Home » General » Heat Is on for Public Discussion of Arizona State Parks

Heat Is on for Public Discussion of Arizona State Parks

Sedona AZ–With standing room only at the Sedona Public Library on September 30, 2010, the concerned crowd of more than 100 listened intently to a panel of local government officials and experts.  The panel presented pertinent facts about the current status of the State Parks, long- term plans and funding options for the system as a whole.


Arizona State Parks (ASP) Board Chairman Reese Woodling compared the originally conceived mission statement of the ASP system to today’s stark reality – the state has stopped funding the system altogether while confiscating the monies ASP collects through gate admissions and other fees, which amount to $10 million annually.


Tom O’Halleran, President of Keep Sedona Beautiful and a former legislator, concurred with Chairman Woodling’s statement.  O’Halleran shared his previous experiences at the State Capitol as he watched in amazement and disbelief as legislators repeatedly made decisions to cut funding of the Parks system, thus disregarding the system’s needs for infrastructure and capital improvement.  He noted the Arizona Legislature’s lack of understanding of the complex issues based on minimal cost analysis and ideology. The legislature also does not recognize ASP’s role in the economy and communities. He noted that since 1980 the ASP budget as a percent of state general funds has continually declined. These outstanding natural and cultural treasures that are our State Parks may vanish for future generations if viable solutions are not found and implemented.


Discussing this year’s budget cuts to the ASP, Sandy Bahr, Government Relations representative for the Sierra Club, shared her views. She said it was not accidental that the system came under the budget ax but part of a plan to divest the government of its fiscal and moral responsibility to keep intact and alive a beautiful Parks system. Bahr stated that the voter-approved Heritage Fund for ASP was not only raided by the legislature, but rescinded irrevocably.


Yavapai County Supervisor Chip Davis highlighted that Verde Valley in Yavapai County has five state parks, the most in any county in Arizona.  Since the parks are a focal point to tourists and locals, the tourist industry needs to be promoted, not throttled, in this economic climate.  How can the legislature continue to kill the engine that drives local economies?  Citizens must let their legislators know that they want the Park system preserved, not privatized, sold or closed! It was revealed that Parks contribute $260 million in economic activity statewide.


The discussion continued and questions were asked concerning privatization of the ASP system.  Woodling indicated that the legislature has discussed privatization and if directed the ASP Board would be required to comply.  He stated the Board does not want ultimate control of ASP to be in the hands of private interests but we should look towards the guidelines used in our National Parks system. Sedona Mayor Rob Adams stated that our State Parks should be preserved but local funding was going to be a problem. Coconino County Supervisor Matt Ryan concurred with Mayor Adams regarding local government lacking funds. He did emphasize the importance of a healthy ASP system.


The discussion turned to the importance of the ASP system relating to our quality of life, economy and preservation of our history. O’Halleran noted that the Parks help preserve our natural resources and cultural heritage. It is paramount to educate the public on continued stewardship of those resources and the history of Arizona. Camp Verde Mayor Bob Burnside, whose town committed $75,000 which, along with Yavapai County’s $30,000, has allowed Fort Verde Historical Park to stay open, expressed his concerns about  sustaining that effort.  He noted an inscription on the meeting room wall: “Honoring the Past, Embracing the Future.”  He expressed that failure to teach this basic tenet, e.g., by failing to sustain those State Parks that preserve our natural, cultural and historical heritage, would have grave consequences for Arizona’s future.


Public questions continued on future funding issues and other concerns.  Bahr stated that the bad news for ASP was not over.  Proposition 301 on the November ballot is another lack of vision for our state parks’ future.  This proposition, sent to voters by the Arizona Legislature and Governor, would sweep the $125 million in the Land Conservation Trust into the state’s general fund. Due to a prior citizen initiative to protect these funds for their intended purposes and not allow the legislature to sweep them, a vote on the proposition is required. Passage of proposition 301 would mean that ASP loses another $1 million in revenues from interest on the fund.


The evening’s culminating message became clear: citizens must communicate to all legislators and the Governor their deep convictions relating to State Park issues, especially regarding funding and concerns over privatization.


The discussion evening was sponsored by the Benefactors of Red Rock State Park, Keep Sedona Beautiful, Democrats of the Red Rocks, Friends of Verde River Greenway and the Sierra Club. For further background on this topic, use this web site’s Search box and enter the keywords “State Parks.”


Article written by sedonaeye.com contributing writer, Birgit Loewenstein.  c2010 Sedona Times Publishing and sedonaeye.com c2010

5 Comments

  1. Park supporter says:

    informative article, thanks Birgit and Sedona News

  2. Mike Schroeder says:

    Amazing meeting. The government, the state of Arizona, shifted money that caused the potential or final closure of our state parks, and we all sat there listening to all the presenters tell us how to motivate the government to fix it. Absolutely unbelievable.

    Tom O’Halleran told us how the house and senate do not pay attention to details, and hats off to Tom for living in that environment for as long as he did. But it sure did not give me or many in the room a lot of confidence in the government to fix what they screwed up.

    Parks chairman Reese Woodling danced around private concessions but absolutely refused to move further into the total privatization discussion. What was amazing was the statement that some board of directors in NY would not care about our heritage, although it would be the sole purpose of a private entity under a strict contract with the state to perform to PROTECT our heritage. It is obvious Mr. Woodling has never been in a business with real contracts and obligations. I would suggest to Mr. Woodling that he study the privatization policies of Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana who privatizes everything he can, including leasing an INTERSTATE toll road (80/90) that extends across the entire north part of Indiana. Billions of dollars collected; a better road, better repair and faster toll collection than the state EVER did. And their board of directors is in Europe. Indiana went from a deficit of over $200 million to a surplus – in THIS economy. Time to stop protecting your fiefdom.

    I also found comments from Sandy Bahr disturbing concerning privatization. She actually said that a private entity would not take care of the parks. Huh? A corporation destroying its own assets? Sandy, go into private business before you come off the wall with comments like this. No corporation destroys the assets that make it money. They IMPROVE and build on those assets, and our state parks ARE that asset which any company would protect to improve their revenue, especially under a strict and monitored contract from the State of Arizona.

    The comment that people could use the national forest for recreation but families may want the security of the state parks is fair enough. But to make a statement or infer that a private entity cannot provide security is absurd and insults the intelligence of the citizens who attended.

    One gentleman running for office suggested we tax plastic bottles and get the money there, or increase the fees that the state charges mining companies to mine copper. Fair enough, but I did not hear where these fees would come back to the citizens of the state, like a portion of oil fees is sent directly to citizens in the state of Alaska. Somehow these funds are to be earmarked for the parks? If that were even possible, we all would be sitting in the same room again 5 years from now dealing with a different state house, different governor and a new set of reasons why dedicated funds are again diverted. Folks – we are talking about government here. Wake up. They cannot commit to a program for ANY period of time, and they always spend too much! Why do we insist on trusting the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. I believe that’s called insanity.

    I also take exception to the comment that the volunteers that help make the system work would not volunteer if the parks were run by a private entity. Huh? Does that mean all the hospital volunteers would quit also? If you have love for your state parks, then you will volunteer no matter who is running the show. And god bless those volunteers we have today. They are enthusiastic and do a great job.

    If you privatize the management of the parks, you have a contract that the company MUST manage ALL the parks. The statement that a private company could pick and choose between those parks that are profitable and those that may lose a little was unbelievable, again showing sheer ignorance of contracts and how they are structured and again insulting the intelligence of those who attended. You think the post office makes money running to a farm 100 miles into nowhere in North Dakota? You take the good with the bad and figure out how to make money. You average it out; there are always some loss leaders.

    Whatever the state would get as income would be a known factor in the contract, thereby keeping their hands out of the till. That’s the only way this works, money coming in, not our tax dollars administered by the people Tom said were incapable of handling it. Whatever those funds are, take $300,000 a year, hire two folks to monitor the execution of the contract, put them on the road 4 days a week, 5th day to write the report to send to the state. And make sure there are penalties for non compliance. And most of the state workers could be hired by the private entity, so very little or no jobs lost.

    This is not tough folks, but you have to have a little experience in these matters. Neither I or others at the meeting heard any experience talking that night. All we heard was more inefficient government and our parks going down in flames.

    It would also have been appropriate to allow a bit more time for public comment. Many of us after the meeting felt that this was just a big presentation by people wanting more government and could care less about public input.

  3. jimenez229 says:

    Parks chairman Reese Woodling danced around private concessions but absolutely refused to move further into the total privatization discussion. What was amazing was the statement that some board of directors in NY would not care about our heritage, although it would be the sole purpose of a private entity under a strict contract with the state to perform to PROTECT our heritage. It is obvious Mr. Woodling has never been in a business with real contracts and obligations. I would suggest to Mr. Woodling that he study the privatization policies of Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana who privatizes everything he can, including leasing an INTERSTATE toll road (80/90) that extends across the entire north part of Indiana. Billions of dollars collected; a better road, better repair and faster toll collection than the state EVER did. And their board of directors is in Europe. Indiana went from a deficit of over $200 million to a surplus – in THIS economy. Time to stop protecting your fiefdom.

  4. AZ Open Park Supporter! says:

    Congratultions to Birgit Loewenstein and the Benefactors of the Red Rock State Park for winning a Spirit Award and financial help last night at the Hilton! Keep up the great effort.

  5. Prop 301 Election Central 2010 Vote Outcome says:

    Prop 301 – The Land Conservation Fund – rejected by around 74 percent of voters.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·