Posted on April 10, 2015 in Government Operations
Budgets for the state departments overseeing gaming, fishing and wildlife operations in 11 states were evaluated to identify and compare annual budgets and major funding sources; fee schedules for hunting and fishing licenses; and to determine whether the state offered lifetime licenses.* The states reviewed are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Of these 11 states, two (Ohio and Kentucky) did not offer lifetime licenses; the remaining nine states did offer lifetime licenses.
A file with 13 different spreadsheets providing information on budget amounts, major funding sources and per capita spending levels in each of the 11 states listed above is linked here. The first two spreadsheets, Appendix 1 (State Funding of Gaming, Fishing and Wildlife Departments) and Appendix 2 (Details of State Funding Levels) are macro-level analyses of the information compiled. In addition, an individual spreadsheet for each of the 11 states that details the various amounts charged for the different kinds of licenses (hunting, fishing etc.) along with a wealth of information on the fees associated with the different states is included.
There was a great deal of variation in terms of the budget size and major funding sources in the different states. Figures 1 and 2 reflect these trends:
Source: Departmental budgets (Data and sources in Appendix 1). Please note that not all fiscal years are the same, as preference was given to detailed departmental (rather than overall state) budgets, and data was extracted from the most recent, available fiscal year.
Source: Departmental budgets (Data and sources in Appendix 1). Note that not all fiscal years are the same, preference was given to detailed departmental (rather than state) budgets, and data was extracted from the most recent, available fiscal year.
While all 11 states collected revenues generated from licensing fees, other fees, fines, or sales (of timber and miscellaneous department merchandise), i.e., “other” revenues, three states (Georgia, Mississippi and Texas) did not indicate these other revenues as a funding source in their budgets. While the departments in these three states do count these other revenues as a funding source, they are routed differently through the state budget process. Specifically,
These different funding mechanisms are reflected in the largest funding source for each of the three states as shown in Figure 2: Texas has $172.7 million from state special funds, Georgia has $32.6 million from the state General Fund, and Mississippi derives most of its funding from ‘other’ sources.
Departments in five of the 11 states reviewed reported securing funding from their state’s general fund: Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas and West Virginia. Aside from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which directs its revenue to the general fund, the departments in these five states received between 12 percent and 28 percent of funding from their state’s general fund. The departments in all 11 states received federal funding/reimbursement, ranging from 11 percent to 33 percent of their overall budgets.
With some exceptions, per capita spending on gaming, fishing and wildlife trended higher in states with smaller populations, as shown in Figure 3. West Virginia, with 1.9 million people, had the highest per capita spending on gaming, fishing and wildlife. Texas, Missouri and Alabama were the three states reviewed with the largest budgets, and in terms of per capita spending, Missouri ($29.94) and Alabama ($26.18), ranked second and third among the 11 states reviewed. In Missouri, a portion of the state’s sales tax (1/8th of one percent), termed the Conservation Sales Tax, flowed to the state’s Department of Conservation, a trend that boosted the department’s budget. Protected by a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling, revenues from this tax must be used solely for conservation purposes cannot be funneled to the state’s general fund. In FY 2013-2014, Missouri’s Conservation Sales Tax contributed more than $107 million to the Department of Conservation’s annual budget (as shown in Figure 2). Of the states examined, Missouri and Arkansas are the only states that collect a conservation sales tax (as shown in Appendix 2).
Sources: Departmental budgets (Appendix 1) and the United States Census Bureau’s 2014 estimate data. States are ordered by descending population.
Posted on April 10, 2015 in Education
Ongoing fiscal pressures on state budgets are increasingly causing states to focus on P3s as a means to generate funds to initiate essential infrastructure projects. Despite this growing reliance on P3s for major infrastructure projects, few states have offices dedicated solely to reviewing the feasibility of different P3 projects. Among the limited number of states with these independent offices, several SLC states stand out: Florida, Texas and Virginia. While P3s related to transportation infrastructure have gathered the most attention in recent years, a growing number of state and local governments also are authorizing P3s — with a DBFOM provision — in the arena of higher education-related infrastructure investments.
Specifically, seven states have laws pertaining to public-private partnership funding for state-level educational facilities: California, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia. The following sections outline the provisions of those laws and, where relevant, applications of the law to provide private funding for university facilities generally. In addition, the American Institute of Architects offers a Legislative Resource Guide on Public-Private Partnerships for Public Facilities.
California law has provided for P3s for transportation infrastructure since 1989, and expanded its application and authorized public entities since. In 1996, the state granted local governments authority to enter into fee-producing infrastructure projects and the broad definition of local government includes university systems:
“The phrase ‘local government agencies’ is broadly defined under the [public-private partnership] P3 enabling statutes and includes: ‘a city, county, city and county, including a chartered city or county, school district, community college district, public district, county board of education, joint powers authority, transportation commission or authority, or any other public or municipal corporation.’ California Gov’t Code § 5956.3(a)”
Under this definition, the University of California has used P3s to build student housing, a medical office building, and a research lab, among other projects. A 2010 report issued by the University’s Budget and Capital Resources Office found that the research lab development was less successful than the other projects, due in part to a lack of precedent and accompanying legal framework and documents, which had to be newly developed.
The University of California’s Merced campus, the newest campus in that state’s higher education system, provides another example of the P3 approach with the DBFOM option. Given that the campus quickly realized its need to grow, i.e., double its size over the next six years, with a building program that involves some 1.9 million square feet of academic, housing and research uses, it plans to fund the expansion using a P3. In fact, this project has been termed the largest so-called social infrastructure P3 project in the United States with an estimated value of about $1.2 billion. Additional details on the project may be reviewed here.
The Washington, D.C.-based Reason Foundation prepared a report covering P3 projects and legislation in the Golden State. This document may be viewed here.
In 2013, the Florida Legislature passed a bill to extend P3s to non-transportation public development projects. The bill also created a task force to issue guidelines for a uniform process for local-level P3s. The 2014 final report recommends the authorization of the state’s University System for P3s. As the attached articles document, interest in P3 projects — including university buildings — increased substantially shortly after the legislation was enacted.
The 1998 Privatization Law (KRS 45A.550 to 45A.554) in Kentucky grants state agencies broad authority to enter into privatization contracts. In 2012, the University of Kentucky’s Board of Trustees authorized the University to enter a contract with a private company to build, maintain and manage all dormitories.
The New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 granted the state’s universities the ability to enter into P3s, pending the review of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, and authorized private entities from initially financing the project in total while the university maintained ownership of the property. Senate Bill 2501, signed into law by Governor Chris Christie in 2012, extended P3s for universities, including the management and operation of facilities. Several universities in the state, including Rutgers, Montclair State University and The College of New Jersey, have used public-private partnerships to fund the construction of dormitories, a multiuse campus quad, and high-rise restoration.
Included in New Jersey’s Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 were provisions to allow the use of P3s to design, build, finance, operate and maintain higher education facilities.
New Jersey’s New Jersey’s Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 allowing the use of P3s to design, build, finance, operate and maintain higher education facilities, was a significant departure from previous approaches to establish and operate higher education facilities in the state. In fact, experts studying this trend in New Jersey and other states are considering whether this is the beginning of development in terms of the role of P3s in funding physical infrastructure projects.
According to this 2009 New Jersey law, a state or county college may enter into a P3 that permits the private entity to assume full financial and administrative responsibility for the on-campus construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration, improvement or extension of a building, structure or facility of the institution. The project must be financed in whole by the private entity even though the state or institution of higher education retains full ownership of the land upon which the project is completed. While proposals for higher education P3s are eligible to be submitted to the New Jersey Economic Development Authority within 19 months of the law’s July 2009 enactment for review and approval, the proposals must include, at a minimum, the following:
a. The agreement is approved in advance by the State Board of Community Colleges;
b. The board of trustees agrees to lease community college land to a private entity on condition that the entity constructs a facility on the leased land;
c. The facility will be jointly owned and used by the private entity and the community college;
d. The board of trustees is not authorized to lease the facility as lessee under a long-term lease or capital lease from the private entity as lessor;
e. The board of trustees is not authorized to finance its portion of the facility by entering into an installment contract or other financing contract with the private entity;
f. State bond funds shall not be used to pay for construction of that part of the facility to be owned and used by the private entity; and
g. The provisions of G.S. 143-341(3)a. apply to the construction of a facility under this subsection.”