In case you didn't know, Arizona is closing 13 of its 30 state parks this year due to budget cuts. Below is an article today from the Arizona Republic considering the issue. I thought I would share it with you...
If the state moves forward with closing Fort Verde Historic State Park next month, the move will cost taxpayers $141,000 - or about $46,000 more than it would cost to keep the park open for another year.
Parks officials are negotiating with Camp Verde to take over the park's operations and prevent it from closing. But cost estimates indicate that shuttering some state parks can be as expensive or almost as expensive as keeping them open, at least in the short term.
The Arizona State Parks Board voted last month to close 13 less-profitable parks from among the state's 30 parks and natural areas, after closing or transferring control of five parks last year. Lawmakers have cut parks funding by 61 percent since July in response to historic budget shortfalls.
With their operating funds dwindling, parks officials are moving quickly to close the parks and cut their losses, even as some lawmakers are working on bills that would allow some of the parks to remain open.
Closing the 13 parks will cost about $1.4 million, compared with about $3.6 million to keep them open for year.
Parks officials offered two reasons for spending their dwindling cash reserves on closures.
First, by law, the money they will spend on closings may be used only for capital projects, not operating expenses, so it could not be directed to helping keep the parks open. On Tuesday, the parks board voted to eliminate grant programs and defer capital projects in order to generate funds to cover the cost.
Second, because the closures will bring those operating expenses in line with revenues, they help keep the remaining parks open.
"Our problem is our operating budget," said Renee Bahl, parks director. "We don't have the operating budget to keep these parks open in the future."
The closures will begin Monday, when the state shutters Homolovi Ruins and Lyman Lake state parks. By June, Arizona will have closed more of its parks than any state in the nation.
Closing the parks poses a logistical challenge to the parks staff, which is working to determine how to protect natural and cultural resources.
Many of the parks are self-contained communities that have roads, sewers and other infrastructure. Six have their own wastewater-treatment plants.
Starting Monday, workers will begin posting signs, boarding up doors and windows, erecting fences and barricades, pumping out the wastewater-treatment plants and installing security systems.
"We're blazing the way here, unfortunately, and learning as we go," Bahl said.
Even as officials prepare to close some parks, they are working to transfer others to nearby municipalities. A proposed agreement with Camp Verde to operate Fort Verde is "very promising," Bahl said. Other agreements are in the works with Apache Junction, Payson, Yuma and Tombstone.
"What's most important to local economies is to keep state parks open," she said.
The parks system generates $266 million a year for state and local governments, according to a Northern Arizona University study.
Multiple efforts are under way at the Legislature to keep parks open.
Parks-board members are lobbying for House Concurrent Resolution 2040, which would ask voters to pass a $9 surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund state parks. Vehicles registered in Arizona would then be able to enter all state parks at no additional cost.
The resolution, which has drawn bipartisan support, is scheduled for a hearing Monday in the House Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee.
Separately, a Senate committee on Monday recommended passage of Senate Bill 1349. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Leff, would allow the parks board to lease the parks to public or private entities without going through normal procurement procedures.
That freedom could allow the parks to be leased quickly.
The lessee, who would be responsible for maintaining the park, could then charge admission fees and earn additional money through concessions.
"I'm trying to find a way immediately to make sure those parks do not close," said Leff, R-Paradise Valley. "There are private companies that will manage those parks for us."
Phoenix-based Recreation Resource Management, which operates 175 public parks around the country, has written a letter to parks officials offering to take over at least six of the parks.
Jay Ziemann, assistant parks director, said the bill could be a good way to prevent some closures.
"We are in dire straits," Ziemann told the Senate on Monday. "This is not a panacea, but it is a first step, and it is a tool we can use to try to get some of these parks open."
Which is the greater cost to the public, operating parks or giving tax breaks to the wealthy?
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM
There's something missing in this picture. The parks would cost $3.6 million to keep open but bring in $266 million. How do they figure that they can't afford to keep them open? I'd love to own a business that brought in almost 74 times what it cost to run. I don't think Exxon-Mobil or Goldman Sachs have that kind of cost to income ratio.
Posted by Richard Wong on February 19, 2010 at 1:09 AM
Sounds like a case of business accounting practices prevailing over common sense. If they don't have the operating budget to keep them open then perhaps they should reinvest some of that profit back into the operating budget!
Posted by Scott Fricke on February 19, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Jim, the parks don't bring in $266 million, the "users" of the parks bring in that amount of money to the neighboring communities, such as lodging, restaurants, etc.
It is a fairly misleading assertion the article is based on. The State of Arizona isn't stupid, if they were only going to close the parks for a year they wouldn't spend more than one year's operating cost to close it. They plan on closing them for a long period of time so that over the life of the closure they will save a considerable amount of money, this is just very biased "reporting" of the news, trying to create controversy. They give an example of one park that costs more to close but later on the article says "Closing the 13 parks will cost about $1.4 million, compared with about $3.6 million to keep them open for year." So the statement in the 3rd paragraph, "But cost estimates indicate that shuttering some state parks can be as expensive or almost as expensive as keeping them open, at least in the short term." is a totally misleading statement. They are saving $2.2 million across the board the first year alone and then $3 million a year after that.
It sounds like they are looking at several alternatives to the closings including private management of the parks. Recreation Resource Management has offered to operate 6 parks which ought to tell you something. They are a private for-profit company that thinks they can make money on the park, which might speak to the poor management or business practices of the state in running the parks.
I for one am happy that they are trying to be fiscally responsible instead of just racking up more debt.
Discussion
4 repliesIf the state moves forward with closing Fort Verde Historic State Park next month, the move will cost taxpayers $141,000 - or about $46,000 more than it would cost to keep the park open for another year.
Parks officials are negotiating with Camp Verde to take over the park's operations and prevent it from closing. But cost estimates indicate that shuttering some state parks can be as expensive or almost as expensive as keeping them open, at least in the short term.
The Arizona State Parks Board voted last month to close 13 less-profitable parks from among the state's 30 parks and natural areas, after closing or transferring control of five parks last year. Lawmakers have cut parks funding by 61 percent since July in response to historic budget shortfalls.
With their operating funds dwindling, parks officials are moving quickly to close the parks and cut their losses, even as some lawmakers are working on bills that would allow some of the parks to remain open.
Closing the 13 parks will cost about $1.4 million, compared with about $3.6 million to keep them open for year.
Parks officials offered two reasons for spending their dwindling cash reserves on closures.
First, by law, the money they will spend on closings may be used only for capital projects, not operating expenses, so it could not be directed to helping keep the parks open. On Tuesday, the parks board voted to eliminate grant programs and defer capital projects in order to generate funds to cover the cost.
Second, because the closures will bring those operating expenses in line with revenues, they help keep the remaining parks open.
"Our problem is our operating budget," said Renee Bahl, parks director. "We don't have the operating budget to keep these parks open in the future."
The closures will begin Monday, when the state shutters Homolovi Ruins and Lyman Lake state parks. By June, Arizona will have closed more of its parks than any state in the nation.
Closing the parks poses a logistical challenge to the parks staff, which is working to determine how to protect natural and cultural resources.
Many of the parks are self-contained communities that have roads, sewers and other infrastructure. Six have their own wastewater-treatment plants.
Starting Monday, workers will begin posting signs, boarding up doors and windows, erecting fences and barricades, pumping out the wastewater-treatment plants and installing security systems.
"We're blazing the way here, unfortunately, and learning as we go," Bahl said.
Even as officials prepare to close some parks, they are working to transfer others to nearby municipalities. A proposed agreement with Camp Verde to operate Fort Verde is "very promising," Bahl said. Other agreements are in the works with Apache Junction, Payson, Yuma and Tombstone.
"What's most important to local economies is to keep state parks open," she said.
The parks system generates $266 million a year for state and local governments, according to a Northern Arizona University study.
Multiple efforts are under way at the Legislature to keep parks open.
Parks-board members are lobbying for House Concurrent Resolution 2040, which would ask voters to pass a $9 surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund state parks. Vehicles registered in Arizona would then be able to enter all state parks at no additional cost.
The resolution, which has drawn bipartisan support, is scheduled for a hearing Monday in the House Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee.
Separately, a Senate committee on Monday recommended passage of Senate Bill 1349. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Leff, would allow the parks board to lease the parks to public or private entities without going through normal procurement procedures.
That freedom could allow the parks to be leased quickly.
The lessee, who would be responsible for maintaining the park, could then charge admission fees and earn additional money through concessions.
"I'm trying to find a way immediately to make sure those parks do not close," said Leff, R-Paradise Valley. "There are private companies that will manage those parks for us."
Phoenix-based Recreation Resource Management, which operates 175 public parks around the country, has written a letter to parks officials offering to take over at least six of the parks.
Jay Ziemann, assistant parks director, said the bill could be a good way to prevent some closures.
"We are in dire straits," Ziemann told the Senate on Monday. "This is not a panacea, but it is a first step, and it is a tool we can use to try to get some of these parks open."
It is a fairly misleading assertion the article is based on. The State of Arizona isn't stupid, if they were only going to close the parks for a year they wouldn't spend more than one year's operating cost to close it. They plan on closing them for a long period of time so that over the life of the closure they will save a considerable amount of money, this is just very biased "reporting" of the news, trying to create controversy. They give an example of one park that costs more to close but later on the article says "Closing the 13 parks will cost about $1.4 million, compared with about $3.6 million to keep them open for year." So the statement in the 3rd paragraph, "But cost estimates indicate that shuttering some state parks can be as expensive or almost as expensive as keeping them open, at least in the short term." is a totally misleading statement. They are saving $2.2 million across the board the first year alone and then $3 million a year after that.
It sounds like they are looking at several alternatives to the closings including private management of the parks. Recreation Resource Management has offered to operate 6 parks which ought to tell you something. They are a private for-profit company that thinks they can make money on the park, which might speak to the poor management or business practices of the state in running the parks.
I for one am happy that they are trying to be fiscally responsible instead of just racking up more debt.