Money and willpower: Developing parks and trails in the Mat-Su

There’s no question that parks and trails are important to Alaskans. But despite a parade of nonprofits aimed at making and keeping recreation areas accessible in the Mat-Su and beyond, recreation advocates and government officials say whether or not new park and trail areas can be created and maintained comes down to a pair of problems: willpower and cash.

“What we want to see is a world class trail system that both residents and visitors can access,” said Wes Hoskins, who leads the Mat-Su Parks and Trails Foundation, a nonprofit organization that invests heavily in new recreation areas across the entire Mat-Su Borough. “What we really want to see is new infrastructure. But you’re going to get push back from the land mangers that you’re building that infrastructure on. They’re going to say ‘it’s hard to wrap our head around because we can’t even maintain the things that we have.’”

The funding problem

The Mat-Su Parks and Trails Foundation, headquartered in downtown Palmer, has led the way for major trail and park development in the borough, with multiple new projects just finished or coming soon by way of grants they distribute through private donations and some federal matching.

Those projects include a 14-mile connector trail in Denali State Park between the new Kesugi Ken campground and the existing Kesugi Ridge trail; a playground in the Williwaw neighborhood in Wasilla; development of the Newman Memorial Park trail in Willow; and funding disability-accessible trail development at Government Peak Recreation Area.

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that trails can cost between $2,500 to $12,000 per mile to develop. And playgrounds, such as the one in Williwaw, can cost about $40,000. But the real issue isn’t the cost of establishment, officials said. That’s because building a new project is only the beginning of the line for a recreation area; once it’s built, someone has to maintain it.

“There always seems to be money for acquisition and construction,” said Hugh Leslie, the Borough’s library and recreation director, who is responsible for overseeing park and trail upkeep on borough lands. “Where there isn’t always money is for maintenance and upkeep.”

Among Leslie’s jobs is the task of balancing those two needs, he said. Although its population is less than half of Anchorage, the borough has the largest annual budget for parks and trails in the state, sitting at over $705,000, he said. Borough residents also consistently rate recreation as among the services that are most important to them. Voters in 2016 approved a $22 million recreation bond — the largest in the state’s history — to fund recreation improvements. Funding is also raised each year through the sale of borough parking passes, which brought in about $170,000 in 2019, he said.

Nonetheless, keeping priorities straight is still a constant battle, he said.

“We have a really generous trails budget but we also have a very diverse trail system,” he said. “The challenge is weighing new construction over being able to keep your trails in good condition. And I never want to be in that position where we say we maintain five of the trials well and five we maintain poorly. I want to maintain 10 very well.”

Included in the projects slated to come online from the borough this summer are the Matanuska River Park north and south trails which connect to the Old Glenn Highway before the Matanuska River bridge, and additional trail development at Settlers Bay. The borough is also in talks with the Glacier View Community Council to develop a trail route up Lionshead, he said.

Because recreation is not a required or “mandated” service, Leslie said, they watch their spending carefully.

“We have to stretch our dollars very carefully because we’re trying to meet the needs of those people that want us,” he said.

Borough Assemblyman Jesse Sumner, a homebuilder whose District 6 area includes Hatcher Pass and Government Peak Recreation Area, said that while parks and recreation are important, it’s not his first choice for spending, especially during a time when localities are strapped for cash. Instead, he’d rather spend on those mandated services, like roads and schools.

“If we’re going into a tight fiscal environment then we certainly have to prioritize, and that wouldn’t be my number one priority,” he said.

And while he recognizes that trail and recreation development in his district, such as the new lift at the Hatcher Pass ski area Skeetawk, does bring in revenue, he’d prefer to give voters the option to approve more funding rather than simply approve it as an assembly.

“I think that area is going to see, in the future, significantly increased property values and more tourists. There’s a lot of draw, it is good for the economy,” he said. “I do like the idea of a package going to the voters more than asking the assembly members to just decide to spend the tax dollars on this”

An additional recreation bond with new parks funding has not been officially proposed.

The cash problem doesn’t stop at the borough. At the state level, recreation areas are split broadly between the State Parks, which manages regions like Hatcher Pass, where funding woes are keeping the Independence Mine State Historical Park buildings shuttered this summer, and the Department of Fish Games, which manages refuges like the Palmer Hay Flats.

“There’s a lot of trails around that need maintenance, but there’s just not money to maintain them,” said Joe Meehan, the lands and refuges program coordinator for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s division of wildlife conversation. “I don’t think it’s a land management issue or an agency issue — it’s really a funding issue.”

Nonetheless, Meehan said they do have some improvements coming soon to areas in the Mat-Su, including construction on a boat launch point at Rabbit Slough where the state plans to pour a hardened launch area for Wasilla Creek, he said.

The willpower problem

All the funding in the world, however, may not overcome another issue that blocks park and trail development: bureaucracy. .

For some areas developing a new park or trail can be easy, Leslie said — if the borough controls all of the land. But that is rarely the case, with portions of many planned trails criss-crossing areas owned by many different entities.

For example, a trail to Lionshead would need to cross over borough land, state land and land owned by AT&T, he said. Other trails also must factor in land owned by Native Corporations or various and sometimes multiple federal agencies.

To develop a trail, each of those land holders must grant special permission for use. In some cases, said Hoskins at the Parks and Trails foundation, that permission can take a decade. For example, a trail proposed for Hatcher Pass that would connect 16 Mile and Government Peak stretches over mileage controlled by the state parks, unincorporated state Department of Natural Resources [DNR] land and the Borough. To build the trail, Hoskins said, they need the OK from all of those entities.

“The borough and state parks have been working to get a permit to be able to build on that land and it’s not an easy process. Permitting from DNR can take up to a decade to get put through,” he said. “When the question of ‘why,’ is raised, no one necessarily even knows. It probably goes down to work load and priorities.”

On the borough level, whether or not a new trail needs the blessing of the assembly largely comes back to budget. If the OK is needed for fresh funding a lease change, like in the case of the development of Skeetawk, it must go through assembly approval. If the land is in the possession of the borough, the funding is available and the community council gives it’s blessing, development is simply put on the schedule, Leslie said.

Mustering the political willpower to get something done also requires reminding residents that the parks aren’t just there to look nice or shelter some wildlife; they are also there to be used.

At the state fish and game office, part of Meehan’s job is to raise awareness of preexisting areas while balancing their status as a Refuge. For example, a recent event at the Rabbit Slough area of the Hay Flats brought fat bike users and skiers in to learn about wildlife, conservation and use options.

“Our emphasis is wildlife and wildlife habitat — and public uses of that wildlife,” he said.

For the Great Land Trust, a conservation nonprofit headquartered in Anchorage, the challenge is working with localities to move forward while also remembering that projects are longterm investments of both time and money.

“You look at it and say ‘why is this hard, why can’t get it together?’ But there’s permits, there’s reviews, there’s fundraising,” said Ellen Kazary, the organization’s executive director. “I think that’s one of the good things … we’re in that role as facilitator and coordinator. We’re in here for the long haul, we can do these steps, we can help coordinate things.”

Kazary said her organization, which played a major role in creating public parks access for Settlers Bay, is in the beginning stages of several new projects in the Mat-Su region. But she said she can’t discuss them due to confidential negotiations with various land owners. As an organization, she said they are focused on projects that strike the balance of working through the red tape while creating spaces that the land mangers can afford to maintain.

“We’re been working to design projects from the start that are designed to have lower costs or the long term plan is that they have these amenities, but for now it’s open space,” she said. “We’re trying to design it with the land manger in mind and make it easier.”

A tourism solution?

Hoskins and other trail advocates in the state believe part of the solution to both the problems of willpower and money might be found in trail tourism. By developing visitor-friendly trails, the region can tempt tourists to linger in the area between stops in Denali and Anchorage.

“For every $1 spent on operations to maintain and trail and keep a bathroom they get back $5,” Hoskins said, citing a 2015 report on the report on investment of park development in the Mat-Su. “On the economic benefits side, and the thing we have a huge opportunity for, is plugging into the people who are … the independent tourists.”

The concept is promoted in a 2019 report from Alaska Trails Initiative. That group wants to expand investment into park and trail development across the state, a move that could have significant income benefits for the state, they estimate. The outdoor recreation industry generates $3.2 billion in annual spending nationwide, the report states, and if visitors to Alaska spent just one more day in the state, they would leave an additional $137 million annually behind.

But getting there is going to require investment and creative thinking, he said.

“Sometimes there can be a lack of imagination, and the state is focused on what they can do to bring in revenue … but not creating enriching experiences and having a lot of money for interpretation and year round visitors services,” he said. “But if you had that you might be able to generate more revenue.”

At the end of the day, Meehan said, it all comes full circle. Without bringing in people to use the space — whether they be locals or outsiders — officials and advocates won’t be able to get the support they need to keep the areas well maintained. But without that support, maintenance and development fall by the wayside.

“Keep in mind the end goal, which is that people understand and appreciate these areas, use them, maintain them, protect them and develop them,” he said. “If they were just isolated areas that no one ever used, it’s going to be hard to get that community and politics support.”