Time has changed what people consider going camping at a state park means.

Some no longer take it to mean putting yourself in an outdoor setting and sleeping in a tent or on a sleeping bag out under the stars. Some interpret it to mean driving an RV to a campsite and having the camper serve as a fortress from the bugs and other critters that lurk in the night while you sleep.

But now it seems others prefer to "camp" in an environment where they can look out a window at their natural surroundings from a hotel room where they can take a hot shower and have a nice meal in a restaurant.

Those who consider camping the latter kind of experience are hard-pressed to find it at a Pennsylvania state park now, but that could change.

Legislation that the House is expected to begin considering on Thursday would establish a public-private state park partnership board that would solicit and vet proposals from private developers interested in landing up to a 25-year contract to operate such facilities as a hotel, an inn, water park, amusement park, golf course, office building, restaurant, among others.

Rep. Brian Ellis, R-Butler, is offering legislation that would encourage private development in state parks to include such uses as amusement parks, water parks, golf courses, swimming pools, restaurants, inns, outdoor sports facilities hotels, office buildings, and maintenance structures.

Rep. Brian Ellis, R-Butler, who sponsored the bi-partisan-backed bill, said, "We've got to move the state parks of Pennsylvania into the 21st century and deliver a product that the changing world is looking for."

It's not the first time this idea of allowing private development on state parkland has come up for discussion. But this time, proponents and opponents alike sense a much higher level of interest in making this happening.

It's not only Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both chambers talking about it. They are having discussions with Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who seems receptive to the idea as well.

Gov. Tom Wolf's spokesman Jeff Sheridan said, "The administration is engaged in productive conversations with Representative Ellis regarding this legislation. We will continue working with him to reach agreement on the language."

Pennsylvania has 120 state parks that are managed by the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The department holds the authority to enter into contracts with private companies and already has deals with 138 concessionaires that operate ski areas, whitewater rafting, food concessions, and boat rentals on state land. Two parks also offer lodging - Nature Inn at Bald Eagle State Park and Gateway Lodge at Cook Forest State Park.

Opponents of Ellis' bill don't take issue with private businesses operating on state park land, per se. Rather, they have a problem with handing the decision-making authority about developing on parkland to a proposed nine-member board made up of political appointees.

"I believe strongly and the Sierra Club believes strongly DCNR is the best judge of how those land management authorities should be carried out," said Joanne Kilgour, Sierra Club PA chapter president.

Wrong time to discuss bill



Opponents also are concerned that the costs associated with a separate public-private partnership board will end up being borne by DCNR, an agency they say is so underfunded that it has built up a big backlog of park maintenance projects requiring attention. They point to the P3 office that PennDOT created to serve as a liaison between its so-called P3 board and department and the $1 million a year cost it now has to carry.

In addition, Kilgour expressed concern about the amount of public vetting proposed developments would have and the amount of public input that the public-private partnership board would allow before entering into a contract.

"More than anything, we think it's bad for the public. It's bad for state parkland and it only serves to benefit private companies that would be subsidized by the taxpayer at a time our state is in dire financial straits," she said.

Several other environmental organizations have raised similar concerns, including the PA Parks and Forests Foundation, Pennsylvania Environmental Council and the Pennsylvania Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware County, the most vocal environmental voice in the Legislature, joins them in objecting to the proposal. For one, he doesn't like the timing.

"They are doing this in the final days of the budget trying to jam though issues that wouldn't fare as well in the light of day. They are doing it without public hearings and sidestepping the environmental committee. A lot of mischief like this happens at this time of year," Vitali said.

As for his policy concerns, he said the land where state parks are located weren't randomly selected. They were chosen because they contain special features, whether its geological formations or historical features or recreational features that offer an outdoor experience.

"The appropriate place for things like golf courses, amusement parks and water parks and so forth are on private lands," Vitali said. "There's plenty of that in Pennsylvania."

Possible pilot program?

He intends to offer some amendments to the bill that would require public input into the proposed public-private partnership board's process of evaluating development plans; require the cost associated with the board's operation to come out of the state's general fund and not DCNR's budget; remove certain facilities such as water parks, amusement parks and office buildings from the list of permitted development; and change the makeup of the board to ensure people whose mission is to protect state parks have a greater representation on it.

Ellis indicated he is open to changes to his proposal that at its core is about finding additional ways to enhance state parks without burdening taxpayers with additional costs. He's even willing to accept just a pilot program of a dozen public-private partnerships.

"We can't just throw money at a state park when we don't have it," Ellis said. "So this allows us an opportunity to invest in additional opportunities for the residents of Pennsylvania and let the private sector do the investment and have the risk instead of the commonwealth."

He said he doesn't envision the private developments drastically changing the landscape of state parks. He also doesn't see it as mandating that every state park have a privately owned use on it.

"There may be areas in our commonwealth that may be underserved and through partnering with the private sector we may be able to develop additional opportunities for Pennsylvanians in a changing world to enjoy the outdoors," he said.

Where the money that the state receives from these partnerships goes is up for discussion, but Ellis suggested it likely would be spelled out in the public-private partnership contracts that are negotiated. He pointed to a golf course resort and conference center at a West Virginia state park that was required to maintain the entire park and house that state's equivalent to DCNR.

He said when the idea was discussed before the 2007 and 2008 recession, several companies had expressed interest in helping to develop tourism opportunities on state parks. He imagines if his bill is enacted, their interest could be renewed.

Ellis pointed to Maryland's Rocky Gap State Park that includes a privately owned and operated Rocky Gap Resort Casino as the closest example to Harrisburg of a public-private partnership although they exist in several other surrounding states.

Meanwhile, Kilgour was quick to point out that these partnerships don't always work out as planned and cited as an example Lake Texoma State Park in Oklahoma, which was sold to a private company to develop as a public park and it ended up shuttered it for awhile.

"Our state parks are a refuge for people to get away from the chaos and commercial development," she said. "One of the great values of being a resident of Pennsylvania is free access to a state park system which is an area to enjoy hiking, biking, swimming, fishing, bird watching, family picnics. Commercial development permitted under this new law and facilitated by this board would fundamentally change that experience and could result in not just environmental impact but the recreational experience of generations to come."