Local Parks

Duda: Gov. Ducey Begins Phase-Out of Boards & Commissions

by

ArizonaStateCapitolExecutiveTower-Jan08-004a[Source: Jeremy Duba, Arizona Capitol Times, February 29, 2016] – An audit aimed at eliminating some of the 200-plus boards and commissions in state government is still underway, but Gov. Doug Ducey isn’t waiting for the full results to get started on his plan.

Ducey’s primary vehicle for paring down the number of boards and commissions in Arizona is HB2600. A strike-everything amendment to that bill would abolish the Arizona State Parks Board, Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Advisory Board, Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee, State Wildland-Urban Fire Safety Committee and Advisory Board of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.

That proposal began with the Arizona State Parks Board, said Gretchen Martinez, Ducey’s legislative affairs director. A 2012 law overhauling the state’s personnel system, which was championed by then-Gov. Jan Brewer, shifted authority for hiring the state parks director from the board to the governor. Since the governor now exercises decision-making authority similar to that of the parks board, Martinez said it make no sense to continue the status quo.

“It created a huge inefficiency in the operation of that agency,” Martinez said. “The parks director … she doesn’t need to be reporting to two different groups of people.”

Another part of Ducey’s legislative agenda, HB2501, addresses issues surrounding a handful of regulatory boards, but in a far different way than that board and commission elimination bill. Rather than consolidate or eliminate boards and commissions, the bill seeks savings and efficiencies by putting them all under one roof and under the administrative authority of the Department of Health Services.

Under HB2501, 17 regulatory boards for health care professions would come under DHS’s purview, starting in fiscal year 2017 with the boards that oversee acupuncturists, dispensing opticians, homeopathic medicine practitioners, occupational therapists and respiratory care professionals. By fiscal year 2020, the Arizona Medical Board, the Arizona State Board of Nursing and the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants will have made the move as well.

The bill does not strip any of the regulatory boards of their licensing and regulatory authority, but does shift some power to the DHS director. The director’s approval will be required for any of the boards to enter into new contracts or renew existing ones, and the director will have the power to hire and fire the heads of the regulatory boards.

“There will be no difference in how a licensee is licensed or reprimanded. Those are not reviewable by the director,” Ducey adviser Christina Corieri told the House Health Committee during a hearing for HB2501.

Furthermore, the director must review all rules approved by the boards to ensure they won’t have a “material anticompetitive effect.” If a rule will have such an effect and isn’t necessary to protect public health, the director would be empowered to reject it. That proposed law is intended to bring Arizona into conformance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling inNorth Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v Federal Trade Commission, in which the high court struck down a rule requiring teeth whitening businesses to be run by licensed dentists, ruling that the regulation was intended to stifle competition.

Martinez said she expects HB2501 to save money on rent, IT services, human resource services and other aspects that the myriad health-related boards can now share. Ducey spokesman Daniel Scarpinato noted that the move could save money on contracts for things like lobbying and public relations.

“It’s a treasure trove of government waste. And I think part of the reason you’re seeing opposition and you’ll see a lot more opposition is because these are a huge money maker for the Capitol industrial complex,” Scarpinato said.

But the savings from the “90-10 boards,” so known because they keep 90 percent of the revenue they generate and send 10 percent back to the general fund, won’t necessarily go to the state. Martinez said the Ducey administration is keen on passing the savings onto the people who pay for professional licensing that the commissions oversee.

Concern about State Parks Board

Advocates of some of the entities that are on the chopping block are not pleased. And much of the pushback revolves around the Arizona State Parks Board.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, said the parks board is important because it represents a number of interests and geographic regions from across the state. Eliminating the board, she said, would block an avenue by which stakeholders provide valuable input about the parks system.

“I can understand why one state parks director or assistant director would want to get rid of them, because yeah, it’s messy. It is messy and it takes more time to listen to people, to engage with people, to have dialogue and to disagree. And it sounds like there’s been some disagreement,” Bahr said.

Others were uneasy with the concept in general, or at least in doing it with what some critics alleged was a lack of outside input, along with perhaps too broad a mandate in one piece of legislation. Rep. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, objected to the idea of eliminating a slew of boards in one fell swoop.

“I think we need to very carefully look at the purposes being served and really give adequate notice to the people who are involved,” she said during a committee hearing.

Similarly, Democratic lawmakers had some reservations about HB2501, the health board bill. House Minority Leader Eric Meyer, D-Paradise Valley, questioned whether the bill was even necessary, and said he was wary of putting a new level of oversight over boards and commissions whose directors already answer to the governor. Even some GOP lawmakers, such as Rep. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix, expressed hesitation over removing the independence of the regulatory boards.

Martinez predicted that as HB2600 works its way through the process, ideas would bubble up about more entities that should end up on the scrap heap. She noted that Alston, who expressed reservations in the House Government and Higher Education Committee, even had a suggestion of her own.

Before Alston voted against HB2600, she said, “I have been struggling with a particular board and commission over the past couple of years, and that would be the State Fair and Exposition Board. And I wonder if you would consider if this bill goes forward a floor amendment that would consider that board as well.”

Need for more oversight

Scarpinato said the elimination of boards and commissions deemed unnecessary will be an ongoing practice for the remainder of the Ducey administration. In October, the Governor’s Office sent several thousand questionnaires to the members of about 220 boards and commissions along with their executive directors, seeking detailed information about the entities’ makeup, functions and operations. The Governor’s Office said one goal of the questionnaires was to provide data that could be used to determine which boards and commissions were unnecessary and could be eliminated.

The questionnaire results have not been particularly encouraging, according to the Ducey administration. Scarpinato said a “big chunk” of the board and commission members who received the survey never responded to it, which he said was telling.

“Frankly, that speaks to the need to have a lot more oversight on these boards and commissions which have operated really in the dark of the night, so to speak, for now many years and are accountable really to no one. I mean, you can’t even get them to respond to a questionnaire,” Scarpinato said. “We really started that because we wanted to know more. And really we can’t even get the basic information in many cases. So there’s a real problem here.”

Bring back the state parks Heritage Fund

by

[Source: William C Thornton, Arizona Republic Opinion] – As negotiations continue between Gov. Jan Brewer and legislative leaders, questions remain about what will or will not be included in the new budget. One thing is certain. The budget will not contain a dime of new funding for State Parks nor will it restore the parks Heritage Fund.

The people of Arizona are the big losers.

Enacted by voters in 1990, the Heritage Fund directed $20 million in Lottery money to be divided equally each year between State Parks and the Department of Game and Fish. The $10 million for parks often served as seed money for matching grants. The total yearly impact was typically $20 million or more.

Heritage Fund grants developed new parks, and built and improved trails, campgrounds, picnic facilities, boat docks and ramps. Historic restoration grants helped preserve important parts of our rich cultural heritage such as the Riordan Mansion in Flagstaff, the Tombstone Courthouse, Mission San Xavier del Bac in Tucson and the historic Yuma Crossing.

If you hunt, fish, hike, camp, boat, picnic or share my love of Arizona history, the parks Heritage Fund benefited you.

Even if you’ve never visited a state park or historic site. you’ve benefited from the Heritage Fund-fueled economic engine that brings dollars and supports jobs. A 2007 study estimated that 224 jobs were directly supported by parks Heritage Fund grants.

State parks and historic sites attract more than 2 million visitors, about half from out of state, who add $266 million to our state’s economy each year. These visitors support an additional 3,000 jobs, mostly in rural areas heavily impacted by the economic downturn.

In response to the economic downturn and a decline in tax revenue, the Legislature swept the state parks allocation into the general fund in 2010 and, inexplicably, eliminated the fund in July 2010.

Thanks to former Rep. Russ Jones and Rep. Ethan Orr, bills to restore the parks Heritage Fund were introduced in three consecutive legislative sessions. In each case the bill was voted out of committee with unanimous bipartisan support only to die in the House Appropriations Committee.

If Arizona legislators and business leaders are serious about attracting companies such as Tesla Motors, they may want to think about the message we send when we fail to invest in our parks. Low taxes aren’t the only consideration when companies decide where to locate a new facility. Outdoor recreational opportunities consistently rank near the top of quality of life issues that attract high-paying jobs, and our parks play a major role.

As the legislative session winds down, House Speaker Andy Tobin’s proposed monument to the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots who died fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire seems certain to pass. It should.

The question of how to pay the estimated $500,000 cost must be addressed. A restored parks Heritage Fund could have been the solution. Let’s bring it back.

William C. Thornton is a second-generation Arizonan and member of the Arizona Heritage Alliance Board.

Story Highlights

  • The Heritage Fund provided $10 million to state parks until the Legislature eliminated the program
  • The fund supports the sort of quality of life that helps attract high-paying jobs
  • The Legislature should restore the fund

Creating open space no walk in the park

by

[Source: Jen Lebron Kuhney, Arizona Republic]- On a recent Saturday, more than two dozen children climbed up and over a piece of playground equipment at Surprise Community Park as parents stood shoulder to shoulder watching at the edge of the playground.

Across the street, dozens of families crowded under canopies, trying to claim scraps of shade, while nearby soccer players waited patiently for a turn to play on fully scheduled fields.

“It’s crazy how many people there are here,” said Surprise resident Eric Mitchell as he surveyed the park he frequents with his children, Connor, 8, and Emily, 5. “Surprise could use more spots like this.”

Packed parks are the norm in this once fast-growing West Valley community, which has only four city parks for its 117,000 residents. Similar problems plague several Valley cities, where a shortage of recreation facilities hurts residents’ quality of life and could hurt the cities’ economies.

Economic forces are partly to blame for the shortage. As the housing boom brought thousands of new residents to Valley communities, the recession that followed brought park creation to a standstill. With tax revenue taking a hit, parks and recreation departments tabled plans to build, expand and upgrade parks, pools and other facilities while they cut hours and staff.

But other factors have played a role as well. In some northwest Valley communities, which traditionally had more older residents and few parks, development brought young families clamoring for recreation facilities to the area. Older voters have been reluctant to pay for new parks.

Dale Larsen, a professor at Arizona State University’s College of Public Programs and former director of the Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, said it’s not an issue successful cities can ignore. Parks are an integral part of what gives communities their character, he said.

“Public spaces in and of themselves are gathering places without regard to race, income, gender or ability,” he said. “They’re all-inclusive and absolutely vital.”

Need for parks

Now that the economy is improving, some cities are ramping up parks projects while others aren’t. Surprise and Mesa, for example, have hundreds of acres of parks on the drawing board, but it is unclear when funds will be available to build them.

There is no one-size-fits-all formula for how many parks or how much open space a city should have.

However, “intermediate-low-density” cities such as Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale and Chandler should set aside 8.1 percent of the total area of the city for parks and open space, according to the Trust for Public Land, a land-conservation non-profit.

The trust tracks parks and open space in 40 U.S. cities and ranks them based on park access, quality and size. Three Arizona cities are on the list: Phoenix, Tucson and Mesa, which rank 16th, 31st and 36th, respectively.

The trust gave Phoenix high marks because parks account for 13.7 percent of its area. Though the Trust for Public Land did not analyze Peoria, it has one of the highest ratios with 26.4 percent of its area devoted to parks and open space. The Peoria and Phoenix numbers, however, include massive regional parks, including Lake Pleasant and mountain preserves.

While not as important as how accessible parks are to people, park size is one factor that can show a city’s commitment to parks, said Peter Harnik, the director of the trust’s Center for City Park Excellence.

Generation gap

City officials throughout the Valley recognize the importance of parks and open spaces, but some cities, particularly in the West Valley, have struggled to meet that need.

Some cities, such as Surprise, had an older population that valued golf courses in their age-restricted communities over public parks and recreation centers. Older voters didn’t see a need for parks when their homeowners-association fees paid for pools, tennis courts and exercise facilities.

That changed in the housing boom of the 2000s, when developers started building homes on inexpensive land in the northwest Valley. Younger families moved into the new neighborhoods, which were less expensive than homes in other Phoenix-area cities.

But Surprise wasn’t prepared for its new, younger residents.

Surprise Community Park was built in 2003 and was the first large park of its kind in the city. Three other parks followed, but eight other large parks were planned but never built.

Now, the city needs 1,235 acres of park space if it wants to catch up with its 2008 parks plan.

The housing bust crippled tax revenue from developers and residents, which left Surprise and other Valley cities without money to catch up with demand for parks. Voters also have defeated bond proposals that could have paid for the upgrades.

Voters roundly rejected a Surprise bond proposal in 2009 that would have gone primarily toward transportation projects but included $6.7 million for parks and recreation improvements.

“When you don’t have funding, you can’t build even when the demand is there,” said Mark Coronado, Surprise’s community and parks director.

Coming up with money has been an issue for other northwest Valley cities as well.

Youngtown, which had age-restricted communities but now has a growing number of younger residents, has been hobbled by financial woes. It had such bad financial problems it considered disbanding as a town and being annexed by a neighboring city last year.

El Mirage had not invested heavily in parks because local leaders traditionally had declined to seek bond funding. But the city, now home to many new residents with young children, devoted $5.5 million of sales-tax revenue and voter-approved bond money for a recreation center with a swimming pool in last year’s budget.

Catching up

Other Valley cities are also taking steps to remedy their backlog of parks and recreation projects that went untouched during the downturn.

Mesa created a $793 million plan in 2002 to have an expansive park system with open spaces, swimming pools, playgrounds and fields by 2025, but the recession dried up revenue that would have paid for land purchases and maintenance of the planned parks.

Now, the city is beginning to upgrade existing parks after voters approved a $70 million bond in November.

But before building new parks, Mesa has to maintain current facilities, said Mark Heirshberg, director of the city’s parks and recreation department.

“We have to put in funding to take care of existing park systems and make repairs that we haven’t been able to make because of the recession,” he said.

Not all Valley cities put parks on hold during the downturn.

Peoria had bond money set aside to keep building parks, said Brenda Rehnke, the city’s recreation manager.

“It was good financial management,” Rehnke said. “Our mayor and council made it a priority.”

Four new parks were opened in Peoria in 2011 and 2012, with more facilities scheduled to get face-lifts in 2013.

Other cities, such as Chandler and Scottsdale, also had long-term park plans that allowed them to weather the recession, officials from those cities say. Additionally, both were not as hard-hit economically as others in the region.

An economic boost

Resuming park construction should be a priority, experts say, because it affects quality of life for residents and it can impact future economic development.

Harnik, of the Trust for Public Land, said cities are starting to see the value of parks and recreation centers beyond places for children to play. Recreation centers and other youth facilities can also be a boon for a city’s coffers.

“I think we’re in a golden age of urban parks,” Harnik said. “There are places that are going gangbusters on their park-building.”

One major recreation facility that has demonstrated its ability to bring in tourism is the Reach 11 Sports Complex in Phoenix.

The 5-year-old facility has 18 lighted soccer fields and is one of the largest soccer complexes in the western United States.

Tourists and groups attending tournaments at the complex generated $120 million in sales and $2.9 million in tax revenue in 2010, according to a Phoenix 2010 staff report.

Aside from being a draw for tourists, park spaces can help families determine where they want to settle down.

Larsen, the ASU professor, said asking if parks draw in residents to a new city or if an increase in residents requires cities to build more parks is like trying to determine if the chicken or the egg came first.

However, he added that well-maintained parks can improve property values.

“We’re at a point where officials are making parks more of a priority,” he said. “Once they realize parks are safe, structured areas for people to gather, they understand it’s a huge asset for a community.”

 

 

Bill to Reinstate Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund Passes House Committee 8-0 ~ Please call Representative John Kavanagh

by

On Monday, February 18, HB2594, a Bill to reinstate the Heritage Fund, passed unanimously in the Arizona House Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources

HB2594 would reinstate the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF), which helps to fund transit services, and also the Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund, which funds parks programs, environmental education, trails, historic preservation, and more.

Both of these funds received Arizona Lottery revenues but were eliminated by the Legislature and Governor during the 2010 state budget crisis. Under this bill, both funds would receive their original allocations — LTAF would receive $9 million per year and Heritage Fund $10 million per year.

Representative Ethan Orr of Tucson is the primary sponsor of HB2594 with Representatives Juan Carlos Escamilla of San Luis, Karen Fann of Prescott, Frank Pratt of Casa Grande, T.J. Shope of Coolidge, Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff, and Bruce Wheeler of Tucson as cosponsors.

Beth Woodin of Tucson, president of the Arizona Heritage Alliance, noted, “It is heartening to see state legislators recognize the need to restore the Heritage Fund that was overwhelmingly supported by voters in 1990. Over the years, millions of dollars in Heritage Fund matching grants have developed new parks, trail systems, campgrounds, picnic facilities, and lake improvements, as well as preserved important parts of our rich cultural heritage.”

In a study conducted by the Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center at Northern Arizona University, it was found that direct expenditures from the Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund in 2007, the last full year of Heritage Fund matching grants, were $12.9 million spent on both land acquisition and construction related to maintenance and repair. Direct program expenditures resulted in indirect expenditures of $4.6 million and induced expenditures of $8.5 million for a total economic impact of $26.1 million. Direct expenditures resulted in 125 direct jobs, 33 indirect jobs, and 66 induced jobs, for a total of 224 jobs from the Arizona State Park Heritage Fund. Estimated total taxes for these expenditures (Local, State, and Federal) were $3.3 million.

William Schwind, vice president of the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, stated, “It’s now our hope that the House Appropriations Committee, under the chairmanship of Representative John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills, will give HB2594 a full and fair hearing and move the legislation to the House floor.”

However, two similar bills in the last two legislative sessions were not advanced by Chairman Kavanagh. When recently asked if he would hear HB2594 in Committee, he refused. The reinstatement of the State Parks Heritage Fund is in his hands. He needs to know today that the citizens of Arizona care about this issue.

We urge you to please call or email  Representative John Kavanagh at [email protected],  602-926-5170 and ask him to PLEASE HEAR HB2594 in House Appropriations Committee.