Environment Texas Blog

An update on how Texas parks fared in the 81st Legislature from
George L. Bristol, President of the Texas Coalition for Conservation:

The 81st session of the Texas Legislature is over.  While there may be a special session, parks and conservation issues will not be on the agenda as all the major bills affecting them passed.
 
First, more than a few thank yous are in order.  I know I will miss somebody or organization(s).
 
·         To all the TPWD Commissioners and Chairman, Peter Holt.  Every one of them weighed in on one matter or another.  This commission not only weighed in, they knew the subject matter at hand and spoke to it eloquently and forcefully.
 
·         To Carter Smith and the TPWD staff.  Again, they weighed in with good solid information which all of the support groups used to make our case.
 
·         To those individuals and organizations that came to Austin, made calls, wrote letters and contacted local leaders to contact their House and Senate members.  Special thanks must be given to the Texas Outdoor Recreation Alliance (TORA), The Nature Conservancy of Texas, Texas Wildlife Association (TWA) and Texas Recreation and Parks Society (TRAPS) for helping to fund the public opinion survey.  It made a timely difference.
 
·         To all the House and Senate members and staff who gave their support and suggestions.  There was a marked difference in attitude and degree of support between 2007 and 2009.  That can be attributed to TPWD passing with flying colors all the rider benchmark requirements laid down in 2007 and the fact that legislators are beginning to see real progress being made at their local park.
 
·         Finally, to Speaker Joe Straus and his staff, particularly Clyde Alexander, for always having an open door.  That does not mean that all matters or budget requests were favorably resolved, but all got a fair hearing.
 
Budget
 
As previously stated, overall the approved budget bill is kind to parks, conservation and TPWD (see attached).  The Base Bill request remained intact.  The differences are the Battleship Texas funding which will be funded with General Obligation bonds and the earmarked local park grants of 2007 which is an accounting loss but not a real loss.
 
Before getting into the exceptional items, let me state that without the federal stimulus funding, things could have been far different (negatively) than the final outcome presented here.
 
Exceptional Items
 
I will not cover every item.  If you have any questions on a specific category or item, please email me and I will get the answer.  However, there are a number that bear explanation.
 
1)      Salary Equity/Total Compensation:  The request was @$20 million and the amount appropriated is $11.3 million (funded by hunting and fishing license increases) and under Rider 27, $772 thousand for state park operations and 21 FTEs which are desperately needed.  Ironically, this funding is needed to retain and hire employees in various conservation/parkland areas at the very time Texas is witnessing a substantial increase of funds for enhancement of our park and wildlife venues.  Such improvements require dedicated and trained personnel.
 
2)      Statewide Capitol Repair/Construction:  The request was for $36 million and $28 million was appropriated, but there is an additional $10 million for State Park Weather Related Damages.  The $23.8 million bond money for the Battleship Texas has been approved and will be spent in this biennium, and there is funding from Prop 4 that will pass over into the coming biennium.  So there is plenty of repair/construction money available.  Finally, in the supplemental appropriation bill there is another $14 million for hurricane related repairs.  Some may recall that that amount was pegged at $60 million for several months.  But the legislature decided to do GR cash appropriations rather than bonds, so they appropriated the $14 million for design and engineering of Galveston Island State Park and other projects and will revisit the construction appropriation next session.  This is acceptable, as it will take all of two years to perfect a design package.
 
3)      Expanded Public Access:  Texas Outdoor Family Program:  Here’s one we really missed and for the life of me I don’t know why.  This program brings families together for an outdoor experience at little cost….$50.00 for a family for a weekend.  Park personnel help the families learn outdoor activities.  One of the major problems confronting society is that we are in a second or third generation who lack outdoor experience, so parents have no knowledge to encourage their children to have the opportunity.  This was the best $716 thousand in the budget request.  It should be expanded and revisited next time.
 
4)      State Park Fiscal Controls:  This $1.7 million and 31.7 FTE was an essential.  If you will remember in 2007 the State Auditor recommended and the legislature approved park personnel being set aside to perform audit work.  First, they weren’t trained to do so and second those funds came out of the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” category.  This will give parks trained audit personnel out of new appropriated funds.
 
5)      Land Acquisition/Development:  The failure to secure more than the $9.3 million from the Eagle Mountain Lake Park sale is the biggest disappointment.  The Eagle Mountain funds were not state funds to begin with.  This was all local funds raised in Fort Worth/Tarrant County in 2006-2007 to purchase the unused state park for a county park with the proceeds designated for a state park in the area.
 
While there were plenty of funds available under the revenue from the SGST to fully fund the $30 million, there is continuing opposition to create new parks or funds to improve existing parks.
 
Given that we tried several avenues, including switching the funds for the “beach erosion program” for a funding pool financed by off-shore oil imports.  That was blocked by the oil companies, leaving us no wiggle room at the end of the session.
 
Therefore, we are basically at the same position as we have faced since Governor John Connally had a major parkland purchase bond issue passed in 1967!  This at a time when there is an exploding need for new parks and enhanced older parks, particularly near our major metropolitan areas.
 
The Sporting Goods Tax Question
 
Leading up to, and at the beginning of the session, there appeared that the SGST might be in trouble or, at least, in jeopardy of revision.  Fortunately, nothing occurred thanks to a great number of organizations weighing in early with testimony, calls and letters, asking, in effect, 
to let the SGST stand and fully fund our state and local parks.  Early in January, State Comptroller, Susan Combs, certified that the SGST would generate revenues for the coming biennium of @$250 million.  But there was the provision in HB12, passed in 2007, that
whatever the amount was or is, it is subject to appropriation by the legislature.  That ruled this session.  So the provisions to fund state and local parks at 94% of the revenues and the Texas Historic Commission at 6% is a hollow provision, unless appropriations are forthcoming.
 
Unfortunately, because of the economic outlook and the threat of a significant deficit, there was little support within the leadership of the House and Senate for a constitutional amendment to make the provisions of HB12 permanent.
 
Thus, the question remains:  Do we have a portion of the sales tax dedicated for state and local parks or don't we?   The next question is how best to fashion such an amendment to fully fund the parks without over-funding which would leave huge, unexpended balances.  There are a number of ways to do so.  This must be discussed in the interim and then pushed next session.  It is unfair to the parks, the public and ultimately the legislators to have to live with this misconception.  I say "misconception" because many House and Senate members went back to their districts and bragged that they had fully funded parks out of the SGST.  That was not true and it will not be true this time.  I believe that many of those officials thought that was the case and during this session expressed genuine shock how little of the SGST went to parks.
 
The good news is we have a framework in place.  I believe there is an opportunity for a hearing to put a meaningful package together that will meet the needs of our parks within the revenue projections, with room to spare.
 
But all in all, the legislature continued on the path begun in 2007:   to bring our state parks back to a position that Texans and our visitors can enjoy while at the same time fueling the economies of local communities and businesses.