PRCAgenda_92Mar9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ `~ t~utdoor Recre~.tioo Fu>~d~ng Action Alert , Federal. funding for state:and local park projects is being severely eroded and this affect the quality of life for all Minnesotans:. Following is the background on the decreases in funding and facts you can use when contacting: your: congressional representatives and President .George Bush. Act now to help preserve local park facilities. For more than a quarter century the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) _ has provided. much needed funding for federal, stabs and local governmant outdoor- recreation projects. Nationally, almost 32,000 state and local government park pmjccts have ~, bexn assisted with over $3 billion in grant funds. Minne~ta has' received nearly 557- million in L&WCF funds over the years. Projects have been funded in every county and in hundreds of cities and townships throughout the state. Through the years, .this program has quietly. touched. the lives of Minnesotans of all ages, from rural communities to inner city neighborhoods. It has been one of the "cleanest", Est effective federal. programs in existencx. Best of all, it has not cost the taxpayer a dime.. Why? Because the program is .funded through revenues received from federal off-shore oil leases arxl from sales of surplus. federal property. ~ . During the past several years, the benefits provided local governments by this popular program have been sharply reduced. Originally, over one-half of the available funds were e~umarked for local .government and state park projects. This formula has been drastically altered over the years,. however, so that today less than 1096 of all funds are directed toward local and state government park projects, Most of the funds are now allocated to federal land managen~nt agencies. In Minnesota, for example, annual funding has fallen from a high of almost X6.5` millon in 19'79 to a low of just over. $300,000 in 1988. This year's funding will likely approximate that of .1988. Since Minnesota divides its allocation equally between local and state government projects, the remainder available for local parks is minimal. Meanwhile, the demand for local park grants remains very high. In 19901oca1 governments in Minnesota submitted grant applications for projects with an estimated total cost of over $7.5 million. What can be d©ne to cornect this inequity? First, Congress and the President must recognize the contribution local park projects make to our health and well-being, economy, and overall quality of life. Second, they must understand that the demand for local park facilities and the need. for federal assistance remains high.Present allocations to the states .fall far below the required levels! ....continued on reverse side