Texas' state parks have long been fishing spots of choice for thousands of visitors. But in the face of mounting expenses, the parks are trying to do some fishing of their own for money to stay afloat.
But a solution floating in the state Legislature claims that money is already collected, paid in a large part by the people who actually use the parks through a sales tax on sporting goods.
House Bill 1292, filed Feb. 17 by state Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, would increase the maximum amount from annual sporting good sales tax revenue the comptroller can credit to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department from $32 million to $85 million.
The bill provides for $58.5 million to be allocated for state parks and $25.5 million to help local parks.
The bill is likely to come up for a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee this week, said Lindsay Graham, communications director for Hilderbran's office. It would then be passed to the House floor for discussion.
If passed, the bill would take effect Sept. 1.
The $32 million cap was set by the Legislature in 1993. It mirrored the amount generated at the time by the park system's portion of a tax on cigarettes.
As the amount generated by cigarette sales declined, lawmakers switched to the "sporting goods" tax. However, Texas has no tax levied specifically at sporting goods. Instead, the comptroller's office estimates the amount of general sales tax revenue generated from sporting goods using data collected by the National Sporting Goods Association.
Since 1993, revenue from the sporting goods sales tax has increased to nearly $94 million in 2004, according to the comptroller's office. That amount is expected to top $104 million by 2007.
And because the money is already there, the time is right to lift the caps on funding from the sporting goods tax, said Todd Kercheval, chief committee clerk for Hilderbran's office.
"The time is actually quite past; state parks have been underfunded for quite some time." Kercheval said. "Unfortunately in the past it's been a situation of if we give state parks more money, then are we taking money away from children and health, some of those kind of things. That's a pretty tough vote to make."
But lawmakers realize that inaction could be costly at this point, he said. To show their support, Ways and Means vice chairman Michael Villareal and East Texas Rep. Chuck Hopson have signed on as a joint author and co-author, respectively.
"Not having these parks up to snuff could have a huge negative impact on the tourism business in Texas," Kercheval said. "We need to do everything we can to not only continue to promote tourism but make sure that our facilities are enjoyed by people from inside and outside the state."
ECONOMIC POWERHOUSES
A study commissioned in two parts in 2002 and 2004 by the Texas Coalition for Conservation and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department indicates that Texas' state parks are an economic powerhouse.
The study of 80 of Texas' 123 state parks found that those parks generated an estimated $793 million in sales and created 11,928 jobs. In addition, the parks had a $456 million impact on the income of residents in their host counties.
Estimates for all 123 parks suggest the entire system generates about $863 million in sales and 12,986 jobs, in addition to a $496 million impact on residents' incomes.
In Smith County, Tyler State Park generated more than $2 million in sales and 34 jobs in 2004. In addition, the park had a $1,175,584 impact on residents' income and brought in more than $10,000 in sales tax revenue.
But George Bristol, president of the Texas Coalition for Conservation, said that Texas could see a diminishing return if state parks are not given the funding they need.
"There's a $21 million backlog in fixing up and modernizing something as mundane as the toilet facilities in all the state parks," Bristol said. "I'm a partner in a major resort hotel in Montana, and I can tell you, how the bathrooms are is what people that come to hotels and state parks, that's one of the first things they look at. And here we got a lot of these state parks were built during the Depression, and I swear I don't think a lot of them have been touched since."
Among the 80 parks in the study, only 11 reported a surplus of revenues over direct operating costs, according to the study. But even facilities with a net operating loss were "a heck of a good investment" for the state, Bristol said.
The study cites Mustang Island State Park in Nueces County as an example of that investment. Although the park reports a direct operating expenditure loss of $52,000, it generates 47 jobs and $1.4 million in household income for county residents. This equates to a cost to the state of $1,100 per job and means that every dollar invested by the state generates $27 in income for county residents.
In 2002, Bristol said Texas' net investment in state parks was 0.03 percent of the total state budget, ranking 49th out of the 50 states for per capita investment.
"While we're 49th, we're ranked No. 6 still - even with all the problems - we're ranked No. 6 among the states as far as generating income back into the system, because people in Texas and our visitors really do want to go to these parks," he said. &q
uot;If we'll just give them a decent break they'll even generate more money."
TIME FOR FUNDING
Bristol said he believed the increased funding for state parks was not only a wise business decision but also a popular one.
He cited a December poll by Hill Research Consultants that indicated 65 percent of Texans supported lifting the caps on sporting good sales tax revenue.
The same poll, which was commissioned by the Texas Coalition for Conservation, the Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy, indicated 69 percent would be willing to pay at least $1 per month in additional state taxes for development of new parks and to protect the state's natural resources.
That protection would extend to maintaining existing facilities and completing long-delayed repairs to facilities such as the elevator and observation deck at the San Jacinto monument.
"If you do it now and take care of it on a consistent basis and a sustaining basis, it's not going to cost as much in the future when you really have a building collapse or fall over by the weight of sheer neglect," Bristol said.
He said repairs would be far less expensive using the sales tax revenue than bond packages such as the one passed in 2001. With bonds, the state must pay not only the principal but also interest.
Lawmakers also can decide to withhold debt service money on those bonds, which they did in 2003 during a tight budget period, he said.
"It's a hit-or-miss proposition, depending on how the Legislature looks at things," he said. "Our position is to lift the cap on the sporting goods tax ... let that money flow on a regular basis."
©Tyler Morning Telegraph 2005
But a solution floating in the state Legislature claims that money is already collected, paid in a large part by the people who actually use the parks through a sales tax on sporting goods.
House Bill 1292, filed Feb. 17 by state Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, would increase the maximum amount from annual sporting good sales tax revenue the comptroller can credit to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department from $32 million to $85 million.
The bill provides for $58.5 million to be allocated for state parks and $25.5 million to help local parks.
The bill is likely to come up for a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee this week, said Lindsay Graham, communications director for Hilderbran's office. It would then be passed to the House floor for discussion.
If passed, the bill would take effect Sept. 1.
The $32 million cap was set by the Legislature in 1993. It mirrored the amount generated at the time by the park system's portion of a tax on cigarettes.
As the amount generated by cigarette sales declined, lawmakers switched to the "sporting goods" tax. However, Texas has no tax levied specifically at sporting goods. Instead, the comptroller's office estimates the amount of general sales tax revenue generated from sporting goods using data collected by the National Sporting Goods Association.
Since 1993, revenue from the sporting goods sales tax has increased to nearly $94 million in 2004, according to the comptroller's office. That amount is expected to top $104 million by 2007.
And because the money is already there, the time is right to lift the caps on funding from the sporting goods tax, said Todd Kercheval, chief committee clerk for Hilderbran's office.
"The time is actually quite past; state parks have been underfunded for quite some time." Kercheval said. "Unfortunately in the past it's been a situation of if we give state parks more money, then are we taking money away from children and health, some of those kind of things. That's a pretty tough vote to make."
But lawmakers realize that inaction could be costly at this point, he said. To show their support, Ways and Means vice chairman Michael Villareal and East Texas Rep. Chuck Hopson have signed on as a joint author and co-author, respectively.
"Not having these parks up to snuff could have a huge negative impact on the tourism business in Texas," Kercheval said. "We need to do everything we can to not only continue to promote tourism but make sure that our facilities are enjoyed by people from inside and outside the state."
ECONOMIC POWERHOUSES
A study commissioned in two parts in 2002 and 2004 by the Texas Coalition for Conservation and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department indicates that Texas' state parks are an economic powerhouse.
The study of 80 of Texas' 123 state parks found that those parks generated an estimated $793 million in sales and created 11,928 jobs. In addition, the parks had a $456 million impact on the income of residents in their host counties.
Estimates for all 123 parks suggest the entire system generates about $863 million in sales and 12,986 jobs, in addition to a $496 million impact on residents' incomes.
In Smith County, Tyler State Park generated more than $2 million in sales and 34 jobs in 2004. In addition, the park had a $1,175,584 impact on residents' income and brought in more than $10,000 in sales tax revenue.
But George Bristol, president of the Texas Coalition for Conservation, said that Texas could see a diminishing return if state parks are not given the funding they need.
"There's a $21 million backlog in fixing up and modernizing something as mundane as the toilet facilities in all the state parks," Bristol said. "I'm a partner in a major resort hotel in Montana, and I can tell you, how the bathrooms are is what people that come to hotels and state parks, that's one of the first things they look at. And here we got a lot of these state parks were built during the Depression, and I swear I don't think a lot of them have been touched since."
Among the 80 parks in the study, only 11 reported a surplus of revenues over direct operating costs, according to the study. But even facilities with a net operating loss were "a heck of a good investment" for the state, Bristol said.
The study cites Mustang Island State Park in Nueces County as an example of that investment. Although the park reports a direct operating expenditure loss of $52,000, it generates 47 jobs and $1.4 million in household income for county residents. This equates to a cost to the state of $1,100 per job and means that every dollar invested by the state generates $27 in income for county residents.
In 2002, Bristol said Texas' net investment in state parks was 0.03 percent of the total state budget, ranking 49th out of the 50 states for per capita investment.
"While we're 49th, we're ranked No. 6 still - even with all the problems - we're ranked No. 6 among the states as far as generating income back into the system, because people in Texas and our visitors really do want to go to these parks," he said. &q
uot;If we'll just give them a decent break they'll even generate more money."
TIME FOR FUNDING
Bristol said he believed the increased funding for state parks was not only a wise business decision but also a popular one.
He cited a December poll by Hill Research Consultants that indicated 65 percent of Texans supported lifting the caps on sporting good sales tax revenue.
The same poll, which was commissioned by the Texas Coalition for Conservation, the Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy, indicated 69 percent would be willing to pay at least $1 per month in additional state taxes for development of new parks and to protect the state's natural resources.
That protection would extend to maintaining existing facilities and completing long-delayed repairs to facilities such as the elevator and observation deck at the San Jacinto monument.
"If you do it now and take care of it on a consistent basis and a sustaining basis, it's not going to cost as much in the future when you really have a building collapse or fall over by the weight of sheer neglect," Bristol said.
He said repairs would be far less expensive using the sales tax revenue than bond packages such as the one passed in 2001. With bonds, the state must pay not only the principal but also interest.
Lawmakers also can decide to withhold debt service money on those bonds, which they did in 2003 during a tight budget period, he said.
"It's a hit-or-miss proposition, depending on how the Legislature looks at things," he said. "Our position is to lift the cap on the sporting goods tax ... let that money flow on a regular basis."
©Tyler Morning Telegraph 2005