1

WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Commission Meeting – March 5 , 20 0 9 – The Washington State Parks Headquarters, 1111 Israel Road S.W., Olympia, WA

Detailed Commission Agenda Items Item E-1: Iron Horse State Park – Bonneville Power Administration – Perpetual Easement Kittitas Item E-2: Blake Island State Park – Concession Lease Extension and Assignment Item E-3: Capital Development Program Update Item E-4: Report on Governor’s 2009-2011 Budget Recommendations for WSPRC Item E-5: Criteria for Selecting Additional Parks for Mothballing 2

Item E-1: Iron Horse State Park – Bonneville Power Administration – Perpetual Easement – Requested Action - Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Passed as requested EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to grant the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) a perpetual easement for access across Iron Horse State Park for maintenance purposes This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment –Public Service” and with our core values. SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND: This easement will allow BPA to cross the John Wayne Pioneer Trail within Iron Horse State Park to access its electrical transmission system for security, maintenance and expansion priorities. The access is intermittent i.e. once or twice a year. BPA has agreed to a one time payment of $1,000.00 for this crossing easement. AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.070 – Further Powers (5) Grant franchises and easements for any legitimate purpose on parks or parkways, for such terms and subject to such conditions and considerations as the commission shall specify. Commission Policy 55-06-1 Real Estate Transactions and Non-recreational Uses of Parklands, Section II, General Principles. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1 Location and Vicinity Appendix 2 Project Detail and Aerial Map REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: Staff requests that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Authorize the Director or designee to grant a perpetual easement to the Bonneville Power Administration for a crossing of the John Wayne Pioneer Trail within Iron Horse State Park.

Author(s): Lynn Harmon, Property & Acquisition Specialist 4 [email protected] (360) 902-8656 Ken Graham, Lands Program Manager [email protected] (360) 902-8680

Return to top of document

Item E-2: Blake Island State Park – Concession Lease Extension and Assignment – Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Passed as requested 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to extend the term of the Concession Lease Agreement for Blake Island State Park by twenty years in exchange for the new operator assuming responsibility for all concession facility maintenance and improvements. This item also requests that the Commission adopt a statement of principles that will guide the Director in amending the existing Concession Lease Agreement and d elegate authority to the Director or designee to complete the negotiation of the amendments and assignment subject to the adopted statement of principles. Under state law, concession leases longer than twenty years require unanimous approval by the Commission. This complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element “Our Commitment - Financial Strategy” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Tillicum Village was founded by William Hewitt on Blake Island in 1962. The concession offers park visitors the experience of a passenger ferry ride across Puget Sound to the island for a hosted salmon dinner, interpretive programs and entertainment consistent with Northwest Coast Native American themes.

The centerpiece of the concession facility is a longhouse based on the architecture of Northwest Coast Native Americans. It was the site of the historic Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting hosted by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The concession opened during the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. Today it draws about 50,000 visitors annually, down from a peak of about 100,000 in the late 1970s. It contributes approximately $115,000 .00 per year in fees to the state park system. After almost fifty years of management by the founding family, the concessionaire has proposed assignment of the lease to another contractor.

Staff has determined that maintenance of the publicly-owned facility to agency standards could require millions of dollars over the next 10-20 years. The agency's ability to finance these improvements is not assured, given the current economic downturn and the long-term financial needs of the state park system.

Therefore, an assignment is proposed to include the following statement of principles: 1. Assignee affirms and will remit to the Commission all delinquent concession fees, taxes and interest due to Parks upon the assignment of the amended Concession Lease Agreement; 2. Assignee will accept the concession premises "as-is," excepting for a new roof and minor improvements already budgeted in the current biennium; 3. Assignee will accept sole responsibility for long-term maintenance and capital improvements on the concession premises. State Parks will step aside from responsibility for future improvements used exclusively by the concessionaire; 4. Assignee's concession lease will be extended by twenty (20) years, to expire in 2039, to provide time for amortizing the costs of maintenance and leasehold improvements. RCW 79A.05.030(5) authorizes the Commission to grant concession leases longer than twenty (20) and up to fifty (50) years upon unanimous vote; and, 5. Assignee's concession lease will include new financial reporting to increase oversight of concession revenue and expenses.

The final details of the assignment remain to be determined due to its complexity. However, approval of the lease extension and delegation of assignment authority will provide the certainty 4 the private parties require to complete their transaction. Approval of the concession assignment could save the state millions of dollars in future outlays for facility improvements and provide an opportunity for continuing Tillicum Village's unique visitor services in the challenging years ahead.

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: Staff requests that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Unanimously approve the extension of the term of the Concession Lease Agreement by twenty (20) years (to a total of forty (40) years), as a condition of the assignment to a new concessionaire. 2. Adopt the statement of principles for the assignment as proposed above or as amended by the Commission. 3. Delegate authority to the Director or designee to complete the negotiation of the assignment and amendments, including additional terms and conditions deemed advisable by the Director, in a manner consistent with the adopted statement of principles and to execute all assignment(s) and other related documents necessary to complete the amendment and assignment.

Author(s): Tom Oliva, Enterprise Coordinator [email protected], 360-902-8667

Return to top of document

Item E-3: Capital Development Program Update -Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report updates the Commission on the Capital Development Program’s results and progress for the 2007-2009 biennium. Included within this report is the status of the Headquarter’s Special Projects Team projects. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element "Our Commitment – Facilities (Goal 4) and Your Legacy (Goals 7 -10)” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since reorganization of t he State Parks Capital Program in 2002, program management has continued to explore ways of improving performance, customer satisfaction, and product delivery. In 2006, OFM conducted a performance audit of the Capital Program. The resulting Berk Report made 30 recommendations for improvement, including the creation of an Agency Improvement Plan. The Agency Improvement Plan was adopted by the Commission in September 2007. A recurring status report of the Capital Development Program (each Commission meeting) and the Berk Report implementation progress (quarterly at Commission meetings) will be provided. A set of initial Capital Development Program measures has been established and is reported in Appendix 1.

The Legislature and the Governor approved an initial 2007-2009 biennium Capital Budget of $113,727,873.00. This was comprised of new appropriations, with a focus on the faciltity preservation element of the Centennial 2013 Plan, re-appropriations from earlier biennia, grants, 5 donations, loans (COP), and pass through funds. This report summarizes implementation progress of the 2007-2009 biennium’s Capital Development Program. Apprendix 2 shows $75,533,000 in spending and contractual obligations as of January 31, 2009.

In the 2006 Supplemental Session, the Legislature and Governor approved funding for Puget Sound water quality projects as part of the Governor’s Puget Sound Cleanup Initiative. Funds are being used for development of wastewater and storm water system improvements at 25 parks located along Puget Sound and Hood Canal. Agency funding to date totals $22,153,000.00 with $4,421,000.00 spent in the 05-07 biennium and $12,791,000 spent and committed in the current biennium.

Funded 2007-2009 capital projects have been assigned to each of the four (4) Regional Parks Development teams and the Headquarters based Special Projects Team for design and development. This report will provide summary information on the entire program (Appendix 2) and detailed project status information on one of the five (5) Parks Development teams each Commission meeting. This month the Headquarter’s Special Projects Team is featured and project status is included in Appendix 3.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Capital Program Agency Leadership Measures Appendix 2: 2007-2009 Capital Program Expenditure Summary Appendix 3: 2007-2009 Headquarter’s Special Projects Team Project Status

Author(s): Mike Allen, Capital Development Manager [email protected] 360-902-0936

Return to top of document

Item E-4: Report on the Governor’s 2009-11 Budget Recommendations for Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item provides a report to the Commission on what is included in the proposed 2009- 20 11 Governor’s Budget Recommendations to the State Legislature, and the impact to the park system This complies with the Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment –Financial Strategy” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Most economists believe a national recession began at the end of 2007, with the country losing almost 1.2 million jobs since then. In August, 2008, Governor Gregoire enacted a freeze on hiring, equipment purchases, out-of-state travel and personal service contracts, in anticipation of the slowdown. These activities saved an estimated $90 million in the current year. The Governor then identified an additional $240 million in savings in October, translating to an additional $605 million for 2009-11. Earlier in 6

November 2008, revenue for Washington state government was forecasted to be down a combined $1.9 billion for the remainder of the current biennium and the subsequent two-year budget period. State agencies have been asked to prepare service and budget reductions to meet this shortfall.

In order to prepare for the 2009-11 Budget the Governor submitted to the Legislature a Supplemental Budget for FY 2008-09 that reduces salary allocations consistent with savings achieved from the hiring freeze, reduces allocations for equipment purchases and contracts consistent with the freeze imposed in August 2008 and furthered reduced the agency’s current budget by approximately two percent for a total reduction of approximately $3.5 million dollars. The agency is continuing to implement those cuts. In February the State Legislature enacted the first part of a 2009 Supplemental Budget and the Governor signed it into law on February 18, 2009. The new law included the reinstitution of a hiring, equipment purchase, personal service contract and training freeze and applies regardless of funding source . It also freezes WMS and Exempt employees’ salaries for one year.

In the Governor’s proposal, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission would reduce its budget by 10 percent – approximately $10 million, to do its part in dealing with the state’s revenue shortfall. The agency participated, along with other agencies, in the Governor’s efforts to make reductions to get the state through the current biennium. These reductions remain in place. In order to mitigate park closures in 2009-11, State Parks is cutting other things first.

Following is the list of proposed reductions under the Governor’s budget: 1. Reduce administrative and program functions in headquarters and close one region office: State Parks will reduce staffing from administrative and program functions and go from operating four region offices to three region offices, in order to save remaining resources for core activities. Reduction: $3.5 million, some commensurate with park closures. 2. Reduce equipment replacement program: State Parks has made progress in replacing obsolete equipment during the past few years, but in times like these, this program must be placed on hold. Reduction: Approximately $2 million 3. Eliminate specific “extra” funded services that State Parks knows are valued by visitors, but in times like these, the priority must be to preserve core services. We would eliminate some support for partner-initiated/shared programming and concession activities and education on wildlife for boaters. Reduction: $1 million. 4. Expand seasonal closures and mothball or transfer parks; e xtend or expand seasonal park closures and /or close or mothball 15 parks for a cost reduction of $3.5 million . (Direct cost of park only.)

Since the Governor submitted the State’s budget the economic forecast has worsened. Staff has been asked by Legislative Committees to prepare for a twenty-three percent cut totaling $22.9 million. Staff has prepared scenarios based on the type of reductions included in the Governor’s 7

Budget but at the higher level. If the agency was to receive a cut of that magnitude, headquarter and regional staff would be cut to a bare minimum and up to a total of 40 parks could be mothballed.

The Commission has the ability to increase State Parks proprietary user fees and charges for things such as camping and overnight accommodations. The Governor’s Budget includes revenue adjustments proposed by the Commission to phase in a two dollar increase in the 2009- 11 Biennium. Other increases may be considered as the additional cuts in the agency’s budget are being discussed. However, each increase has to be evaluated to see if it would result in a reduction in occupancy rates.

Additionally, the Director has invited all staff and the public to submit cost savings and new revenue generation ideas. A summary of cost reduction ideas is included as Appendix 4 to this document. The summary consolidates ideas received to date and will continue to be updated. New revenue ideas appear in Appendix 5.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Summary of 2009-11 WSPRC Operating Budget Appendix 2: Summary of 2009-11 WSPRC Capital Budget Appendix 3: Summary of proposed Park Transfers Appendix 4: Cost Reduction Savings Ideas Appendix 5: Revenue Generating Ideas

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: None, report only.

Author(s): Ilene Frisch, Administration, Technology & Finance Director [email protected] (360) 902-8521

Return to top of document

Item E-5: Criteria for Selecting Additional Parks For Mothballing – Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item reports on potential methods to select parks for mothball status in light of possible agency cost savings requirements for the 2009-2011 biennium operating budget. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment –Public Service” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION : On February 19, 2009 the Governors Office announced an estimated $8.5 billion dollar budget deficit for the 2009-2011 biennium. The final revenue shortfall and resulting agency operating budget reductions for next biennium remains unknown at this time. The Governors original operating budget proposal for the 2009- 2011 biennium assumed a $5.7 billion dollar shortfall and required an approximately $10 million dollar cost reduction from State Parks including the assumption that the state park system would 8 be reduced in size. To achieve that level of cost reduction staff proposed a combination of headquarters and region staff reductions, equipment purchase deferral, and the transfer of 13 parks to other primarily local government jurisdictions. In light of the growing budget deficit State Parks staff has recently been asked to describe how it would recommend achieving a 2 2.9 % cost reduction for its 2009-2011 operating budget.

A summary of potential cost reductions by type for the 2009-2011 biennium is attached as Appendix 1.

In the last 10 years the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) has had to deal with cost reductions that affected the size of the state park system. In 1996, agency staff formally evaluated budget reduction scenarios in preparing for the 1997-99 biennium at the request of the Office of Financial Management. The Commission was asked to evaluate a possible operating budget reduction of $1.5 million dollars and included limited park closures as a possibility. A ranked list of parks was created using visitation, revenue, net operating cost and location as evaluation criteria.

While planning for possible budget reductions in the 1999-2001 biennial, budget staff evaluated parks for potential closure using a set of twelve Commission approved criteria. The list of criteria included 1) visitation, 2) cost of operation, 3) revenue generated, 4) local economic impact, 5) proximity to urban areas, 6) variety of activities available, 7) natural, 8) cultural and historic significance, 9) proximity of other parks, 10) risk to park assets, 11) cost per visitor, and 12) deed restrictions. Budgeting was prepared for possible $2 million, $3 million and $5 million (or 7%) reductions. The Commission ultimately approved a list of park closures and service reductions for each of the three levels of potential budget reductions . The ranked list of parks was never used as a decision making tool for park closure or transfer.

In 2002, the Commission , in preparation for the 2001-03 biennium again prepared a budget based on a possible 7% budget reduction due to an overall state shortfall of an estimated one billion dollars. In response to a required budget reduction of $2.9 million dollars , the Commission ultimately authorized the Director to return the leases for 13 state parks which were owned by the federal government or public utility providers.

As a result of this series of park closure discussions the Commission adopted at its December 2002 meeting “Levels of Service” goals noting that “commitment to these levels of service will assist the Commission in making potential budget reduction decisions”. Commission adopted goals for levels of service in the state park system are found in Appendix 2.

Achieving Cost Reductions for the 2009-2011 Biennium

The Governors proposed 2009-2011 operating budget calls for State Parks to take a 10% or approximately $10 million dollar operating cost reduction. That reduction includes direction to reduce the size of the state park system. Budget language leaves the decision on which parks to include in that reduction up to the Commission but specifically directs:

Permanent Park Closures 9

The Commission will select 13 state parks and one environmental learning center for closure that do not meet its long-range plan for high quality parks with statewide significance.

In response to that direction staff has proposed that 13 parks that were declared by the Commission to be “Potentially Consistent” with the Centennial 2013 Vision be transferred to other jurisdictions. Staff also proposed that two other parks be “mothballed” for future reopening as part of the state park system when budget levels allow. The list of 13 parks proposed by staff for transfer and two parks proposed for mothballing is found in Appendix 3.

As budget assumptions worsen legislative staff has asked that State Parks describe what a $ 22.9 million dollar cost reduction for the 2009-2011 biennium would look like. To implement cost reductions in excess of the Governors proposed $10 million dollar reduction it would be necessary, as one part of a total package, to mothball more state parks. Staff specifically does not recommend the permanent closing of any state parks. Instead, cost reductions would be achieved by eliminating all services and routine maintenance with the full intent to re-open mothballed parks when state budget conditions allow. Park gates and all facilities such as restrooms would be locked. Public access would be allowed on a walk-in day- use basis only. Maintenance would be performed only at a level necessary to protect park resources.

Staff believes that it is vital to receive as much public comment as possible . With that goal in mind staff proposes the following schedule for the development of a list of parks for potential mothballing:

1. March 5, 2009 - Report to the Commission on a preliminary cost reduction plan at the $22.9 million level including a list of parks to be reviewed for mothballing if necessary;

2. March - April- Public comment and discussions with governmental stakeholders plus public meetings in the area of each park proposed to be mothballed;

3. April 23, 2009 – Staff update on parks proposed for transfer or mothballing and public comment to the Commission; and

4. Date Unknown - Following adjournment of Legislature the Commission adopts a 2009- 2011 operating budget reduction package including a decision on the list of parks to be transferred and mothballed.

As staff considers how to develop a list of parks for possible mothballing it is important that the final list recognize and uphold State Parks mission and values, Commission direction and the Centennial 2013 Vision. Staff has developed a framework that serve s as the minimum set of criteria on which the decision to mothball a park, regardless of selection process, should be review ed. The basic parts of this framework , which is compliant with December, 2002 Commission direction on levels of service, are:

1. Resource Protection - Ensure the protection of natural, cultural and historic resources; 10

2. Public Service - Provide as much public service to all geographic areas of the state as possible;

3. Finance - Include revenues, operating costs , potential net cost savings and past capital investment as part of any decision; and

4. Management Factors - consider other practical and legal issues related to mothballing parks.

Keeping this overarching framework in mind there are any number of methods by which a list of parks for potential mothballing could be developed. Below are descriptions of four options among the many that are possible:

1. Single Criteria Selection - This often discussed method, in its simplest form, would select parks based on a single characteristic. The most common example is:

A. Mothball all day-use only parks

 Pro - Protects agency revenue stream and both primary types of park use (camping and day - use) remain available statewide although on a reduced level for day-use, easy to explain.

 Con - W ould require mothballing a very l arge number of parks to achieve significant savings and doesn't consider resource protection issues.

2. Level of Service Reductions - This method has various forms including reducing services such as camping and other recreation activities, garbage pick-up, visitor programs, park maintenance , and days of operation in all state parks to reduce the operating cost of each park. A second version of the level of service reduction method is to reduce the number of months most parks are open

 Pro - All parks stay open at either a reduced level of service or reduced months of operation or both, easy to explain.

 Con - C reates significant issues with converting full - time employees to part- time employee and park resources may be compromise

3. Numerical Evaluation System - This method involves selecting a set of criteria against which every park would be evaluated using a numerically based scoring system. The importance of certain factors such as resource protection, visitation, net operating cost, or ease of mothballing can be emphasized by weighting those criteria.

 Pro - A llows for evaluation of a number of factors and most easily allows for consideration of agency mission, values, and the Centennial 2013 Vision. 11

 Con - W ill lead to debate on criteria chosen and any weighting of criteria, evaluation by several individuals of varying knowledge levels of the entire park system is subjective and open to challenge, complicated and harder to explain.

4. Multiple Themes - T his method recognizes that in some cases the public and the park system are best served by combining several factors to achieve a substantial cost reduction. In this method, visitation, operating cost, and revenue are the most common criteria used as ranking/decision making factors. The policy themes using these factors are:

A. Provide for maximum public access to state parks in difficult economic times;

B. Select parks for mothballing that will generate enough savings to meet the required cost reduction target while keeping as many parks open as possible; and

The task facing the agency now is to propose, for future Commission action as the final state budget dictates, parks for mothballing that will generate $10 million dollars per biennium above the initial Governors budget proposal plus another $1.6 million for the initial cost of mothballing and providing minimum care for the selected parks for the 2009-2011 biennium. At an average biennial savings of $464,000 per park it would require mothballing 25 parks to achieve the required target.

The importance of selecting parks that create significant savings is illustrated by the following example that speaks to the common themes of “close day-use parks and parks with low visitation”. Selecting parks with a minimum savings of $100,000 per biennium and ranked from lowest to higher visitation would require the mothballing of 36 parks to reach an $11.6 million dollar cost reduction target as part of describing a $22.9 million dollar budget reduction. Combined with the 15 parks to be transferred or mothballed in response to the Governors proposed $10 million dollar budget reduction a total of 51 parks would need to be transferred or mothballed. (Please refer back to Appendix 1 for budget reduction outline)

Staff has reviewed a number of options to achieve the required cost savings. Appendix 4 is a list of parks that would generate at least $300,000 per biennium in cost savings ranked by visitation from lowest to highest. It is not possible at this time to start at the top and work down the list in simple ranked order. A good deal of internal review and external consultation needs to be done to produce a viable combination list of mothballed parks and some parks with service reductions Staff estimates that 20-25 parks would need to be mothballed to achieve the required $11.6 million dollars in cost reductions. Adding these additional parks to the 15 parks that are part of the Governors proposed $10 million dollar budget reduction results in the transferring or mothballing a total of 35-40 parks.

It is important to note that the final size and requirements of State Parks operating budget reduction for the 2009-2011 biennium are not yet known. The specific parks and the final number of parks mothballed may be more, less or different than the examples provided in this agenda item. 12

NOTE - When creating appendix 4, island parks in the San Juans and Blake Island appeared on the list. Staff believes that it would be virtually impossible to protect the very expensive marine infrastructure and fragile environments at boat access only island parks and has excluded them the list.

Stewardship Plans - staff recommends completion of a stewardship plan for each park that ultimately must be mothballed until budget conditions allow them to be re-opened. This plan will include identification of the minimum stewardship that must occur to protect the natural, cultural, historic, and recreation resources of a mothballed park. These plans also represent a way for State Parks and the supporters and users of each park to develop partnerships that will provide park stewardship. While it requires the mothballing of additional parks staff recommends that a sum of $1,600,000 be saved for the cost of initially mothballing parks and basic stewardship throughout the 2009-2011 biennium.

Next Steps - Staff proposes to hold meetings in the area of each park listed in Appendix 4. These meetings will solicit staff and public comment on the potential of the park being mothballed and begin to explore partnership opportunities available as part of a stewardship plan. State Parks will submit a “draft list” of parks to the Governor and the Legislature as found in Appendix 4 including any additional criteria suggested by the Commission. This will add detail to a larger package of cost reductions already provided to the Governor and Legislature to describe a $22.9 million dollar operating budget reduction.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Summary of Proposed Cost Reduction Plan for the 2009-2011 Biennium Appendix 2: Commission Adopted “Levels of Service” December 2002 Appendix 3: List of Parks to be Transferred or Mothballed in Response to Governors 2009-2011 Operating Budget Proposal Appendix 4: Potential Parks from Which a “Draft List” for Mothballing May be Selected Minimum $300,000 per Biennium Cost Reduction Ranked by Visitation (Lowest to Higher) Appendix 5: Summary of Comments Received on Mothballing Parks

______Author(s): Larry Fairleigh, Assistant Director [email protected] 360-902-8642

Reviewer(s): Chris Regan, SEPA Review: Environmental staff has determined that the above Commission agenda item is a report and therefore does not require SEPA review.

Ilene Frisch, Fiscal Impact Review: There is no fiscal impact to this agenda item.

Jim Schwartz, AAG Review: Not required

Larry Fairleigh, Assistant Director 13

Judy Johnson, Deputy Director: ______

Approved for Transmittal to Commission:

______Rex Derr, Director 14

APPENDIX 1

Summary of Proposed Cost Reduction Plan for the 2009-2011 Biennium

1. Proposed Cost Reductions at the $10 million dollar level: HQ Vacancy Savings and Staff Reduction $ 3,000,000 Regional Consolidation $ 500,000 Equipment $ 2,000,000 Non-Core Functions $ 1,000,000 Park Transfer/Mothballed $ 3,500,000 TOTAL $10,000,000

2. Proposed Cost Reductions at the $22.9 million dollar level: HQ Vacancy Savings and Staff Reduction $ 2,000,000 Regional Consolidation $ 500,000 Non-Core Functions $ 300,000 Mothballed Parks/Service Reductions $10,100,000 Savings from reduction above $10,000,000 SUB-TOTAL $22,900,000 Stewardship Funds for Mothballed Parks $ 1,600,000 TOTAL $24,500,000

3. Summary at the $22.9 million dollar cost reduction level HQ Vacancy Savings and Staff Reduction $ 5,000,000 Regional Consolidation $ 1,000,000 Equipment $ 2,000,000 Non-Core Functions $ 1,300,000 Parks Transferred/Mothballed/Service Reductions $13,600,000 SUB-TOTAL $22,900,00 Stewardship for Mothballed Parks $ 1,600,000 TOTAL $24,500,000 15

APPENDIX 2

Commission Adopted “Levels of Service” December 2002

At Commission’s request, staff has developed thirteen service levels which should be maintained in parks that are open for public use. Commitment to these service levels will assist the Commission in making potential budget reduction decisions.

Levels of Service Goals: Public Service: Each operating park shall have well-trained staff who can: ∙ provide informational, interpretive and educational opportunities on park- related cultural, natural, and recreational resource (e.g., trails, swim areas, play fields).

· provide school programs, civic presentations, or campfire

programs as requested.

∙enforce the laws of the state, park rules, and regulations in ways that promote public understanding and support of the state park system.

∙appropriately respond to emergency situations.

Stewardship:

The significant natural resources the park was created to protect will be identified,

managed in good condition, and protected into the future.

The significant cultural, historical, and archaeological resources within the park will be identified and protected into the future, and used, where appropriate, as part of the park experience.

The recreational resources (e.g., trails) the park was created to provide will be fully

functional to support public use and enjoyment.

Facility Maintenance: Restrooms and other public use facilities will be clean and comply with state codes

for structural integrity, utility service, and environmental protection. 16

Basic infrastructure, including roads and utility systems, will be usable and functional.

Park grounds will be maintained to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment.

Equipment will be replaced on a cost effective schedule.

Administration: Park operation and agency administration will make efficient and effective use of state resources.

The agency will comply with Office of Management and Budget, State Auditor’s Office, Department of Personnel, and employee expectations for timely and accurate fiscal and personnel processing. 17

APPENDIX 3

List of Parks Proposed to be Transferred or Mothballed in Response to Governors 2009-2011 Operating Budget Proposal

Parks Proposed for Transfer

1. Bogachiel State Park 2. Brooks Memorial State Park 3. Fay Bainbridge State Park 4. Fort Okanogan State Park 5. Fort Ward State Park 6. Joemma Beach State Park 7. Kopachuck State Park 8. Lake Sylvia State Park 9. Old Fort Townsend State Park 10. Osoyoos Lake Veterans Memorial State Park 11. Schafer State Park 12. Tolmie State Park 13. Wenberg State Park

Parks Proposed to be Mothballed:

1. Nolte State Park 2. Squilchuck State Park. APPENDIX 4

Potential Parks from Which a “Draft List” for Mothballing May be Selected Minimum $300,000 per Biennium Cost Reduction Ranked by Visitation (Lowest to Higher)

Column # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % Total Annual Annual Cost Savings Revenue / Annual Visitor Park Annual Park Total per year if Park Visitation per Expend / Reg Location Expenditures Revenue mothballed Expenditures FTE Total FTE Visitor PS Jarrell Cove 185,226 32,239 152,987 17.41% 2.71 35,860 13,232 5.17 EA Fields Spring 198,241 43,232 155,009 21.81% 2.90 60,690 20,952 3.27 PS Federation Forest 230,567 5,217 225,350 2.26% 3.34 62,424 18,673 3.69 EA Sacajawea 210,781 16,252 194,530 7.71% 3.15 63,573 20,157 3.32 SW Rainbow Falls 259,565 54,530 205,035 21.01% 3.83 68,669 17,923 3.78 SW Beacon Rock 503,848 245,914 257,934 48.81% 7.87 91,289 11,596 5.52 SW Lewis & Clark 287,410 52,378 235,032 18.22% 3.61 92,845 25,719 3.10 SW Fort Columbia 228,397 157 228,240 0.07% 4.34 113,055 26,026 2.02 EA Alta Lake 367,421 139,405 228,016 37.94% 4.99 135,994 27,278 2.70 Columbia Plateau EA Trail 373,567 21,491 352,076 5.75% 4.70 138,728 29,522 2.69 NW Wallace Falls 181,089 20,767 160,322 11.47% 3.35 145,162 43,325 1.25 PS Lake Easton 623,409 189,918 433,491 30.46% 8.15 149,850 18,392 4.16 EA Yakima Sportsman 330,637 111,252 219,385 33.65% 4.93 169,254 34,343 1.95 EA Maryhill 408,518 217,540 190,978 53.25% 5.97 182,506 30,596 2.24 PS Illahee 314,263 46,336 267,927 14.74% 4.86 191,510 39,399 1.64 PS Dash Point 455,220 186,855 268,365 41.05% 6.08 193,778 31,895 2.35 SW Potlatch 223,816 59,488 164,328 26.58% 3.16 205,229 64,855 1.09 SW Twin Harbors 690,834 250,371 440,463 36.24% 9.30 210,800 22,672 3.28 EA Ginkgo/Wanapum 347,505 157,083 190,422 45.20% 5.05 253,351 50,144 1.37 PS Flaming Geyser 434,109 52,421 381,688 12.08% 6.05 258,819 42,809 1.68 NW Peace Arch 242,762 12,042 230,720 4.96% 3.81 265,033 69,634 0.92 PS Saltwater 262,516 75,263 187,253 28.67% 4.96 309,046 62,360 0.85 SW Ocean City 646,636 294,691 351,945 45.57% 9.06 311,697 34,396 2.07 NW Fort Ebey 300,207 131,512 168,695 43.81% 4.84 315,458 65,222 0.95 Wenatchee EA Confluence 399,089 247,744 151,344 62.08% 5.44 317,281 58,365 1.26 EA Lake Wenatchee 423,515 253,792 169,723 59.93% 6.93 355,746 51,351 1.19 NW Fort Flagler 674,989 458,537 216,452 67.93% 8.92 447,951 50,219 1.51 EA Mount Spokane 579,639 166,574 413,065 28.74% 8.81 484,636 55,010 1.20 Millersylvania SW Memorial 556,373 349,692 206,681 62.85% 8.37 649,221 77,563 0.86 EA Sun Lakes - Dry Falls 653,159 278,411 374,748 42.63% 9.74 660,789 67,827 0.99 NW Larrabee 412,521 184,573 227,948 44.74% 6.00 692,583 115,468 0.60 NW Fort Casey 472,018 111,613 360,405 23.65% 6.75 698,077 103,436 0.68 PS Saint Edward 485,056 88,553 396,503 18.26% 5.66 715,203 126,435 0.68 19

APPENDIX 5

Summary of Comments Received on Mothballing Parks

The comments below are from park staff to the Director with suggestions on the criteria for mothballing additional state parks, should that be necessary.

Comments are in column one, and these are generally verbatim. In some cases, the comments were excerpted from longer statements. Column two groups the comments into thematic approaches.

Comments Thematic Approaches

Ask how popular the park is regionally and Attendance locally. Do lots of different groups use the park?

Parks with the least attendance or usage Attendance

Popularity- When looking at the popularity of a Attendance park one must consider size, capacity, location, and entry points. Our current attendance doesn't do a very good job accounting for people entering the park from the water. It is not reasonable to compare a park in and urban setting to one in a rural setting with a lower population.

In the spirit of doing as little economic damage Impact to local economies as possible – externally - choose parks that are not a huge part of the local economy. Will the folks who service the park patrons, i.e. grocery, gas, restaurants, and tourist type businesses survive without the park (If we put lots of folks out of business we are not helping our own “funded by taxpayer” situation.)

Consider impacts to the surrounding Impact to local economies communities – both morale and economic impacts.

What is the local impact of closing the park – Impact to local economies jobs, opportunities to recreate

Consideration mothballing parks that have large Infrastructure condition investment needs –e.g. failing sewer systems, high cost to maintain 20

Comments Thematic Approaches

Rate the condition of the infrastructure, Infrastructure condition especially the sewage system and mothball the parks that will be more expensive to maintain.

Condition of facility – structure and Infrastructure condition infrastructure. What it would cost to bring it up to code.

Operating and maintenance costs for upkeep of Infrastructure condition historic buildings.

Consider the cost of mothballing on structures Infrastructure condition if heat, moisture and other systems are shut down.

Deferring parks with large capital costs will Infrastructure condition allow reallocation of funds. Consider the capital plan.

Close money pits such as St. Edward Infrastructure condition

Use the criteria that were developed for Numerical Evaluation System previous budget reductions, like the 1997-99 Biennium.

Develop a scorecard for evaluating parks Numerical Evaluation system based on our mission statement. Points are given based on its cultural, historical, recreational and natural qualities. Points would also be awarded for revenue generation, visitation and cost of operation. I know most of this is subjective but we need some explainable reasons for closures.

Keep open parks that earn a higher percentage Operating cost & revenue to agency of operational cost.

Mothball day-use parks that do not earn very Operating cost & revenue to agency much revenue.

It is about the money! Look at revenue vs. Operating cost & revenue to agency cost of operating the park… 21

Comments Thematic Approaches

Revenue- When determining if the revenue Operating cost & revenue to agency earned is "low", "moderate", or “high" the whole picture of the individual park needs to be considered. Only compare revenue earned to current earning capability and take into account passes used i.e. 80% of boaters use moorage passes. Don't compare revenue earned at one park to revenue earned at another it's apples and oranges.

Parks mothballed or transferred using these Operating cost & revenue to agency criteria will have the maximum impact on operational savings. Side effects include affecting the greatest number of visitors and staff.

Cost / Benefit Analysis -- Revenues and Total Operating cost & revenue to agency Operational Costs

Look at revenue generated by parks and not Operating cost & revenue to agency close those generating revenue (cost/revenue analysis).

…address the issue of urban areas a little Operator availability differently. As a Statewide agency, we want to serve our urban residents, but that maybe doesn’t mean that WE operate the park. Maybe a better approach is to transfer those parks that are more urban like, where another entity could manage it for recreation and we could help support it through grants or programs. For instance, Saint Edward. As I understand it, the City of Kenmore was very interested in that park.

Parks that can be turned over to counties or Operator availability communities to manage rather than just closing them down, such as satellite day-use areas.

Parks with strong community ties – Operator availability city/county that may be interested in taking over the property.

Opportunity for transfer and cooperative Operator Availability operations 22

Comments Thematic Approaches

Public Pushback –how high is the local / Operator availability regional interest in the park?

Close day-use only parks first Park size

Consider day-use vs. overnight camping. Park Size

Close larger parks over smaller parks Park Size

Close larger parks to keep more parks open Park Size

Consider the user groups using the park (not Park Users attendance).

User Groups- Consider specialized user groups Park Users

Mothball or remove from the system those Property Ownership lands operated by the Commission, but are principally or entirely owned by another agency, and; where significant savings would be realized, and where there is a likelihood that the lands will still be open to the public. [Note: Most lands in this category were part of the 2001-03 budget reductions]

Parks mothballed or transferred using these Public Service criteria will have the minimum impacts on agency public programs and access to a variety of recreational and educational opportunities. Side effects include small savings per site, requiring closing of a large number of sites to meet needed financial goals.

Is park unique and of statewide significance. Resource Protection

Consider environmental sensitivity – threats to Resource Protection rare or scarce resource values (T&E species, rare plants, archaeological, shoreline access, old growth, historic/cultural) and maintain a staff person to patrol for protection. 23

Comments Thematic Approaches

Parks mothballed or transferred using these Resource Protection criteria will not include those containing threatened or endangered species or important ecosystems, cultural features on the state or national registers, or other features of statewide significance. Side effects include limiting the choice of parks, as about half have significant cultural features, and nearly half contain natural features of concern (hopefully, overlap in these categories would leave some candidates for savings).

Threshold Determination of Risk to Park Resource Protection Resource

Historical and cultural importance – keep Resource Protection historically important parks.

As a follow-up to your presentation on this Resting and Restoring Parks topic last week, I had an additional thought that you may wish to include in the "criteria list" for those parks potentially slated for mothballing: restoration opportunities. What I am thinking about are things like a) resting and rehabilitating a degraded campground or day- use area; or, b) conducting forest health prescriptions that might require heavy equipment or fuel reduction burns in a park. If I knew that we were going to rest a park for 2- 4 years, I would seriously look at options to enhance the health of both our built and natural areas during this window of time.

Parks that might benefit from a temporary Resting and Restoring Parks closure – to restore overused areas, damaged natural resources, etc.

Park closures (mothballing) for those that need a Resting and Restoring Parks “rest”.

With the caveat that in economic hard times, Similar recreation opportunities nearby people need places of recreation, (I know, Duh!) choose parks for mothballing that have other parks relatively close by serving a similar purpose. 24

Comments Thematic Approaches

Are there alternative destinations in the area Similar recreation opportunities nearby for people to recreate in?

Look at the number of parks and the Similar recreation opportunities nearby population of an area and reduce the number of parks in that area but make sure there is quality and service in what remains.

Consider what it will cost to reopen a Similar recreation opportunities nearby mothballed park when it can be re-opened.

Identify parks that are relatively near other State Similar recreation opportunities nearby or other entity parks. We need to identify areas where we are duplicating services, even if there is demand for that service. I think those are the areas we should look at next. If there is another State, Federal or County park that offers similar facilities just down the road or say within 20 miles I think we need to look at those parks.

Assess the Impacts to Recreation Service Areas, Similar recreation opportunities nearby Local Communities

Consider how many parks per county there Similar recreation opportunities nearby are. Regional Need

Duplication of park type statewide Similar recreation opportunities nearby Regional Need

Spread closures equitably throughout the state. Social/demographic

Consider location – should be in proximity to Social/demographic populated areas and close rural area parks.

How many rangers and C&M’s (staff) will be Staff Impact affected.

Staff Impacts (human side / staff investment) – Staff Impacts relocation costs, distribution of talent and experience, impact to park families, commute cost increases.

Consistency with Centennial 2013 vision. Vision-driven Unique features.