LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint

Document 42 of 118.

View Related Topics

APRIL 20, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 3436 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
DIANNE A. CURRY
PRESIDENT, DALLAS, TEXAS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD
TRUSTEE, NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN
RECREATION AND PARK RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

BODY:

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Dianne Curry. I have the pleasure of serving as president of the Dallas Park and Recreation Board. Our 15-member board is the policymaking body for and provides guidance to the Dallas Park and Recreation Department. I serve at the pleasure of Mayor Ron Kirk. I am also a trustee of the National Recreation and Park Association, headquartered in Ashburn, Virginia. NRPA is a national advocate for stewardship through parks and for recreation experiences of the highest quality for all people.
We commend the Chairman, and other members of the committee for their leadership and legislative initiatives that bring us here today. We are especially pleased that the restoration and potential of Land and Water Conservation Fund state and local partnerships were central to early concerns. The fund, along with the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program and other national authorities, has the potential to conserve and appropriately expand local, state and national networks to serve the diverse recreation needs of the American people in the long term.
These proposals would directly impact Dallas. Our department's current budget is $51.2 million, and we have the full time equivalent of 1,033 staff who manage 20,825 acres of land. This acreage and facilities include 273 equipped and open play areas, 411 game courts, 22 community swimming pools, 321 sports fields, 72 holes of golf and 43 recreation centers. The use of these resources contributes to public health goals, and our system directly and indirectly contributes to the city wide and regional economy. We are responsible for the stewardship of several historic and cultural sites, including Fair Park, a National Historic Landmark.
Some 60 percent of our total area is largely undeveloped. These lands and waters are habitat for plants and animals, conserve watersheds and help attain air quality standards.
While Dallas is one of the larger public recreation and park systems in the United States our philosophy of recreation service and access to resources emphasizes the individual and neighborhoods, as well as city-wide environment and recreation needs. Dallas' recreation resources and services also function in a larger region-wide network of county, other municipal, and Texas recreation destinations and services and protected sites.
We are a goal-oriented board and department. Our 1998-2000 goals include:
I. To preserve and conserve resources and support infrastructure.
II. To continue strong prudent financial management and increase financial resources.
III. To recruit and sustain an efficient culturally diverse work force.
IV. To market, promote and communicate our services and programs.
V. To research, develop and provide innovative, educational, cultural and leisure services.
VI. To enhance the quality of customer services.
VII. To maximize opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses.
The department accomplished 264 separate major actions to address similar goals for fiscal year 1997-1998.
The Imperative for Investment Now I come here today to tell you of the tremendous importance of the public recreation and park objectives in the several pending bills. While the details of legislation differ, the objectives are clear: predictable and sufficient fiscal resources to approach the enormous tasks before us-provision of recreation and park resources and services of the highest quality for all people.
Citizens and their advocacy groups increasingly express dismay and often anger that there is insufficient neighborhood play space for children to engage in healthy activities, and that public infrastructure is aged and worn and increasingly costly to maintain health and safety standards. There is distress, too, that each day in and near small towns and large cities the landscapes change. This can be positive, but the term sprawl is common, too.
I also come here to state clearly that local and state governments, largely the membership of the National Recreation and Park Association, are not seeking handouts. Collectively we are investing heavily in public parks, their restoration and expansion, and in public services which address human needs. Rather, I come here to urge this committee and through the budget and appropriation processes to move quickly to stimulate mutually beneficial and necessary partnerships through the sharing of outer continental shelf receipts. We were moving in the direction of partnerships in the 1960's and 1970's, not with large programs, but with tactically intelligent investment through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and later the urban park rehabilitation program. We were restoring urban waterfronts and village greens; we were creating play fields and conserving watersheds and wild species. We are still doing these things and many more. For example, nationwide in the last two years we citizens have approved perhaps an unprecedented number of bond issues, millage increases and other strategies to fund and conserve parks. We have been forced, in some cases too aggressively, to bring entrepreneurial practices to our public services and sites, thus leading to investment imbalance and the diminishment of non revenue activities. Despite all of these actions we are increasingly overwhelmed by an aging infrastructure and public demand.
There is a growing imperative for investment now. It is based on social and physical circumstances; it is increasingly influenced by the changing demographics of the American people, and where and how they seek public recreation.
In a social context, prudent investment in public recreation resources and services addresses some of the most intractable challenges of the day -- restoring public health and containing public and personal health care costs, personal security, and public recreation access. In the area of health, we are largely a sedentary nation. While overweight young people can often avoid the resulting health risks, as they age their health typically declines while health costs escalate. As the boomers move ever closer to retirement age the present $1 trillion per year national cost of health care may seem like a good deal. Further, as the nation ages and its ethnic composition changes so, too, will the very nature of recreation demand and access.
At the other end of the age spectrum, we spend large sums of public resources to address youth issues. For example, while the vast majority of America's youth avoid serious negative antisocial or criminal activity, many cost society about $30,000 each per year for incarceration and associated costs.

Close to home will continue to define the preferred location of sites and services.
The actions of this committee impact directly the quality of life for millions of people nationwide. Along with others responsible for budget and appropriation recommendations the committee is in a central position to determine the degree to which our nation invests in public recreation and park resources. Some argue that we do not have sufficient resources to appropriately fund recreation and parks, including partnerships. We disagree. Certainly we must be prudent. But we must adequately invest today or burden our children and their children with a deficit of opportunity, and a legacy of diminished health and wellness and environmental quality.
It is inconceivable to us that the congress and the administration are prepared to take - or have already taken - so many actions related to public recreation and parks while grossly underfunding programs which directly support public recreation experiences. Consider the following, for example.
- A fiscal year 2000 budget request of $600 million to increase spending on afterschool activities, including recreation services, through the U.S. Department of Education's 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is pending. Eighty-seven percent of a recent round of successful grant applications included recreation elements, yet a local public recreation agency can not directly apply.
- The proposed Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act now pending in the House and similar legislation in the Senate proposes a substantial crime prevent/on block grant. It could be used for a variety of primary prevention activities to give youth the ability to avoid crime, yet reference to recreation as prevention, a proven strategy, is minimal
- The proposed reauthorization of the Older Americans Act includes findings and policy which recognize that older adults can often stay healthy with moderate physical activity, including walking, but congress has failed to act on this issue for at least two sessions.
- The fiscal year 2000 budget requests in excess of $600,000,000 for the federal Community-Oriented Policing program and $350,000,000 for "innovative programs" to combat crime, but police collaboration with public recreation entities is rare despite proven positive outcomes in numerous settings where collaboration does occur.
Capital Investments in Parks and Recreation
The adoption of the central element of each pending bill--appropriate and predictable levels of funding--would begin to address known capital investment needs and, indirectly, service needs. An attachment to this statement describes estimated capital needs more fully.
In brief, our national survey covering fiscal years 1995-1999 indicated that local park and recreation agencies required a total of $27.7 billion in capital investment for rehabilitation of public park and recreation facilities, conservation of land, and new construction. These agencies expected to have less than one half of that amount available. New construction - the creation of more recreational capacity - ranked the highest with an estimated need of $13.6 billion (49.9%) nationwide, and an average need per agency of over $3 million. Rehabilitation and restoration needs totaled $8.8 billion (32.3%) and an average of $2.2 million per agency. Land acquisition needs through fee simple or non-title action totaled almost $5 billion (17.9%) nationwide, with an average agency need of $2.4 million.
In January and February 1999, we asked state and local governments to identify projects that could be funded if LWCF and urban park grant funds were made available for fiscal year 2000. Information on over 1,600 projects with a total estimated cost need of some $1.8 billion was received during a 6-week period.
Stimulating Partnership
National programs that foster cost-sharing to reach public goals should be encouraged. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program were conceived and have encouraged fiscal, and in some cases,resource management partnerships. In a fiscal sense, LWCF is largely funded as a result of the consumption of Outer Continental Shelf energy resources. These resources belong to each of us. The state/local program is arguably the most efficient way to let the American people determine how these resources should be reinvested, and it is also highly efficient to return them to accountable state and local decision-makers to address recreation and park needs.
Beyond the numbers of projects and acres and dollars, the grant programs have effected the country's overall attitude and policies toward conservation and recreation. Much of this less tangible benefit has come about as the result of the long-term partnerships with states and localities. For example, when LWCF was authorized comprehensive state recreation planning was rare. Today, statewide recreation planning has encouraged state, local governments and citizens to analyze recreation needs and alternatives in a systematic and responsive way. Many states now require that local governments develop recreation plans as a condition for any type of federal or state recreation assistance. These processes are seriously threatened by the lack of appropriations.
NRPA Recommendations: An Overview
This heating specifically covers three bills--S.25, S.446, and S.532. By extension it also addresses two presidential proposals--a Lands Legacy Initiative, and Building Livable Communities for the 21st Century. In candor, fully assessing the details, relative merits and likely long-term impacts of each proposal presents challenges. The details merit objective debate. Within the next ten days we will present a more detailed discussion and additional specific recommendations for your consideration.
However, anticipating that several proposals would emerge, the NRPA Board of Trustees on November 15, 1998 adopted a number of preferred outcomes which the association believes should result from the adoption of different elements from the several legislative and executive proposals and others yet to be introduced. These preferred outcomes include the following:
Findings: A statement of congressional findings - the basic rational for legislation must present a compelling case for national action, investment and anticipated results. It must include clear reference to contemporary and future values and benefits arising from public recreation and park resources and service, among other objectives of the legislation. Findings should reference increasing evidence linking recreation and parks to public health, long-term environmental stewardship, community security and crime prevention, for example. They should reference the full range of benefits - economic and others - associated with high quality and appropriate public recreation and park resources and services. The several sets of findings in pending bills should be reviewed in this context.
Urban Parks and OCS: The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 should be amended to identify Outer Continental Shelf revenues available to the federal government as the source of appropriations. The conservation of the built environment is of equal importance to land conservation. The restoration of larger urban places and creation of more livable environments could reduce the pressure to convert farm and forest resources to residential and associated developments.
Public Purposes/Eligible Activities: NRPA advocates continued eligibility for the array of public investments now possible through existing LWCF state assistance and urban park rehabilitation authorities, including appropriate planning; land conservation through fee simple acquisition and easements, 'among other strategies; development of new facilities; and the restoration of existing public infrastructure. We believe the legislation should specifically authorize applied research to help guide longer-term recreation and park investment strategies.
In general, the pending bills do not change eligible activities, but some individuals have questioned the nation's role in aiding state and local park systems generally, and the efficacy of certain facilities specifically. Further, an administration proposal would shift LWCF partnership away from development of facilities, establish a national grant competition (thus largely eliminating state/local decision- making), and authorize direct access to grant funds by private non- profit organizations. These scenarios should be rejected. The strength of LWCF has been its authority to consider small-scale investments that will generate little or no political profile beyond a neighborhood or community, and large scale multi-phase projects of, say, regional interest. Current practices of state and local recreation and park agencies and numerous private groups often result in mutually beneficial partnerships.

The final bill should anticipate that public recreation resource conservation and access needs are diverse and always subject to change over time. Thus, investment priorities should continue to be based on a statewide strategic planning process, with maximum discretion for action vested in local and state authorities. Federally-aided investments should be protected in perpetuity, with all proposed conversions subject to secretarial approval. On-going or cyclic maintenance activities should remain the responsibility of non-federal partners.
Predictable Funds: The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Program should be funded through a permanent appropriation derived from outer continental shelf receipts available to the federal government. The reasonable predictability of fiscal resources is critical to effective planning, priority setting and short and long term investment strategies. The committee should consider designation of the LWCF and urban parks program as two elements of a trust or endowment as a means of enhancing public awareness and political support. Prior to the fiscal year 2000 budget LWCF state assistance and urban park restoration funds have not been requested by the administration or provided by Congress since fiscal year 1995. This is in part because of the lack of broad congressional awareness of the program outcomes, and other perceived priorities within, for example, LWCF. Critical opportunities for resource conservation and recreation access have been lost.
Program Objectives/Administrative Efficiency: Legislation should encourage, not discourage, efficient state administration of related grant-in-aid programs. This should include vesting related recreation and natural resource grant programs in a single, likely cabinet level, entity. Several agencies currently serve as the state focal point for public recreation and related resource policies and management. The legislation should result in clear authority for the diversity of local and state agencies that are principally involved in resource conservation and public recreation to have access to the fullest extent possible to a "one-stop" application process. This should result in program efficiency and allow complimentary state and locally-determined priorities to advance.
This approach should include a proposed separate program for wildlife habitat conservation, education and enforcement. S.25 would create a separate OCS-funded "sub-account" in the 1937 Pittman-Robertson act. That act presently authorizes and distributes revenues from excise taxes on an array of sporting arms products exclusively to about 66 state fish and wildlife entities. The 1937 authority, revenue sources, and management should continue.
However, the final legislation emerging from pending bills should embrace the native fish and wildlife emphasis in S.466,with distinct separation from Pittman-Robertson resources. Further, the NRPA recommendation for a state cabinet level focal point for grant administration also recognizes that the array of state, regional and local land conservation institutions today include many types and a far greater number of agencies and revenue sources than existed in 1937. The LWCF act authorizes access to it by essentially all public entities whose principal mission is resource conservation and recreation, including wildlife conservation. Similarly, wildlife funds should be fully available to agencies that administer state park, forest, and other land resources, and to local public entities where investment in native species habitat in perpetuity will result.
Distribution of Funds: Certain bills recommend significant change in the current LWCF formula (40 percent equally among all states and 60 percent population) by which state allocation is determined. LWCF assistance should continue to be allocated to the states through a formula which emphasizes' relative state population and population density. Future resource conservation and recreation demand will likely be met by an allocation formula that is weighted more, not less, on population. However, we also recognize that population/land area considerations may warrant special consideration in some circumstances, including distribution to lesser-populated states. We urge consideration of a Rhode Island-type formula which would generally over-ride a population-based formula to provide a sufficient allocation for lesser populated states.
The City of Dallas Park and Recreation Board and the National Recreation and Park Association share the committee's deep concern for the health and welfare of the American people and others who live within our borders. We also share your views on the value of public recreation and parks to help create and sustain a high quality of life. I hope my observations will contribute to your consideration of these proposals and to public awareness of the national imperative for recreation service and stewardship.
END

LOAD-DATE: April 21, 1999

Document 42 of 118.


Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: