Post by: fireweed on August 26, 2011, 12:04:00 PM
Traditionally, it has been an industry standard for local, state and national park systems and other public land management agencies to provide on-site housing for employees to enhance public safety and public service.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission recognizes the benefits of having qualified employees available on-site at parks around the clock. For this reason, the Commission has a park housing policy that provides on-site housing to employees who wish to occupy these residences for the benefit of the agency. The park employee is available to respond when needed and provides security and protection of state property, natural resources and visitors. In addition, park housing provides State Parks greater operational efficiency and more flexibility in work scheduling.
In exchange for these benefits to the state, the employee in park housing pays no rent. All who live in park housing pay a utility rate.
A recent King 5 TV news story about employee housing in parks raised the question about whether it is reasonable to provide nearly free housing to state employees. While the Commission recognizes that on-site park housing is important to public safety, it also recognizes the challenging economic times we are in. The Commission continues to review all programs and services, including employee housing, as it balances public benefits and costs.
Most park employees who live in park on-site housing are commissioned law enforcement rangers who provide on-site security to visitors no matter the time of day. Some construction and maintenance and other employees also live on-site to provide fast response for vulnerable utility systems.
A few other park employees and non-employee volunteers without a direct nexus between the housing provided and their job duties may live in park housing as available. These people typically work on-site as park aides or office assistants and help with visitor service in offices and welcome stations. They pay utility rate as well as tax on fair local market rental rate.
Approximately 140 park staff live in on-site housing. Housing ranges from a few historic Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) cabins and historic houses, to cabins and more typically, mid century-era ramblers. Much of the housing is rustic. Some housing is attached to park offices. Members of the employee's immediate family also may live in on-site housing with them. Regardless of the type of housing and that family members also live there, members of the public contact park staff at all hours because they live in the park.
Post by: bigtex on August 26, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Post by: Special T on August 26, 2011, 01:43:29 PM
Many of said buildings are historical in nature so the state "preserves" them and keeps employees at the park...
One example is the old fish hatchery at Deception pass State park... On the Fidelgo side... The state used to raise salmon there, but some of the buildings were used to house caretakes back in the day... Now used for the same reason...
In general park employees have had lower wages than other jobs, plus it makes transfers and such easier... I think i would have less problem with Gov decisions if they were more transparent with what they were doing... Tust is the key...
Post by: firefighter4607 on August 26, 2011, 02:28:07 PM
I agree with Special T and bigtex they are one of the lowest paid in the state. I suppose you would of wanted the people who used to live in the fire towers during the summer to pay rent while they watched for smoke?
I could see your point if the state paid for housing the rangers off site. But theses are houses that are already there.
Post by: CedarPants on August 26, 2011, 02:34:33 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 26, 2011, 03:12:09 PM
Agree with bigtex, Special T, and firefighter. They've all 3 summed up everything I was going to say. I see nothing wrong with this policy:yeah:
Post by: fireweed on August 26, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 26, 2011, 04:18:25 PM
My experiences with housing (USFS and Nat. Park Service) were volunteers got free housing, employees paid a stipend for housing--it wasn't much, but it wasn't free. I understand why this is under review since state parks now gets no tax dollars, and must become self supportive with camping fees and discover pass sales. Free housing could be justified, but Parks may simply not be able to afford it. Afterall, every $100 per month in rent for 140 employees would bring in as much money as selling 5600 Discover Passes.
Your right with USFS and NPS the employees do pay a very small amount for their housing. However there was a time (at least with the NPS) when employees did get free housing like WA St Parks. However you need to remember there are different employment and wage rules with the feds and states. One thing that is also different from NPS units and State Parks, is with State Parks you typically only have one (maybe 2) law enforcement Rangers at every park, whereas with NPS you may have upwards of 50-60 depending on the park and it's visitation. So the whole concept of after-hours callouts is much more difficult with State Parks then it is with the feds.
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 26, 2011, 04:28:30 PM
Post by: runamuk on August 26, 2011, 04:32:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 26, 2011, 06:52:24 PM
While this may present something of an efficiency for the parks, another efficiency for our state government would be to close a number of parks or move management to the county level where the money is even closer to the citizens. Usually the response to don't have enough money should be something like spend less or sell it.
Getting rid of parks is something that State Parks has done in the past couple years. State Parks has identified which parks don't meet their agency "vision" and is working with the local government's to take the parks into their ownership. A problem right now is all forms of government are having budget issues. So basically the state wants to give the park to the county because they can't afford it, but the county wouldn't afford to have it as well.
Here are the parks that I know have been transferred so far:
Park New Manager Date Effective
Wenberg Snohomish County 07/16/2009
Fay Bainbridge Bainbridge Island Metro Park 03/09/2011
Fort Ward Bainbridge Island Metro Park 06/01/2011
Osoyoos Lake City of Oroville 05/01/2010
Pending Transfer:
Brooks Memorial Central Klickitat Conservation Dist
I know the state wanted to move Tolmie State Park to Thurston County but there was a lot of resistance. A park on the eastside is proposed being moved to the Colville Tribe. And I know there are others that have been done or are in the works. The state is also willing to accept private groups that would take over ownership and essentially turn it into a privately ran park.
Post by: fireweed on August 27, 2011, 09:00:44 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 29, 2011, 10:14:48 AM
My experiences with housing (USFS and Nat. Park Service) were volunteers got free housing, employees paid a stipend for housing--it wasn't much, but it wasn't free. I understand why this is under review since state parks now gets no tax dollars,
and must become self supportive with camping fees and discover pass sales.
Free housing could be justified, but Parks may simply not be able to afford it. Afterall, every $100 per month in rent for 140 employees would bring in as much money as selling 5600 Discover Passes.
You are forgetting the other stealth fee they get from the uninformed public. The one I am very curious to see exactly how much money they get from people registering
vehicles, and forgetting to opt out
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on August 29, 2011, 10:28:43 AM
I have no problem with this at all. As the article says, the majority of those who live in the housing are Law Enforcement Rangers. If something happens after hours in the park, WSP dispatch calls the Ranger at the house and they can step out their door and handle it. Some parks are in some high price areas and there is no way that a Ranger could afford a house in a reasonable response time to their park. WA Park Rangers are the lowest paid law enforcement personnel at the state level, and one of the perks is that they don't have to pay a mortgage. If you expected the Ranger to live in a high price area, pay their mortgage, and have such a low pay then they would have a higher turnover then what they already have.
:yeah: I have no problem with Park Employees getting free on-site housing. What bugs me, is that evey year a tent city is set up in Monitor Park near Cashmere to house migrant workers during the fruit harvest. Is the State getting any funds for that, or are the Discover Pass buyers paying for that, too?