKes prodded Oierall, the state park system mil be a more integral part cf everyday existence in Montana; state parks mil be affordable places lehere Montanans and their zisitors from all milks cf life fed confortable and vdcame. Statutory Framework Montana's state parks system is enabled and governed by the provisions of Title 23, Chapters 1 and 2 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). In its deliberations on the park system's statutory framework, the Committee focused primarily on the effects of the Primitive Parks Act (23-1-115 through 23- 1-118, MCA). The Primitive Parks Act Passage of the Montana Primitive Parks Act in 1993 designated 15 sites as "primitive" to prevent their further development and to eliminate entrance fees at those parks. The Futures Committee recognized that the Primitive Parks Act provides the following benefits and disadvantages. State Parks Futures Ccmrittee, DeoemberJ, 2002 Benefits: . Stopped incremental development. . Saved capital costs and prevented rising long-term 08dvl costs. • Provides no- fee parks for visitors. . Preserves 15 sites as they were in 1993. . Recognizes the needs of one segment of the population who prefer these sites remain as they are, protected from further development. Disadvantages: . Limits management flexibility to deal with unforeseen problems, changing conditions, and changing visitor needs. • Restricts options for maintaining existing development. • "Primitive" is not an appropriate description for some of the sites designated under the act. • Does not acknowledge the potential benefits of developed or semi-developed zones within lai^er primitive landscapes. • Some provisions of the Primitive Parks Act may conflict with provisions in the Good Neighbor PoUcy (23- 1- 126, MCA). To remedy these problems, the committee considered amending the Primitive Parks Act or replacing it with new legislation. They eventually agreed to recommend creation of a new management framework aimed at preventing incremental development (see Recommendation 2 below), and repealing the act for several reasons. First, they agreed that the day-to-day planning and management of the state parks should be the responsibility of professional park and recreation managers. Second, they agreed that management could be more effective if various zones of development were recognized within each park, rather than designating a single development standard for an entire park. Third, the committee wanted to separate the issue of providing no- fee parks from the issue of preventing incremental development. Recommendation 1: Recognizing that the management planning process has been set to meet statutory intent at Chief Plenty Coups and Pictograph Cave state paries, after Parits Division consults with the Crow Tribe and the Friends of Chief Plenty Coups State Park, the Legislature should repeal 23- 1- 130, MCA- Recommendation 2: To increase the visibility of state paries and improve the ability of the Paries Division to solve problems, the Legislature should amend the statute creating the FWP Commission to require at least one representative on the Commission with a demonstrated interest in paries and recreation. Planning and Management Planning Principles The Futures Committee agreed on the following broad, over-arching principles to guide the planning of each park unit. Planning for each park must be based on a thorough identification, assessment, and analysis of its resources. Potential planning decisions must be measured against (a) the enabling legislation and mission statements, (b) short- and long-term public need and demand for these resources, (c) capital available or projected to be available, (d) projected maintenance requirements of the parks, and (e) appropriate and sustainable use considerations. Plarming should also recognize that a wide spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities is available in Montana, from undeveloped federal wilderness areas to highly urbanized municipal and private parks. Within this spectrum, the state parks system fills a narrower niche— most if not all state parks have signif icandy more facility development State Parks Futures Committee, DeoerrixrS, 2002 than wilderness areas but less development than is common in city and county parks or private recreation facilities. Planning should never lose sight of the fact that parks are for people, for their use and enjoyment. Planning for park units must protect the high quality of Montana's natural and historic resources and the sustainability of public use. Professional multi-disciplinary planning that reflects sound principles and community values should be the foundation of park development and protection. Communities and interested publics should be involved early on and throughout the planning processes, with the goal that plans will reflect community values and facilitate the development of working partnerships. Planning must also recognize that parks are owned by all Montanans, and are funded in part with federal dollars, and so seek a balance among local, statewide, and national interests. Parks planning should be guided by state-of- the-art concepts and strategies, such as the Recreation Opportvinity Spectrum, Limits of Acceptable Qiange, and sustainability, which have been used by state and federal agencies. The concepts and strategies should be appropriately adapted to state parks in Montana. Planners should seek a balance within the state parks system among types of parks (i.e., historical/cultural, natural, and recreational) and classifications of parks (based of the level of development). They should also consider the activities of other recreation and interpretive providers such as private campgrounds, the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to ensure that future direction is compatible with and complements other park resources in the state. Planners should consider the potential for public-private partnerships, and for the involvement of private corporations, concessionaires, foundations, volunteers, historical organizations, commuruty organizations, environmental organizations, and other interested groups in planning for implementation of park plans. Recommendation 3: To prevent unwarranted incremental development at state parks, the Parks Division should (1) create, through administrative rule, a classification system for designating and managing state parks based on sound management and planning principles, levels of development (see Appendix C for a sample framework), public use and desires, and park settings; (2) develop management plans for each state park based on the classification system; (3) provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the development of management plans, consistent with MCA 23- 1-110; (4) include a system for monitoring and evaluating the status of development at state parks in each management plan; (5) develop and implement management plans consistent with the Good Neighbor Policy, (6) seek a balance within the parks system among types of parks (i.e., historical/cultural, natural, and recreational) and classifications of parks (based on the criteria in (1) above); (7) weigh and balance local and statewide input to individual parks and the overall park system; and (8) continue to manage parks currently designated under the Primitive Parks Act (23- 1-115 through 23-1-118, MCA) consistent with the intent of the act until the management planning process has been completed for each park and the classification system is in place under administrative rule. At that time, the legislature should revisit the Primitive Parks Act. Park Resources With the exception of Region 6, each region hosts a variety of parks. For the most part, the State Parks Futures Committee, DeoemberJ, 2002 landscapes and habitats in parks are still intact. Parks protect and present the unique character of western life. Some of our parks promote awareness and understanding of Native American cultures, the Lewis and Qark expedition, and early mining history. Parks also protect and provide fishing, hiking, boating, and other recreational opportunities. Due to public demand and the availability of federal funding, water-oriented parks have more development than the historic and cultural parks. Most parks were started through community support, which continues today. Local communities often see parks as economic anchors, and as their backyard community center— "their" park— which may be used for weddings and family/community gatherings. Parks enhance local communities' quality of life. The parks are also recognized as economic assets to local communities and educational assets statewide. Parks provide outdoor classrooms. Partnerships with other agencies add value to the system— we share and exchange information, expertise, and marketing. The park system includes experienced and dedicated staff, including seasonals and volunteers. Recommendation 4: Consistent with the budget priorities in Recommendation 15, provide the following resources to enhance the experience of visitors and to sustain paric resources: • Improve the information available on the values and services provided at individual parks through brochures, web sites, and other means. • Do more to add value to visitors' experiences and enhance revenues and word-of-mouth business through books, videos, souvenirs, and services provided primarily by the private sector. Improve interpretive presentations to create a value-added benefit to visitors. Increase and/or create opportunities for schools to visit the parks. Environmental education is a potential growth area (for example, the Mikal Kellner Wildlife Center at Spring Meadow, programs for teaching kids to fish). Recognize that marketing is key. We need to convey the value of each park, as well as marketing the "package" of the overall system and other public and private attractions in Montana. The specific content and resources of each park are what draws people to the parks and makes visitors advocates for these resources. Although the 1989 Futures Committee I determined that using the single "parks" designation provided a more consistent image for the parks system, Parks Division should better communicate whether individual parks are predominantly cultural/ historical, natural, or recreational parks. Use highway maps, web sites, brochures, and other means to inform the public about the values and services available at individual parks, and whether the park is a cultural/ historic, natural, or recreational park. Foster local and statewide public input and even let the public play a leading role in articulating the vision of each park's future. (Many individual park management plans already have this input in their goals.) Programs to enrich visitors' experiences are limited. We need more volunteers and resources to expand existing programs. FWP should work to enable people to donate land and other resources through charitable trusts and conservation easements. The complementary relationship between FAS and Park programs should be further developed. For example, the Parks Divisions could develop linear parks connecting FASs and linking non- river State Parks Futures Cormittee, Deoenixr3, 2002 state parks— rails to trails type of recreation corridor. FASs are potential keys to linking bigger systems, including bridges. Bring the Montana Department of Transportation into that discussion. Distribution and Acquisition of State Parks Region 6 (the northeast comer of Montana) is the only FWP region without a state park. Because most of the area was heavily homesteaded, public land is scarce. There are few developed recreational opportunities and designated cultural sites. Many residents of Region 6 want a parks program in northeast Montana, with one or more sites developed as state parks. They want equity with other regions, and they want to spur their local economies by attracting tourism. Residents also see parks as a way to enhance their quality of life, and to give people a reason to stay in the region. Under its 2001 six-year plan, FWP intends to establish at least one state park in Region 6. A regional parks manager position was created and filled, and a 12-member Region 6 Parks Search Committee was formed to inventory potential sites and nominate a short list of the best prospects. The Search Committee identified a number of potential sites and selected four for recommendation (see Appendix D). Recommendation 5; The Futures Committee applauds the efforts of the Region 6 Search Committee and agrees that a state park and paries program should be established in Region 6 consistent with the policy frameworic outlined in Recommendation 6. Recommendation 6: The Parks Division should use the following set of criteria as a policy frameworii for the distribution and acquisition of state paries in Montana. When acquiring parks lands and resources, Parks Division should ensure that every acquisition: • Is consistent with the mission of state parks; • Adds value to the overall parks system; . Is consistent with the intent to seek a balance of park types (natural, cultural, historic, and recreational) and levels of development (based on the proposed classification system); and • Is consistent with the budget priorities outlined in Recommendation 15 (with the exception of Region 6, where acquiring one or more parks should take first priorit}^. FWP should weigh the following factors and give priority to sites that present a prudent balance among: • Acquisition costs. • Development costs. • Operation and maintenance costs. • The ability of a site to generate revenue. • Public demand and support. • Public welfare and safety. • Resource protection and preservation. • Enhancement of the equitable distribution of parks across the state. Other Planning and Management Recommendations Recommendation 7: FWP should develop pilot projects to develop thematic links among paries that draw a common interest, such as the Lewis and Qarie Trail, river corridors, etc., including between neighboring states as appropriate. Recommendation 8; Paries Division should acknowledge and foster the existing and potential economic development values of state paries and the 8 State Parks FtOures Ccmrittee, DeoenierS, 2002 value-added opportunities for enriching visitor experiences, while preserving existing paik values. Recommendation 9: FWP should draft a memorandum of understanding with the Montana Heritage Commission to share information and technical expertise. Recommendation 10: Working with the Montana Promotional Division, and tailored to the mission and vision statements on page 4, Parks Division should develop a consistent, long-term marketing plan for the state paric system. Marketing may increase use of the parks, but can also help to redistribute use away from overcrowded parks. RecoiTunendation 11; Paries are understaffed, and the system is unable to maximize the quality of visitors' experiences, resource and visitor protection, benefits to local cotiununities, and collection of fees. To reduce these problems, Parks Division should: (a) Seek volunteers and financial sponsors from "friends of the park" associations, civic groups, businesses, and local communities. (b) Encourage commercial and entrepreneurial opportunities to provide some visitor services in appropriate parks. (c) Seek resources for paid seasonal staff to supervise volunteers based on demonstrated need to conduct interpretive and educational programs, site maintenance, fee coUection, site control, and visitor protection. (d) Gsntinue to develop partnerships with other agencies and organizations to share information, expertise, and staff, as appropriate. Recommendation 12: FWP and volunteers should create a networit to link all of the "friends of the parks" associations and foster best practices in their work. Recommendation \3: FWP should review the adequacy of its tribal involvement efforts and explore strategies and seek opportunities for sharing dec is ion- making authority and responsibilities through govemment-to-govemment relationships. Funding Rationale for Funding Increase The Fumres Committee recognizes that revenues into the Parks Division have been flat for a number of years, while expenses have been flat-to-slightly increasing. The division is currently spending some of its cash reserves. The Committee further recognizes that, if revenues do not increase in the next three years, and there are no new capital improvements expenses, the Parks Division will be operating with a minimal cash reserve in 2005 and a deficit in 2006. The longer we wait to address the problems described in this report, including the projected parks budget deficit, the more it will cost. The Futures Committee has included in this report a statement by the Parks Division on its funding needs (see Appendices G and H). The Committee realizes that finding additional funding will be difficult during the current budget cycle, but also recognizes that Parks Division needs more funding to meet immediate needs and to achieve the mission and vision of the parks system. The committee also urges Parks Division to review its internal allocation of funding to ensure compliance with the budget priorities given in Recommendation 15. Parks Division has an annual budget of about $12 million, including operational and capital costs, as well as parks, fishing access sites. State Parks Futures Cormittee, DeoemherJ, 2002 grants, and the trails program. Of this total, 2.2% comes from the state general fund, 26% comes from various programs administered by the federal government, and the remainder comes from a mix of fees and state tax sources (see Appendix E). The financial resources of the Parks Division are allocated according to the categories shown in the pie chart in Appendix E. Recommendation 14; Principles to Guide Funding The following principles should guide the funding of Montana State Parks: 1. Montana state parks are a valuable resource to the state of Montana, with a great yet unfulfilled potential to provide opportunities for recreation, education, conservation, interpretation, and economic development. 2. Without proper stewardship, the quality of state park resources and visitor experiences will decline. 3. It is important to optimize the effectiveness of park management, particularly when funding is scarce. This may include the reallocation of resources, programs, staffing, and funding. For this purpose, and consistent with all relevant laws and regulations, reaUoaition may include mothballing, trading, or disposing of park lands and resources, and reprioritizing programs and services. These actions should be taken only as a last resort, and, as far as possible, only when public access to the lands and resources can be preserved, preferably through administration by another public agency. Parks that would more appropriately be managed as FASs (such as AckleyLake) should be transferred to the FAS program. FWP should develop a policy and criteria to determine when and how to reallocate parks system lands and resources. 4. State parks cannot be self-sufficient and should be supported in part by public funds. 5. State parks should be managed to enhance their capacity to be more self-sufficient, consistent with the mission and vision statements presented earlier in this report. Park users should be expected to support the parks and programs they use, yet parks should not be inaccessible to people on low incomes. 6. When economic conditions allow, funding should be responsibly increased to sustain and improve the park system. Recommendation 15: Budget Priorities The Parks Division should use the following priorities to allocate its financial and human resources: First: Maintain existing park resources and facilities. Second: Protect public health and safety, which may include enforcement. Third: Enhance the experience of visitors. Fourth: Acquire land and resources (with the acquisition of in- holdings taking priority over purchase of completely new properties). In Region 6, the acquisition of one or more new parks is the top priority. Fifth: Support new construction. Funding Strategies Given the demonstrable need to increase funding for the state parks system, the Futiures Committee offers the following strategies. Rather than seek unanimous 10 State Parks Futures Committee, Deoember3, 2002 agreement on every strategy, the Committee agreed to present all of the strategies it considered followed by the percent of support among committee members for each strategy. Strategy 1 (see Table 1 for level of committee support): The Legislature and/ or the Paries Division and FWP should increase selected existing fees and taxes according to Table 1. Of the 42 parks in the system, 20 are fee sites. Most fee parks charge an entrance fee of $4 per car. An annual park pass is also available, and in the fall of 2001 FWP raised the fee for the pass from $20 to $24; the fee is now the same for residents and non-residents alike. An early- binJ discount of $4 is still available until early February of each year. Strategy 2 (100 % support); Pariis Divisions, specifically, regional paric managers, should work with local citizens and communities to foster public-private partnerships and "friends of the local state paric. This expectation should be included in the performance appraisals for regional park managers. The friends groups should be encouraged to help the parks division articulate a vision and management plan for the local park, and to set-up "trusts" or other appropriate vehicles to raise private funds to support their local state park. Realizing that no single model will work for all state parks, the Futures Committee recognizes a number of existing arrangements that seem to be working, including but not limited to Friends of Makoshika, Traveler's Rest, Friends of Bannack, and the Heritage Park Commission. Strategy 3 ^89 % support): The FWP Commission should raise the fee for candleUght tours at Lewis & Clarit Caverns from $8/$5 to $15/$8. This strategy was proposed because demand far outstrips the available slots for candlelight tours. But at least one Committee member felt that these fees should stay at their current levels. It seemed inappropriate, they said, to raise fees on local people bringing families and friends to the caverns during the winter holidays. The addirional revenue would be minimal, and it would be more in the holiday spirit to simply ask visitors to make donations in support of parks if they felt so inclined. Sttategv 4 (78 % support): The FWP Commission should raise the fees for annual paric passports to $30/$18 ($24/$15 for eariy bird purchases). Most Committee members felt that the existing $24/$ 15 fee for an annual park passport was a real bai^ain. They agreed that park users should bear a significant share of the costs for providing parks, and most felt that park users would understand the need for a fee increase and accept it. But several Committee members said that the park system provides a widespread public benefit and so should be supported by all Montanans. They worried that increasing entrance and annual passport fees would inhibit some Montanans from using the parks. Strategy 5 (67 % support); The Legislature should pass a referendum to either (a) create a one- mill levy dedicated to state parks (which would result in about $2.2 miUion annually); or (b) create a license plate fee - that is, adding a $4 or $5 fee to the purchase of license plates for all vehicles "one-ton" and under. Given that there are about 900,000 vehicles that would be subject to the license plate fee, this strategy would generate a total of $3.6 to $4.5 million, or a net gain of about $3.1 to $3.9 million each year. People would still be required to pay for camping, showers, and other amenities at state parks, in addition to fees at special parks such as Lewis and Qark Caverns. 11 State Parks Futures Ccmrittee, DecanberJ, 2002 Either strategy would allow FWP to eliminate entrance fees to state parks for Montana residents. The Futures Committee prefers a mill levy over the license plate fee because the license plate fee would be difficult to administer, many people have more than one vehicle, and it would be less progressive, with a greater financial impact on low-income citizens. The Futures GDmmittee recognizes that implementing either one of these strategies and allowing free admission to Montana residents may not only increase the number of people visiting state parks, but also the potential for vandalism and the need for enforcement. Strategy 6 (67 % support): The Legislature should levy a tax on rental cars, 90 percent of which are rented by non-residents, and allocate all of the proceeds to the state paries. A 4% tax would raise about $1.3 million annually. Strategy 7 (56 % support); Parks Division should create a pilot project at two state pariu - one urfjan and one rural - to maximize the collection of fees (see Appendix H). This will require additional resources from the Legislature. Regional park managers say that controlled, staffed entrance points are needed across the park system. Having a person at the entrance ends up being efficient and cost effective because it heads off many problems before they occur. Charging a fee and staffing an entrance station increases visitor respect for the park and dramatically reduces vandalism and other problems. Managers can focus the use of entrance staff during high-use times — certain seasons, weekends, and holidays. During low-use periods, the staff can work in other areas, such as weed control, maintenance and repair, etc. Staffing entrance stations adds a cost (paying the person to be there to collect fees), but creates revenues and savings by (1) enhancing revenues (fees collected); (2) reducing vandalism; (3) reducing costs of after-the-fact enforcement; and (4) potentially increasing visitation (because people enjoy a better experience). To cover the cost of staffing park entrances, two visitors an hour (at $4 each) equals the hourly wage of a staff person ($8 an hour). Strategy 8 (56 % support); The Legislature should raise the fee for a motorboat decal from $2.50 ($0.50 of which goes to Paiks) to $10 ($6 of which would go to Parks). Some Committee members felt this increase was reasonable because $10 would be a small fee relative to the cost of most motorboats. Other Committee members said that motorboat owners already pay a number of fees or taxes that contribute revenue to state parks and other programs, and such an increase was unwarranted. Strategy 9 (56 % support); The Pariis Division should impose a fee on launching motoriioats. The Futures Committee agreed that this wovdd not be necessary given their recommendation to raise the fee for motorboat decals. Strategy 10 (44 % support); The Legislature should institute a fee decal ($5 to $10) for non-motorized boats. Some Committee members said that non-motorized boaters who use public boat access points and other facilities should share in the costs of providing those facilities. Others argued that basic public access to a public resource should remain free. Also, boaters using private access would resist paying for a decal, enforcement would be difficult and costly, and the issue might be better addressed in a river recreation planning process. 12 State Parks FtOures Comnittee, DeoenierJ, 2002 Strategy 11 (56 % support); The Parks Division should create a "park tmst" at one or more state parks. A trust is a legal assignment of certain powers to one or more persons, called trustees, who manage assets for the benefit of another. In the context of state parks, the idea would be to require the trust to cover all costs either from revenues generated from park assets or from private contributions of funds, property, or services by individuals, corporations, or charitable foundations. Strategy U (44 % support): The Legislature should levy a land conversion tax— a tax collected when undeveloped land is developed for any non-agricultural puipose. Some Committee members saw this as a way to raise revenues to support parks while providing an incentive for Montana landowners to leave rural lands undeveloped. Other Committee members were opposed on principle to creating new taxes. Strategy 13 (33 % support): The Legislature should increase the amount of the severance tax on natural gas production, specifically coal bed methane, firom 15% to 30% and dedicate some or all of the proceeds to the state parks. Strategy 14 (33 % support); The Legislature should increase the accommodations (orbed) tax by 4% and maintain the existing allocation of the revenue by this tax. This strategy would raise about $728,000 per year for the state parks s)'stem. OTHER Policy Considerations Recommendation 16: The Legislative and Executive branches should recognize the economic value of Montana's environmental assets, including state parks. Strategies for economic development should build on these environmental assets while sustaining the resources. Montana's public lands, scenic open space, cultural and historic sites, rivers, and wildlife provide a quality of life uncommon outside our borders. Our relatively unspoiled envirorunent— including the state parks system— is also a major economic asset, attracting tourism and small business to the state and offering a promising foundation for economic development. State govemment, and the parks system in particular, should play an important role in supporting such economic development and enhancing residents' quality of life. Tourism is a major economic driver in Montana with tremendous growth potential. In communities across the state, private sector services (hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, retail stores, guides, etc.) are expanding to capture tourism dollars, significantly diversifying and rejuvenating local economies. According to a 2002 study done by the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, the most important activities for visitors to our state are watching wildlife (50%), day hiking (46%), picnicking (36%), history (35%), and visiting museums (25%). These activities are dependent on the natural, cultural, and historic landscapes and resources held in the stewardship of local, state, and federal govemment. Without public stewardship of these public resources, Montana's tourism potential would be severely diminished. Currently, a number of state agencies administer tourism- related programs and manage tourism-related resources. The Montana Department of Transportation manages rest stops. The Montana Heritage Commission acquires and develops historic sites such as Virginia and Nevada cities. Tlie Montana Historical Society manages historic 13 State Parks Futures Convrittee, DeoemberJ, 2002 properties and serves as curator for an extensive artifacts collection. The Lewis and Qark Commission focuses on the bicentennial of the Corps of Discovery expedition. Within PJCP, Parks Division manages 42 state parks and 320 FASs. Among state agencies, only Travel Montana has the primary focus of promoting tourism. Montana can strengthen its economy by thoughtfully planning for and investing in tourism and envirorunental quality. This will require a concerted, coordinated, more efficient effort on the part of state government. To do so, the Futures Committee recommends that, over the long term; • The state consolidate the planning and administration of outdoor, culture, and history- related recreation and tourism in one agency to save money, avoid duplication of efforts, and increase effectiveness. This arrangement would not remove authority for tourism promotion from Travel Montana or curator services from the Hstorical Society. • This recreation and tourism agency serve as a recreation extension service to help the private sector develop outdoor, cultural, and historic heritage tourism businesses. • This agency serve as the coordinator of statewide efforts to develop and update a State Outdoor Recreation Plan and as the state's representative with groups such as the Interagency Travel Tourism Initiative. • State parks be managed to enhance economic diversification and to supply a variety of outdoor, cultural, and historic experiences, including the creation of linear parks along historic pioneer trails and rivers. Recommendation 17: The Paries Division and FWP Commission should develop a uniform policy on the commetx:ial use of state parks. The policy should provide sufficient flexibility to meet local needs and interests and balance local and statewide interests. Recommendation 18: The Legislature, FWP Commission, and Parits Division should provide sufficient resources for enforcement to protect public health and safety, as well as park resources. monitoring and Evaluation The recommendations in this report are intended to maintain and improve Montana's state parks system as we move into the 21" century. Many challenges and opportunities will arise as these recommendations are implemented. To help ensure that the recommendations have the desired effects and are tailored to best serve the parks and their visitors, we urge Montana's citizens and public officials to constructively monitor and evaluate implementation. We encourage the Govemor's Office; FWP Commission; and FWP Director to work with Parks Division throughout this process and to hold one another accountable to the mission and vision of the parks system. The committee also recommends that Parks Division periodically report to the public on progress through articles in its newsletter and on the department web site. Further, we encourage the Legislative Audit Division to review Parks Division progress at appropriate intervals. 14 State Parks Futures ComnvOee, December}, 2002 Table 1. Suggestions to Increase for Existing Fees/Taxes Item Current Price Proposed Price Estimated New Revenue c c ■l c .c (/■ I Park Passport (78% support) $24/15 $30/20 $30,000 (20% resistance)" Early Bird passport (56% support) $20/12 $24/15 Included in the above Eliminate Early Bird (89% support) Qvems Tour (89% support) $8/5 $10/5 w/ local disc. $35,0002 Prime Qmping (78% support) Big Arm, Finley, Wayfarers, Placid, Salmon, Cooney, Tongue $12/8 $15/11 $20,000 Smith River (100 % support) $15 (refundable) $30 drawing fee, refundable ($70 n/r), $30 float fee (res.) with a $15 low income float fee available, $70 n/r, no n/r low income; $200 nonresident guided fee, $30 guide. $35,1703 Miscellaneous: (67 % support) Bannack gold panning Cave candle tours $0 $8/5 $l/person $10/5 $500 $540* j i i Eliminate Senior discount (89 % support) Vi price camping Full price camping $15,0005 Charge at Primitive (44 % support) $0 Regular fees Not accepted by committee ^ Motorboat decal (56 % support) $2.50 ($.50 to parks, $2.00 to law enforcement) $10 ($5.50 new to parks, $2.00 new to enforcement). $23 l,000(to parks) ($84,000 to Enforcement) RV license fee (67 % support) $3.50 $5 $90,961 Boat In Lieu (67 % support) 20% of fees 25% of fees $68,750 Figured on a percentage basis of existing sales less 20% buyer resistance. 2 Assumes implementation of a locals discount for multi- visits, $10 first visit- $5 each additional visit; 34,420 adults, 9,262 child, 3,901 adult group, 2,727 child group. Child is G'*" grade and under. 5 Using 2001 stats, 1,678 private floaters X $15 new - $25,170; 250 guided clients X $25 new - $6,250; 250 guides X $15 new - $3,750. * 360 candlelight tours annually, assume 75% adults =270 X 2 (the new $ addition) +90 X $ 0 (new child fee). 5 Assumes 10- 15% senior camping discounts are used today. 15 State Parks Futures Conrrittee, DeaerrherJ, 2002 Table 2. Suggestions for New Funding Sources Item Current Proposed Est New Revenue Non- motorized boat fee (44 % support) $0 $5-$10 $354,000- $700,0001 Vehicle license plate (56 % support) $0 $4/vehicle $2,900,0002 Statewide Mill Levy (44 % support) ' Assumes 3:1 motorboats to non-motorboats, 42,000 X 3 =126,000 X $5 =$630,000 X 75% licensed each year X 75% of the funds to State Parks (25% to FAS program) =$354,000 ($118,000 to FAS). 2 Assumes 900,000 vehicles under one ton, less existing entrance fees ($584,000), less $100,000 assumed to Dept. of Justice for collections. 16 State Parks Futures Camittee, DeoemberS, 2002 j^pendix A Executive Order State of Montana Office of the Governor Executive Order No. 27-01 EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABUSHING THE STATE PARK FUTURES GOMMITrEE II WHEREAS, Montana's State Parks were created with the purpose of conserving the scenic, historic, archaeologic, scientific, and recreational resources of the state and providing for their use and enjoyment thereby contributing to the ciJtural, recreational and economic life of the people and their health; and WHEREAS, Montana's State Parks provide world class recreational opporttinities for Montanans and their guests; and WHEREAS, recreation on Montana's State Parks contributes significandy to the quality of life and economy of the people of the state; and WHEREAS, the number of people recreating in Montana's State Parks is growing; and WHEREAS, there was a review of the state parks program done in 1989 by the State Park Futures Committee that lead to improvements within the state parks system; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Audit Division reviewed the programs within the Parks Division of Fish WJdlife and Parks and with the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks recommended to me the creation of the State Park Futures Committee II. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JUDY MARTZ, Governor of the State of Montana, by virtue of the authority vested in me under the laws and Constitution of the State of Montana, do hereby create the State ParkFunares Committee II. PURPOSE Tlie State Park Futures Committee II shall: A. Make recommendations to the Governor, the 2003 Legislature and Fish, Wildlife & Parks regarding changes that have occurred in the parks system since the original state park futures committee met in 1989 including 1. Park fee revenues and funding source 2. Park resources 3 . Statutory park designation 4. Park designations 5. Potential long term policy changes 6. Distribution of state parks across the state 7. Other policy considerauons 17 State Parks Futures Cormittee, DeoerderJ, 2002 B. Recommendations from the State Park Futures Committee II shaU: 1. Consider the 1990 Futures Committee report; the 2020 Vision for Montana State Parks System Plan and the 2001 performance audit conducted by the Legislative Audit Division. 2. Consider the social and, economic effects, both positive and negative, of state changes. 3. Consider the values and needs of all recreational users. 4. Consider the financial and staffing state parks system. 5. Be technically, legally, socially and economically feasible to implement. C In its deliberations the State Park Futures Committee II shall seek and consider input from citizens of the state and other interested parties. II. COMPOSITION The Committee shall consist of not more than 10 members appointed by the Governor. Members will represent a variety of interests including, but not Umited to private citizens; legislators; the tourism community and business interests. The names and addresses of members, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Govemor, are submitted by separate letter to the Secretary of State and the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. III. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND COMPENSATION Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will provide administrative support to the Committee. Committee members shall serve without compensation, but shall be 'reimbursed by Fish, Wildlife & Parks for reasonable travel expenses pursuant to sections 2-15-122(5) and 2-18-501 through 2-15503, MCA IV. DURATION The Committee shall exist for a period of 18 months from the effective date of this Order unless extended by subsequent Executive Order. This order shall be effective immediately. GIVEN under my hand and the GREAT SEAL of the State of Montana, this 3f^ day of October 2001. JUDYMARTZ, Govemor ATTEST BOB BROWN, Secretary of State 18 State Parks Futures Convrittee, DeoenixrS, 2002 Appendix B Map of Montana State Parks 1. AckleyLake 2. Anaconda Stack 3. Bannack 4. Beaverhead Rock 5. Beavertail Hill. 6. Chief Plenty Coups 7. Clark's Lookout 8. Cooney 9. Council Grove 10. Elkhom 11. Flathead Lake 12. Fort Owen 13. Frenchtown Pond 14. Giant Springs 15. Granite Ghost Town 16. Greycliff Prairie Dog Town 17. HauserLake 18. HelJQeek 19. Lake Elmo 20. Lake Mary Ronan 21. Lewis &aark Caverns 22. Logan 23. Lone Pine 24. Lost Creek 25. Madison Buffalo Jump 26. Makoshika 27. Medicine Rocks 28. Missouri Headwaters 29. Painted Rocks 30. Parker Homestead 31. Pictograph Cave 32. Pirogue Island 33. Placid Lake 34. Rosebud Batdefield 35. Salmon Lake 36. Sluice Boxes 37. Smith River 38. Spring Meadow Lake 39. Thompson Falls 40. Tongue River 41. UlmPishkun 42. Whitefish Lake 19 State Parks Futures Conmittee, DecErrherJ, 2002 i^pendix C Proposed Statutory Fmmewoik and Administrative Rule 1, Gatify in statute the role of Montana State Paiks. In Montana, a range of federal, state, and local governments and private organizations and business provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment and preservation of natural, cultural, and historical resources. "Within this range, the role of the Montana State Parks s)«tem is to: • Protect, maintain, and interpret natural, cultural, historical resources of statewide significance, and recreational resources of at least regional significance. • Provide recreational opportunities in primarily rural, rustic, minimally developed settings, including campsites without utility hook-ups. Most if not all state parks, therefore, will have s^nif icantly more facility development than federally des^nated wilderness and recreation areas but less development than is common in city and county parks or private recreation facilities. 2. Clarify in statute legislative intent for the management of the State Paries system. FWP and the Parks Division shall manage the state park system to preserve, enhance, and interpret a diverse representation of Montana's most outstanding natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources, for the spiritual, social, and economic benefit of present and future generations, and to ensure that: • Natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources are protected and mamtained to prevent their degradation over time; • Long-range stewardship is achieved through management policies and plans developed with professional and public input; • Public use facilities are appropriate, safe, clean, and, as far as possible, accessible; • The parks remain affordable to Montanans; and • Development is not increased incrementally without public input and legislative approval after review of: (a) the desires of the public as expressed to the department; (b) the stated need for the improvements, based on: I. the need to meet minimum public health standards regarding sanitation, which may include necessary access to outhouses, vaults, and water, ii. the need to ensure the safe public use of existing facilities; Hi. the need to ensure safe public access through the addition of gravel to existing unpaved roads and the resurfacing of paved roads; Iv. the need to establish new hiking trails or improve existing hiking trails; and V. the need for directional, regulatory, and Interpreuve signage to preserve the park's resources and enhance visitor experience; (c) the capacity of the park for development; (d) enviroiunental impacts associated with the improvement or development; (e) the capital costs of the improvements; (f) the long-term maintenance and operation costs of the improvements; (g) the protection of natural, cultural, and historical park features; (h) potential impacts on tourism; and (I) site-specific modifications as they relate to the park system as a whole. 20 State Parks Futures Contrittee, Decembers, 2002 3. By administrative rule, develop a classification system for State Park management zones. The Legislauire directs PKr* to develop by administrative rule a classification system for management zones within state parks (see sample below). Each park or zone within a park as delineated in a management plan shall be cbssified under the administrative rule. To move a park or zone from one class to another shall require: • A management plan completed within the last five years; • Opportunities, both statewide and locally, for meaningful public involvement; and . Legislative approval of funding for the development that would require the reclassification, upon review of (a) through (i) above. Sample State Parks Classification System Park Management Zones Undeveloped Or Minimally Semi-Developed IHighly Developed Developed Day Use Camping Mostly natural or undisturbed Substantially modified natural or historical Urbanized environment wnth a ft J X historical or natural environment environment with numerous facilities designed to high density of facilities and ■ Mngmt. managed with minimum, subtle accommodate a variety of visitor uses. Managed to management controls to I Priorities controls and facilities for visitor use. provide interpretive and recreational experiences accommodate varied and for higher numbers of visitors. intense visitor use. Not to exceed: All of the facilities All of the facilities All of the facilities to the • Unpaved trails. to the left, and not to the left, and not left, and: « Perimeter fencing. to exceed: to exceed: Paved interior Allowable Location or directional • Paved entrance Campsites. roads. 1 Facilities signs. road. . Fire pits. • Paved trails. • Iron ranger and • Gravel interior Host site Visitor center. Once classified, a park area cannot B be reclassified unstaffed information roads. utilities (water. Concession kiosk. . Staffed electricity. buildings and H under another • Gravel entrance road. entrance phone). facilities. zone without a • Parking area. station. RV dump Flush toilets. compelling human M health or resource Equipment station. . Showers. 1 protection reason, shed and • Picnic shelters. 9 a management maintenance Amphitheater or plan, public shop. activity pavilions. ^ , involvement, and H legislative review • Interpretive • Playground B and approval for signs. equipment and funding of the • Potable water. sports facilities. development that • Vault toilets. Rental cabins. ■ would require the H reclassification. Garbage collection. • Picnic tables. . Boat ramp. . Dock. • Staff housing. I I 21 State Parks Futures Corrrrittee, DeosnierJ, 2002 i^pendix D Potential Sites for State Paiks in Region 6 Region 6 Search ComniittEe's Top Four Recommendations Fort Assinniboine (4 miles south of Havre) Brush Lake (31 miles south east of PlentywoocQ Azure Cave (50 miles south of Malta) IMAX Dome Theater (Fort Peck) Other Locations the Search Committee Considered: Pioneer Village, Scobey Blaine County Wildlife Museum, Chinook Old Fort Belknap, Chinook Joe Hartman Ranch, south of Malta Rock Creek and Lewis & Qark Fishing Access Sites Brockton Town Park, Brockton Rock Creek, north of Hinsdale Threshing Bee, Qilbertson Iron Stake Ridge, south of Malta 22 State Parks Futures Committee, December 3, 2002 -/^pendix E Sources of Revenue FY02 - $11,906,820 rirk Source! 31% General Fund IV, Expenditures Capital Grounds Maint. 3% Comm. Grants Prgm. 10% Opt. & Malm. 56% 23 State Parks Futures Cormittee, DecmierJ, 2002 Appendix F Funding Needs as Presented by the Parks Division Present Budget: As presented and discussed at the State Park Futures II Committee, state parks are currently spending into cash reserves to operate and maintain the parks system in the condition that it is in today with the services that are provided today. In other words, state parks are spending more than they are taking in and cash reserves are being depleted. If this trend continues without either a reduction in expenditures or an increase in revenues in the main four park financial accounts, the parks system will have cash balances below those required by state law during FY 2006. To keep the cash balances positive, it will take either a budget reduction or a funding increase of $200,000 per year assimiing there is no program growth, no major maintenance, capital construction, program enhancements or land acquisition expenditures. Funding Need: $200,000 per year Equipment: The parks program has a fleet of over 400 pieces of specialized equipment ranging from small tools, computers, lawn mowers, dump trucks and backhoes. The division only keeps equipment for tasks that cannot be easily, practically and cost effectively contracted to the private sector. Historically, the parks division has spent approximately $37,500 per year replacing worn out equipment. This replacement amount has not been adequate to replace the $1.5 million equipment inventory. The replacement schedule for equipment varies with the type of equipment being discussed. The numerous small items, like computers and small lawn mowers, generally have a 4-5 year useful life. Generally, the latter and more expensive the piece of equipment, the longer the life, such as large mowers and utility tractors may last 12 years and backhoes have a life of 20-25 years. Because of the large range of equipment and their useful lives, we estimate needing to replace the entire fleet of equipment every 10 years. Funding Need: $112,500 per year Operating Budgets: The 1991 State Park Futures Committee Report identified and recommended an increase of over 30 FTEs over a 5-year time frame to allow the parks program to operate effectively and to meet the needs of the public and of the park resources. Since that time there have been less than 10 FTEs added to the parks program with most of those used for maintenance. Currently, the parks program, including state parks, fishing access sites and trails, has 110 FTEs. Regional park managers and maintenance supervisors were polled during the Futures Committee II process to assess current budget conditions and needs. A total of 38.40 FTE are needed by the parks system to operate a fully functioning state parks program. The positions needed range from state pay grade 7 caretakers and laborers, to grade 9 tour guides, grade 11 fee coUectors, entry level park managers, volunteer and supervisors. Using a midlevel grade range these 38.4 FTE would cost $1,275,000 per year. Hstorically, personal services budgets make up about 70% of the operating costs of the parks program. An equivalent amount of operations support for these FTEs would be $550,000 for travel, uniforms, supplies and materials and contracted services. Funding Need: 38.40 FTE @ $1,275,000 + $550,000 operations = $1,825,000 per year, or $48,000 per FTE 24 State Parks Futures Comrittee, December 3, 2002 Land Inholdings Acquisitions: The Futures II Committee was presented an inventory of all of the park inholdings, private lands within or adjoining parks, which are vital to the operation of the park or to protect the resources within a park. This inventory did not have land values on all of the listed parcels because some of the values are unknown and others are not conceivable to acquire. Of the listed parcels with prices, the value is estimated to be $2.5 million. Assuming a 50% match on one half of the parcels using LWCF and a ten- year acquisiuon schedule, the parks program needs $187,500 per year to acquire inholdings, plus authority to spend the associated federal LWCF. This figure does not include acquisition of new parks. Funding Need: $187,500 per year Major Maintenance, Deferred Maintenance and Capital Construction: The Futures Committee was provided with several pieces of information about capital construction. In the last ten years state parks have done $30.5 million in capital repairs, rehabilitations and improvements to state parks, and the parks system today reflects these improvements. Nominally this has left $36 million in needed maintenance, repairs and enhancements. It is safe to assume the useful life of capital construction projects to be 20 years. It is also fair to assume that the existing needed capital projects cannot be accomplished in less than a 10- year period. As the final project is complete in 10 years, then the first project done 11 years ago will be ready of major renovation. Therefore, assimiing a 20- year useful life and $36 million in current needs and $30 million in current assets also with a 20- year life, it will require $3.3 million per year to maintain current level asset conditions within the capital construction program. It fair to assume that 25 percent of this capital construction cost will be covered by federal funding each year. Fundii^ Need: $2.5 million per year State Park Funding Needs Per Year Present Budget $200,000 Equipment $112,500 Operating Budgets (38.40 FTE @ $1,275,000 + $550,000 operations) $1,825,000 Land Inholdings Acquisitions $187,500 Major Maintenance, Deferred Maintenance, and Capital Construction $2,500,000 Total Funding Need Per Year $4,825,000 25 State Parks Futures Convrittae, DeoerrherJ, 2002 ^pendix G Maintenance Categories at Montana State Parks Park Site Major Main. Defer. Main. Cap. Rehab. Cap. Enhance Region 1 Logan flush latrines in day use area $100,000 latrine replacement, fee booth replacement, upgrade host pad, utility upgrade. $33,000 storage building, picnic shelter, roofing $175,000 Lone Pine renovate existing building $600,000 $400,000 upgrade interp, repair roof, disabled accessibility, trail improvements $250,000 West Shore comfort station $250,000 tree removal, chlorination system $14,000 repave roads, storage building, rehab boat ramp and parking, relocate camp areas $250,000 $900,000 Big Arm tree removal $5,000 road repair, storage building, relocate host pads, latrine replacements, entrance station, boat slips $300,000 Whitefish Lake tree removal, chlorination system $10,000 level camp pads, boat slips, beach repair, trail $250,000 Wayfarers provide additional camping opportunities $500,000 storage, road repairs, level camp pads, boat docks $100,000 Lake Mary Ronan chlorination system $5,000 Finley Point modify campsites, provide additional camping $100,000 $200,000 Wildhorse Island latrine, interpretation, trails $100,000 Somers additional parking, boat trailer parking $200,000 Lions Camp restore historic lodge $200,000 Yellow Bay provide parking, replace toilets, r&r storage shed, interp, boat docking $400,000 Region 2 Frenchtown Pond Phase 11 construction, comfort station, landscaping, beach improvements $350,000 Beavertail comfort station, show/ers $200,000 $150,000 26 State Parks Futures Convrittee, Deoenixr3, 2002 Hill camp loop repairs, group use shelter, road repairs $200,000 Placid Lake road repair, internal and county connecting $375,000 toilet replacement $15,000 Salmon Lake road repair- internal, replace water systems, boat slips $275,000 Council Grove interpretive display rehab, road repairs, group use shelter, fencing, trails $100,000 Painted Rocks water well reconstruction, distribution system, picnic tables, docks $200,000 fire rings $2,500 Lost Creek latrine replacement, interior road work, connecting roads, fire rings, table replacement. $20,000 $250,000 host pad, parking lot construction, campsite realignments $250,000 Ft. Owen building stabilization $100,000 water system, parking areas, roads, lighting, interpretation $100,000 latrine replacement, rechink cabin, repoint wall $20,000 Anaconda Stack repair top of stack, light stack, add lightning rods, interpretation $200,000 Granite roads, parking, signing, fencing, stabilization, adaptive use modifications $300,000 latrine $8,000 Blackfoot Corridor latrine replacement $8,000 $40,000 Region 3 Lewis and Clark Caverns entrance station $800,000 maintenance building rehab/recon $250,000 cave wiring $1,000,000 trails, campground water rehab, interp $500,000 group use shelter $50,000 water system updates, tables, fire rings $15,000 Bannack building stabilization $1,500,000 visitor center $2,500,000 interpretive displays $50,000 host pads, entrance contact station $50,000 Employee housing $250,000 latrine replacement $15,000 27 State Parks Futures Camittee, Deaenixr3, 2002 flume repairs $6,000 Spring Meadow fencing, signing, trail work. $12,000 roads, landscaping, toilets, amphitheater, added trails $100,000 $300,000 Kellner remodel $3,500,000 Black Sandy Roads, entrance station $75,000 Disabled fishing pier repairs $2,500 White Sandy Initial development $1,500,000 Clarks Lookout Initial development $75,000 Madison Buffalo Jump Interpretive displays, roof repair, latrines $80,000 Missouri Headwaters Group use shelter, interpretation, camping mosquito shelters, equipment storage, staff office, visitor contact area $250,000 Elkhorn Building stabilization $75,000 Beaverhead Rock Parking, access road, interp, trails $400,000 Region 4 Giant Springs Roads repair and reroute, irrigation repairs, landscaping, trails $200,000 $300,000 North Shore initial development $1,000,000 Bridge repair, signing, ADA access, toilets. $40,000 Ulm Pishkun Outside electrical, sidewalk extension, gravel parking area $4,000 Fencing, outside interpretation, trail extension $50,000 Buffalo pasture $100,000 Sluice Boxes trails, parking lot, latrines, fencing $75,000 Smith River Parking, fencing, signs $1,500 Conservation easements $500,000 Region 5 Lake Elmo trail improvements, vegetation rehab. $100,000 paint concession/restroom areas $15,000 Plenty Coups new wing on visitor center $1,500,000 property acquisition $350,000 staff housing $250,000 tree removal and pruning $8,500 sprinkler system $4,500 Pictograph Cave rehab interp., trails, water supply $100,000 $100,000 28 State Parks Futures Committee, DecenixrS, 2002 Cooney water system, contact station, roads, signing, maintenance facility $1,200,000 Comfort station $300,000 repair sidewalks $3,000 Greycliff Prairie Dogtown rehabilitate interpretation $40,000 Region 6 New Park initial development $1,500,000 Region 7 Hell Creek upgrade water system, group use building, roads, $800,000 comfort station $250,000 Latrine replacement, irrigation system, tree planting $31,000 Makoshika road repairs $1,000,000 water line extension, trails, relocate rifle ""ange, fencing, latrine replacements, update day use area $500,000 secondary day use and camping areas $250,000 trail developments $50,000 latrine replacements $16,000 Medicine Rocks road repairs, latrine replacements, trails, interp. $250,000 Rosebud Battlefield visitor center $2,500,000 Internal road system, trails, interp $100,000 Kobold house stabilization $100,000 fence riparian area to keep cattle out $10,000 Tongue Reservoir group use area, river camp improv. $125,000 latrine replacements $8,000 $335,000 road barriers $8,000 $8,000 Pirogue Island foot bridge, interpretation $25,000 $75,000 $375,500 $1 1 ,288,000 $5,575,000 $18,805,000 TOTAL Total of all nr laintenance categories: $36,0 43,500 29 State Parks Futures Conmittee, DeoerrierJ, 2002 i^pendix H Potential Pilot Project on Entrance Staffing to improve revenue collection and overall park operations. Park ENTRANCE FTE Region/Parii FTE need, Operation Current schedule How FTE would be Est. Potential grade & cost budget used Revenue 7 - Tongue 0.55 FTE at $7,000 to create Limited summer New staff would work $20,000 River Grade 9 for a entrance station hours over many entrance to administer Reservoir FY'04 cost of $13,541. on road. entrances fees and provide info to users on boating safety site occupancy and park rules. 3 - Spring 0.25 FTE at $300 in fixed cost 10 hours per day 7 Shoulder seasons and $12,500 Meadow Grade 1 1 for a Items days per week from wmter in association FY'04 cost of Mem. Day to Labor with other duties such $5,870 day. "When entrance not staffed compliance = 40% as maint. Fee compliance when entrance staffed is 90%. 1 - Flathead 1.64 FTE at $1,000 in fixed 5 days per week at 8 Extend season by 5 $25,000 Lake and Grade 8 for a cost cost items such as hours per day from weeks and staff to 7 Whitefish in FY'04 of mileage, uniforms, Memorial day to days/ week, 10 Lake $38,518 each park =0.41 FIE and $9,629 etc. Labor day. hrs/day With additional benefit to other staff. 5 - Cooney 0.50 FTE at $7,000 to create Summer hours with New staff would work $30,000 Reservoir Grade 8 for a cost entrance station roving staff across 5 entrance to administer in FT04 of on road. entrances. fees and provide info $11,743. to users on boating safety site occupancy and park rules. 2 - Salmon 0.50 FTE at $500 in fixed cost 20 hours/-w4c on Extend weekly staff $12,000 Lake, Placid Grade 8 for a cost items Fri./Sat./Sun. hours every day all Lake State inFT04of 50% compliance summer - esp. Parks $11,743 Each park = 0.25 FTE and $5,735 w/o staffing present. evenings and day use at Salmon. 3 - Bannack 0.15 FTE at $4,000 for Mem day to Labor 0.15 would provide $10,000 Grade 8 for entrance station day 10-6. staff for May and after shoulder season on road. Labor Day 0.50 staff = $2,950. would staff entrance 0.50 FTE at during summer Grade 8 for season. summer staff = $ 9,786. 30 State Parks Futures Cormittee, DecenixrS, 2002 Region/Park FTE need, grade & cost Operation budget Current schediJe How FTE would be used Est Potential Revenue 4 - Giant Springs 0.25 FTE at grade 7 =$4,461 for shoulder seasons and summer. Mid May- Labor Day 10 hours per day, 4 days per week. FlE would open program earlier in the year and keep fee program in place later while extending hours during summer. High local resident fee resistance. $4,500 TOTAL 4.09 FTE $94,151 $21,800 $114,000 It is worth noting that each manager felt that when park entrances are not staffed, fee compliance ranges from 40-50% for day use fee compliance. When entrances are staffed the compliance goes up to 90-95%. This does not include passport holders. Passport sales go up noticeably when parks are staffed and those parks that are staffed earlier in the season see earlier and increased passport sales. Each manager also noted that the benefits of entrance staffing go beyond day use fee sales and may be observed in camping fee compliance. Finally, each manager felt that the benefit to: 1) existing staff through reduced burnout, 2) visitors through better service and, 3) citizens through lower vandalism and visitor behavior were justification that is not easily measured but clearly worthwhile. 31 State Parks Futures Cormioee, Deoenher3, 2002 Appendix I Information Resources on Montana State Parks The following publications are available by request from the Parks Division at Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East 6'*" Avenue, Helena, MT 59620; phone 406-444-3750. 2020 Vision for Montana State Parks SystemPlan, December 1998. 196 pp. Plan sets the broad, long- range direction for Montana State Parks system through the first two decades of the 21" century. Includes mission and history of the park system; Parks division organization, programs, and activities; park classifications and inventories; national and statewide trends affecting Montana state parks; visitation and visitor satisfaction; altemative futures for the park system; and envisioned outcomes, issues, goals, and strategies for Montana state parks through 2020. Aaxsrplishnents and Needs cf the State Park System, Parks Division, September 1992. 14 pp. Report to the State Parks Futures Committee I on the division's accomplishments, benefits realized, barriers, and remaining funding needs. Montana State Parks: SystemPlan, Recreation Management Opportunities and Inside Outside, February 10, 1989. 53 pp. Plan defines the major goal for the parks system, establishes standards of acceptability, and describes management and maintenance systems for each park Montana State Park System A Firundal Reueui Recreation Management Opportunities, no date. 49 pp. Report identifies financial issues facing Parks Division, proposes solutions, and offers recommendations. State Park Fee, Senioe, and Facility Suney Results Report, Dana E. Dolsen and Zoe King, Responsive Management Unit, FWP, January 5, 1999. 100 pp. Summarizes results of park visitor survey on park fee structure, facilities, services, and programs. State Parks Program, Report to the LegsLtme: Perfomunoe Audit, Legislative Audit Division, February 2001. 35 pp. Report provides background information on the parks system and operations, and policy considerations (including overall parks program direction). The State Park System Montana's Lesley - A NewGrouth Industry A Report to Govemor Stan Stephens and the 52"'' Legislature, State Parks Futures GDmmittee, November 1990. 51 pp. provides background on park system, mission, vision, barriers, and committee recommendations. WdconvHome toMontana State Parks, park system pamphlet, 2001. 14 pp. State map, parks facilities chart, and directions, brief descriptions, and phone numbers for each park. 32 State Parks Futures Committee, Decembers, 2002 i ■ ■ II n