Abstract

In an effort to keep New York State parks and historic sites open to the public, the New York State Park System has been battling state government over funding and spending cuts for the past few years.  The threat of losing the social and economic benefits that the park system brings to the state became very real as park closures were announced in spring 2010.  This essay; points out the disadvantage the park department has working as a government agency, highlights public support for the park system, demonstrates the parks ability to stimulate local economies, and introduces the suggestion that the preservation of New York State parks would be better served if it became its own separate business entity.

A Greener New York State Park:
Transformation from State Department to Non-Profit Entity

New York’s state parks are an invaluable social and economic resource to our state.  The vitality of these resources is now in danger, not because of economic instability or poor management, but rather from the association with a state government in desperate need to find ways of trimming a large budget deficit.  Perhaps it’s time for the New York State Park System to migrate into a separate independent entity.

Through park attendance, program diversity and community involvement, the general public has demonstrated the social value they place on our state park system.  Since the creation of Niagara Reservation State Park in 1885, New York State’s and our nation’s oldest state park, the New York State Park System has grown to encompass 330,000 acres distributed over 214 state parks and historic sites (New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 2009, p. 5).  In 2009, the park attendance topped 55 million visitors and is on track for another record breaking year.  According to Dan Keefe, speaking on behalf of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, “Visits to the parks and sites between April 1 and June 20 are up 1.3 million statewide, or 11 percent, from the same period last year.” (Rapp, 2010, para. 3)

The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), the primary organization charged with the caretaking and stewardship of the park system also coordinates many of the state’s public recreational facilities.  As of the filing of their 2009 Annual Report, “OPRHP is responsible for operating an extensive network of public recreational facilities that includes 5,000 buildings, 28 golf courses, 53 swimming pools, 76 beaches, 27 marinas, 40 boat launching sites, 18 nature centers, 817 cabins, 8,355 campsites, more than 1,350 miles of trails, extensive utility systems, 106 dams, hundreds of miles of roads, and 604 bridges…” (New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation , 2009, p. 5)  As a state agency, the OPRHP is also responsible for additional activities that deal indirectly with state services.  “These additional activities are varied and substantial. They include organizing the Empire State Games; administering the state recreational boating program; oversight of over 10,000 miles of snowmobile trails; administering local grants-in-aid programs which support park and recreational trail development by community groups and municipalities; and oversight of the state’s historic preservation programs.” (Heintz, Polling, Garrett-Peltier, 2009, p. 3)  Through the public utilization of these resources, we can see that programs, not always associated with the park system, bear social value for residents and visitors alike.

Even if you’ve never visited one of many facilities or taken advantage of one of the services maintained by the state, as a resident or member of a local community that supports one of these facilities, you are reaping the economic benefits stimulated by the state’s natural resources.  Several recently published articles all reference the University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute’s March 2009 report highlighting our state park system as an economic asset.  In summation, “New York State Parks generate substantial net economic benefits for the people and economy of the Empire State. On a statewide basis, direct spending by OPRHP and spending by visitors to state parks supports up to $1.9 billion in out-put and sales, $440 million in employment income, and 20,000 jobs.” (Heintz et al. 2009, p. 1)  The report goes on to say that the majority of these dollars are generated from non-residential tourists (p. 1).  This is significant in meaning because these are outside dollars being poured into our state economy — something our state is in desperate need of.

Unfortunately, New York State has found itself in a financial crisis.  Although reasoning varies as to the exact causes that have led to this situation, the fact remains that the state is currently facing an estimated $9.2 billion deficit for 2010 (Rapp, 2010) and has mandated additional cuts be made to programs across the board.  This is not a unique situation, but rather and an escalation of cuts that the OPRHP has been dealing with over the last two years.

“Over the past two years, OPRHP has absorbed five rounds of budget cuts totaling 25 percent of the agency’s operating budget. The agency’s summer workforce has been reduced by 1,000 permanent and seasonal workers. Budgets for equipment, supplies, and service contracts have been deeply cut. As a result, in 2009 OPRHP implemented service reductions at 100 State Parks and Historic Sites (shortened seasons, days, and hours of operation, and reduced programming).” (L.R. Waletzky, personal communication, December 15, 2009)

Still, as the budget deadline came closer, OPRHP was asked to cut again despite the agency’s own plans to trim $13 million in administrative costs, park closures would be necessary.  A committee reviewed overall attendance at each park, compiling a list of locations and services that would be affected.  In May 2010, the state closed 41 state parks and historic sites.  Only due to the public backlash did the New York State Senate pass a budget resolution restoring $11 million for park operations for the 2010-2011 budget.  (Majority Press, 2010)

More confusing was the decision to cut support to a vital economic engine, despite the evidence clearly indicating the substantial return on investment dollars these services bring.  In May of 2009, the PERI report concluded that “Clearly, the impact of the State Park System on New York’s economy is sizeable: the benefits exceed the direct costs of maintaining the state parks many times over. The benefit-to-cost ratio is more than 5-to-1: more than $5 in benefits for every $1 in costs.”  (Heintz et al., 2009, p. 1).  The park closures themselves would have minimal effect on the overall budget deficit.  The Syracuse Post-Standard indicated in February that the “$6.3 million saved through proposed park closures would amount to a fraction of 1 percent of the state’s $8.2 billion budget gap.” (Goldberg, 2010, para. 2)

So the parks have been funded for the remainder of the budget year but what about next year and the year after that?  The state financial situation looks bleak and it may take many years for New York to become financially stable again.  On August 3rd, 2010, New York State lawmakers completed this year’s budget — 125 days late and filled with cuts from many educational and social programs (Gormley, 2010).  In the mean time, the state park system may be asked to perform additional future cuts upon request.  This makes the organization unable to effectively create long term financial forecasting and development planning due to the state’s financial instability.  The funding for the restoration of this year’s budget came at the expense of the Environmental Protection Fund’s $5 million reduction of revenue.  This is on top of additional cuts already made to that fund (Goldberg, 2010; Majority Press, 2010).

If the OPRHP were to transform into a separate identity, such as a not-for-profit 501c3 organization, it would obtain the autonomy to thrive and prosper on its own and would not be subject to the financial cuts currently depleting its ability to grow and prosper.

The concept is not as foreign as you might think and much of the organizational architecture is already in place.  OPRHP has a main office with regional offices scattered throughout the state.  Each regional office is charged with maintaining its own operations, services and support base such as board members and volunteers.  This model fits into the basic non-profit catchment structure found in 501c3 organizations around the country.  A prime model might be the National Heritage Trust Program, a separate public benefit corporation that has acquired non-profit status and maintains “Staff at the Washington, DC, headquarters, six regional offices and 29 historic sites work with the Trust’s 270,000 members and thousands of preservation groups in all 50 states.” (http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/, para. 2).

This is not to say that state funding should be decreased or eliminated, rather monies received from state dollars would be allocated to capital projects and maintained independently of the monies raised by the organization for the sustainment operations of the parks and historic areas themselves.  I would expect state funding of this newly formed independent entity would be treated with the legislative and financial incentives that any corporation generating over $1 billion in revenue for the state would be afforded.

The transformation into a not-for-profit entity would allow direct support of the organization through public, private and, yes, even additional state and federal funding.  Take for example the announcement that the Empire State Development Corporation was awarding $7.7 million in tax payer funded grants to help private developers and companies renovate buildings, buy equipment and build housing.  (Goldberg, 2010)  This award took place just hours after the announcement of park closures in May.  “The money ESDC gave out in grants couldn’t be used to save the parks because it is borrowed, which means it can’t legally be used for state operating expenses…” (Goldberg, 2010, para. 8).  They key phrase being ‘state operating expenses’.  As a separate entity, this restriction would not apply and the park system could utilize tax payer funded grants as another revenue stream.

Private corporate support programs could be developed with major retail chains specializing in outdoor equipment and services.  This does not imply that we should erect a 40’ Gander Mountain sign at all park entrances, however tasteful signage and naming rights in exchange for maintaining a valuable public resource seems like a “no brainer”.  We utilize naming sponsorship for our athletic facilities and this seems no different.  These types of arrangements could lead to additional independent capital investments by the retail facilities into the infrastructure of the parks.  A more convenient and visible corporate presence that offers reasonably priced lessons (i.e. rock climbing, hiking, fishing, biking, etc.) would increase park attendance, employment and additional revenue growth to parking and concession fees while still maintaining a free park system.  This co-dependent relationship between the public and private sectors could transition the the funding of capital improvements from the tax payer, in the form of state and federal grants, to private corporate sponsorship.

In addition to approximately one third of all operating expenses generated from current revenue streams (i.e. vehicle entry fees, camping, firewood, etc.) the OPRHP is developing individual “Friends” groups that raise money, volunteers and public support for individual parks or sites.  One couple, Betty & Wilbur Davis, have donated land and secured $2.1 million for the creation of a new state park outside of Cooperstown.  The balance of unused funds to be held in endowment for that park (New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 2009).  Cultivating private endowments are a direct result from continued long term enjoyment of the services the park system provides.

We know the economic and social value of the many resources connected to our state park system.  To ensure that its governing body, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, be allowed the ability to continue to offer these resources to the general public; they must become a separate entity independent of the state.  In order for future generations to experience our parks, further investigation and our lobbying to this end is crucial.

Annotated References

Goldberg, D. (2010, February 20). Closing New York state parks would save little money. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from syracuse.com: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/closing_new_york_state_parks_w.html

Delen Goldberg is a veteran reporter for The Syracuse Post Standard.  The purpose of this article is to indicate how much money would actually be saved through park closures.  It also touches upon other agencies, like the EPA that are affected by our state budget troubles.  The target audience is the general public.

Gormley, M. (2010, August 4). NY Legislature passes state budget 4 months late. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HCLSC80.htm

Bloomberg Businessweek is a reliable financial resource targeting the financial community.  This article discusses the final passing of the New York State budget.

Hudson Valley Business Journal. (2009). New York State Parks 2009 Reservations up 6 percent over last year. Hudson Valley Business Journal , 19 (14), 20-21.

There is no specific author listed for this particular article, however the Hudson Valley Business Journal is long lasting business resource.  The brief article refers to park attendance and targets the Central New York business community.  Current attendance information is referenced in my paper.

Heintz, J., Pollin, R., & Garrett-Peltier, Heidi. (2009). THE NEW YORK STATE PARK SYSTEM: AN ECONOMIC ASSET TO THE EMPIRE STATE. University of Massachusetts. Amherst: Political Economy Research Institute.

Heintz, Pollin, & Garrett-Peltier are co-authors representing the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), an independent unit of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, with close ties to the Department of Economics.  The target audience is geared toward policy makers with college level reading skills and above.  It is an intricate part of my research and has been quoted often by other sources.

Majority Press. (2010, May 28). Senate Democratic Majority Keeps Parks Open For New York’s Families. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from New York State Senate: http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/senate-democratic-majority-keeps-parks-open-new-yorks-families

This article was posted on the New York Senate website.  It passes a brief statement targeted at the general public in which it talks about saving the parks and includes dollar amounts for this year’s budget.  I reference the article within my essay.

National Trust For Historic Preservation. (n.d.). About the National Trust for Historic Prevention. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Preservation Nation: http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, is self-defined as “a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America’s communities.”  This webpage tells the general public who they are and where they’re located.  I reference their structure in my essay.

New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation . (2009). 2009 Annual Report. New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation.

This resource is the 2009 Annual Report prepared by the New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation.  The target audience is the general public.  I reference several figures from this source in my paper as it is a primary source.

New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation. (2009). Board Meeting. Central Regional Meeting, (p. Webcast). Syracuse.

This public webcast captures the entire Central New York Division’s 2009 board meeting.  The meeting discusses state wide issues, the direction of the local affiliate and financial information for the state and for the local catchment area

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation. (2010, 02 19). Statements from Governor David A. Paterson and Commissioner Carol Ash on Parks Budget Cuts. Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from New York State Parks: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/newsroom/press-releases/release.aspx?r=776

This is a press release issued by Governor David A. Paterson to inform the general public about the current budget cuts and how they relate to the pending state budget.  This source is used as background  information and is quoted in my paper.

Rapp, S. (2010, July 04). Attendance at most NY state parks leaps this season. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from syracuse.com: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/attendance_at_most_ny_state_pa.html

Scott Rapp is a veteran reporter for the Syracuse Post Standard.  This article updates the general public on attendance figures for the 2010 season.  I reference these figures in my essay and referenced the article from its online source — Syracuse.com