Bimprd State Park Fact Sheet

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METROPOLITAN PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS POTENTIAL STATE PARK TRANSFER 7/21/09 PUBLIC MEETING Should the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation District accept the offer by the State Parks and Recreation Commission to transfer ownership of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to BIMPRD? As a result of the 2009-2011 State Budget process, State Parks has offered permanent ownership of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to BIMPRD. The BIMPRD Board of Commissioners is seeking public input on whether or not the District should accept the offer. The Board is also interested in what issues and concerns citizens have in relation to a possible transfer of the two parks. How did this issue evolve to the point where it is now? 1. On November 4, 2008, the citizens of Bainbridge Island voted in favor of a lid lift to support acquisition and development of park properties on the Island. Funds were also included in the lid lift to “operate and maintain” parks. Transfer of the State Parks was not anticipated at the time. Without the passage of the lid lift the Board would not be in a position to discuss the transfer of State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation District (BIMPRD). 2. On December 29, 2008, the Governor’s 2009-2011 Budget was released. Budget reductions for the State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) include the transfer of 13 State Parks to local jurisdictions. Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks were included on that list. State Parks indicated that if the Parks are not transferred, they will be closed. The Parks slated for transfer were those that had not been formally evaluated as to their consistency with the 2013 Centennial Vision of the State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3. In early January, State Parks approached BIMPRD to determine if the District was interested in accepting a transfer of the two State Parks. BIMPRD’s stated interest was to keep the 2 parks open. 4. On January 14, 2009, BIMPRD Board Committee and senior staff met with State Parks regional director. BIMPRD requested information from State Parks, including their costs to run the parks, revenue from the parks, deed restrictions, liability issues, infrastructure details, etc. 5. On February 5, 2009, BIMPRD Board Committee and senior staff met with Senator Rockefeller and Representatives Appleton and Rolfes to discuss the State Legislature’s approach to the State Park budget cuts and the implications for Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge. 6. On February 20, 2009, State Parks held a public meeting on the potential transfer of the two parks at Island Center Hall. 7. On March 26, 2009, BIMPRD sent a letter to Senator Rockefeller and Representatives Appleton and Rolfes with the list of information the District requested from State Parks, but had not received. Included in the letter was a list of identified maintenance needs in the Parks. 8. On April 16, 2009, the State Parks Regional Director delivered the requested background information on the two State Parks to BIMPRD. 9. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed a voluntary donation program to support State Parks. Under this bill, a $5 donation will be added to vehicle registration to support the State Park system unless one “opts-out” of the donation. The Governor signed the bill on May 15, 2009. Page 1

10. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed the 2009-2011 capital budget. The capital budget was signed by the Governor on May 15. The capital budget includes funds designated to: 1) upgrade the restroom facilities at Fay Bainbridge ($100,000); and 2) conduct a hazardous materials assessment at Fort Ward ($30,000). 11. On April 26, 2009, the Legislature passed the 2009-2011 operating budget. Included in the budget were the following provisions: a. “Proceeds received from voluntary donations given by motor vehicle registration applicants shall be used solely for the operation and maintenance of state parks.” b. “The commission shall actively pursue transferring ownership of state parks to local governments, tribes, or other entities that have expressed an interest in operating the park. The commission shall provide biannual updates of this effort to the office of financial management and the appropriate fiscal committees of the legislature. The first report shall be submitted no later than December 1, 2009.” [This section was vetoed by the Governor. See below] c. “With the passage of Substitute House Bill No. 2339 (state parks system donation), the legislature finds that it has provided sufficient funds to ensure that all state parks remain open during the 200911 biennium. The commission shall not close state parks unless the bill is not enacted by June 30, 2009, or revenue collections are insufficient to fund the ongoing operation of state parks. By January 10, 2010, the commission shall provide a report to the legislature on their budget and resources related to operating parks for the remainder of the biennium.” 12. On May 19, 2009, the Governor signed the operating budget, but vetoed the section on transferring parks (second bullet above), stating that State Parks “is already pursuing the transfer of certain state parks that are inconsistent with its long-range strategic [2013] Centennial plan.” The governor went on to encourage “the Commission to pursue the transfer of parks to other operators when it is appropriate and mutually beneficial.” 13. On May 19, 2009, State Parks issued a Press Release reiterating the language in the operating budget: a. “The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission today approved a budget implementation plan that keeps all state parks open in 2009-11, provided that a new donation program tied to vehicle license tabs brings in adequate revenue to operate state parks. …. The legislation creating the [donation] program specifically says that state parks will remain open in 2009-11 unless sufficient funds are not collected to keep them open.” b. “The Legislature and Governor directed State Parks to continue working toward transferring parks the Commission deems appropriate for transfer to other willing and able operators. Any new operators would need to keep parks open to the public and care for them to Commission standards. Parks that are candidates for transfer will remain open in the 2009-11 biennium, along with all other state parks, provided adequate donation revenue is collected to support operations.” 14. On June 12, 2009, the State Parks and Recreation Commission passed a resolution, formally offering Fay Bainbridge and Fort Ward State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation District, stating BIMPRD has “expressed interest in taking ownership” of the parks. 15. To date, BIMPRD has not voted on a resolution stating it is interested in accepting a transfer of either Fay Bainbridge or Fort Ward State Parks. 16. All along, BIMPRD’s stated interest has been to keep the parks open. If State Parks is forced to close Fay Bainbridge and/or Fort Ward, BIMPRD would likely step in to operate the Parks. Page 2

Next Step Sometime in August, based on public input, staff and Board analysis, the Board expects to make a decision on how to respond to the offer from the State Parks and Recreation to transfer ownership and operation of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park & Recreation District. Financial Information One of the key issues related to the possible transfer of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to BIMPRD is the cost implications for the District. If and when a transfer of the Parks is complete, BIMPRD would be responsible for all costs related to the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of the Parks. BIMPRD would also receive all revenue generated by the Parks.

What does it cost State Parks to operate and maintain Fay Bainbridge and Fort Ward? State Parks estimates it costs over $635,000 to operate and maintain the two parks for the biennial budget period. This does not include any capital improvement costs which are budgeted separately by the State. These costs include: Fay Bainbridge Fort Ward Total/Biennium Total/Annualized Direct Park Expenditures $273,000 $137,000 $410,000 $205,000 Staffing Utilities Maintenance Other Operating Costs $89,000 $44,600 $133,600 $66,800 Law Enforcement Training Stewardship Planning Regional Support Headquarters Support $54,800 $38,600 $93,400 $46,700 Payroll/Financial Services Human Resources Total Expenditures $416,800 $220,200 $637,000 $318,500 Revenues $95,200* $0* $95,200 $47,600 Totals $321,600 $220,200 $541,800 $270,900 *Fort Ward revenue (from boat launch) included in Fay Bainbridge totals th

Information from State Parks handout at the February 20 public meeting. Figures based on 2008 expenditures.

When Regional and Headquarters support are factored out, it is estimated that the direct costs to operate and maintain the two parks are about $500,000 per biennium ($250,000 per year) [Direct costs were estimated by subtracting all of the HQ support and 33% of the Other Operating Costs]. These costs are offset by over $95,000 in revenue biennially (~$48,000 annually). Revenue is derived primarily from camping fees at Fay Bainbridge. The District estimates that the net direct cost for State Parks to operate and maintain these parks is about $450,000 biennially ($225,000 annually). Page 3

If BIMPRD were to operate and maintain Fay Bainbridge and Fort Ward, what are the estimated costs? BIMPRD staff has prepared estimates on what staff believes it would cost to operate and maintain Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge parks. The estimates below are based on the assumption that BIMPRD will integrate these parks into the District’s larger system of parks on the basis that there will be no change in how the public uses each of these parks.

Direct Park Expenditures Staffing (permanent/seasonal) Utilities^ Materials and Supplies Total Expenditures Revenue^ Totals

Fay Bainbridge $67,000

Fort Ward $45,000

District Costs* $25,000

Annual Totals $137,000

$67,000 $45,000 $22,000

$45,000 $0 $45,000

$25,000 $0 $25,000

$137,000 $45,000 $92,000

* Costs related to other District employees that would be tasked for specific projects in each Park – would likely be associated with a transfer of Fay Bainbridge ^ Utility Costs and Revenues are based on information provided by State Parks. The District staff believes the two parks can be operated and maintained for less than $100,000 per year when accounting for the revenue derived from facility use fees. In addition, BIMPRD recognizes that there will be capital costs related to assuming operations and management of these parks.

Page 4

Concerns or Why BIMPRD should not accept the offer of a transfer of the two parks There have been several concerns raised by the District and the Community as reasons BIMPRD might not want to accept the transfer of these parks: 1. The State is already paying for these Parks, so why should the Park District take them over and pay to operate, maintain, and provide capital needs for Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge Parks? 2. The State Parks are not closed and will not be considered for closure unless the voluntary donation program fails to raise sufficient revenue. Consequently, there is no rush to have them transferred, if at all. 3. State Parks cannot transfer either park to an entity which would close them to the public. 4. State Parks has stated that neither park will be sold. 5. Potential unknown liabilities, particularly at Fort Ward. This could include hazardous materials, attractive nuisances or other issues associated with former military sites. While the federal government is required to respond to such issues, there could be an impact on BIMPRD efforts to operate and maintain the park. 6. Community is concerned about the potential impact on their property taxes if BIMPRD were to take over ownership, operations, maintenance, and capital needs of these parks. 7. With an estimated decrease of approximately $500,000 in tax revenues in 2010, what impact will there be on BIMPRD, particularly if the District takes on the two State Parks? (District staff has developed plans that address the projected decrease in tax revenue.) 8. Is taking on both of these parks too much, too soon, particularly with the pending transfer of City park properties to BIMPRD? [The City is proposing to transfer 25 parcels and 2 easements to BIMPRD, which translate to additions to three existing BIMPRD parks and 10 separate parks. Six of the parks are currently operated and maintained by BIMPRD. The remaining four parks are open space and/or beach/ tideland properties that aren’t being actively maintained by either the City or BIMPRD.] 9. Is BIMPRD equipped to manage camping at Fay Bainbridge? 10. Island would lose two “State” parks and the cachet that goes with the “State Park” connotation. Some believe having “State Parks” in the community draws visitors that might otherwise not come to the Island, resulting in economic benefits to the community.

Page 5

Benefits or Why BIMPRD should accept the offer of a transfer of the two parks The community has identified a number of reasons why the District should accept the transfer of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks: 1. Some believe the Parks would be a “wonderful gift” to the Community from the State 2. Local control of the Parks – it is easier for the public and volunteers to work with BIMPRD than with a state agency. Having BIMPRD responsible for the parks would facilitate local planning and significant involvement of local volunteers in improving both parks. 3. BIMPRD would be able to run a variety of recreation programs in these two parks, particularly related to waterfront activities. 4. The two parks would provide new venues for community events, such as outdoor summer concerts. 5. The two parks meet criteria established by the District’s Parkland Acquisition Committee in evaluating land to be purchased through the Land Acquisition program established by the recent passage of the lid lift. 6. The parks could be closed during the 2009-2011 biennium if sufficient revenue is not raised through the voluntary donation program. As stated in the operating budget: “The commission shall not close state parks unless … revenue collections are insufficient to fund the ongoing operation of state parks. By January 10, 2010, the commission shall provide a report to the legislature on their budget and resources related to operating parks for the remainder of the biennium.” Fay Bainbridge/Sand Spit/Lafayette Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant Finally, there is one other issue related to Fay Bainbridge that will need to be addressed at some point, specifically the proposed sewage treatment plant that would serve 95 homes on Lafayette Avenue and the Sand Spit and could serve Fay Bainbridge Park. The treatment plant has been permitted by the City; however, State Parks pulled the funding for the plant and moved it to another sewage treatment project (Fort Flagler). Funding through State Parks is not slated to become available until 2015 or later. If the park is transferred to BIMPRD ownership, it is unlikely that this treatment plant will be built through the efforts of BIMPRD. BIMPRD does not have the capacity or the desire to build and maintain such a plant, although, if built, the District would consider hooking park facilities into the system. This may not preclude the State or the City constructing the facility (which could be located on park land).

Page 6