On February 3, 2009, the Arizona State Parks Board requested that the public have easy access to public comments about the budget. On this page you can read transcribed public testiomony from the meeting.
Public Testimony
Chairman Woodling noted that he now had about 20 people wishing to address the Board. He asked that they limit themselves to 5 minutes and that they keep their comments succinct and to-the-point.
Mr. Doug Frerichs, AZ State Parks Foundation, addressed the Board. He stated that he completely understands that the Parks Board has a fiduciary responsibility to give the agency guidance on how to meet the current cuts that have been handed down by the legislature and that it affects employees and parks. It also affects the communities that surround those parks that may be closed. He hears a serious, somber tone here and that the Board feels that it must accept these cuts. As he listens to the discussion today the Board is worrying about what may come in FY 2010. While the Board pursues its fiduciary responsibility for this FY, he urged the Board to adopt the tone of not accepting these cuts and not accepting additional slashes to this fine parks system in FY 2010. This is a system that not only earns its keep, but better than that, brings in $21M a year with 2.4M visitors a year. He doesn’t see that additional cuts should have to be borne by this system by the legislature (a third of its membership being freshmen who have been in office barely a month). He encouraged the Board to take a very strong position against any further cuts they may have to deal with in FY09 and give this staff, as the Board has already directed, the emphasis that they should look at every possible means, and the Foundation will join in this, in advocating for this system so it can remain in business. He noted that the Board has the Morrison Institute Study. The Morrison Institute is prestigious. Our former governor and current governor have supported a task force. He believes that is a strong argument to carry to the legislature. He believes that what was handed out by the legislature this year is probably more than should have to be borne. He wishes that the agency’s staff could find a way to not close any parks. He enjoined the Board to take a strong advocacy position, partnering with the governor and legislature to minimize cuts to this system, which would harm the state during this recession.
Chairman Woodling thanked Mr. Frerichs for his comments and noted that the study by the Morrison Institute that he mentioned was financed by a private donation.
Mr. Rob LaFontaine, Bullhead City, addressed the Board. He stated he wanted to comment on the suspension of the grant program. They are in a position right now where they have at least one project where they have already brought a contractor on board and have contractual obligations to. They would appreciate any amount of time, even a few weeks, to finish what they have started, working with the contractor to finish up the work and receive funding for this $500,000 project. Losing that funding would be detrimental to their city. They are also looking at reductions. They will do everything they can to save money. Mr. Colton asked where they are in the project. Mr. LaFontaine responded that he understands they have just begun the project. They are looking at six weeks to completion.
Ms. Eileen Gannon, Riordan Mansion State Historic Park addressed the Board. She stated that she is the great-granddaughter of Kim Riordan so she has a personal interest in the house. She is the daughter of Rita Gannon, whose two sisters are her aunts. She stated that the staff there have done an incredible job. The family has been more than pleased. They gave the house, lock, stock, and barrel, to ASP and they’ve done an incredible job with it. The family have given most of the artifacts (95%) and documents that really track AZ history. Tim Riordan started Lake Mary, which supplies Flagstaff with water. The family has retained about 5% of the artifacts. She has a rocking chair that is on permanent loan to the agency.
Ms. Gannon stated that, in the event the house would be closed as a state park, it would be a huge problem for the family. She believes that there is a clause that needs to be investigated regarding a deed restriction that says if it’s not operating as a park, it reverts to the family. The family does not want to see that happen. She doesn’t think the Board wants to see that. ASP just put in $450,000 in the not-too-distant past to renovate, roof, paint, and replace the original wallpaper. The Board put a huge amount of money into it. It’s like an old car – once you refurbish it you keep it. This is not the time to dump it. She understands that the actual operating expense, not including personnel, is $27,000 per year, which they could start holding bake sales to cover. She understands that personnel costs are where the big money is. She is advocating for the family, for the house, and for the people who really love Riordan for the Board to reconsider and take Riordan off the list.
Ms. Westerhausen noted that it is so sad that just over a week ago the New York Times featured an article on things to do at Sunset Crater in Flagstaff and one of the activities they recommended was to tour Riordan Mansion. Ms. Gannon responded that she is always hearing about articles from NY and around the country.
Mr. Kopp, City Engineer for the City of Show Low, addressed the Board. He noted that the representative from Bullhead City addressed some of Show Low’s issues. Show Low has two SLIF grants and one LRSP grant for construction in two parks. Both are under contract. The loss of the grant funds will put them in a situation where they will have to default from those contracts as far as he can tell. They haven’t had a lot of time to look at them. Their concern is that the commitment from ASP to fund these projects and now pulling the funding is going to be a problem. He looked at the grant agreement for the LRSP grant. There is language in that agreement that says if the agreement is terminated by the Board, the funds still must be available to the end of the period for which the funds are available. He’s not sure what that means. He believes that there is some language in the agreement that talks about that commitment. He requested ASP staff, and especially legal counsel, to look at the legality of it and what sort of assistance the local communities will possibly get from state counsel to help them negotiate or litigate – whatever the case may be with the contractors.
Mr. Jason Mangum, City of Show Low Parks & Recreation, addressed the Board. He stated his concurrence with his colleagues from the City of Show Low and the City of Bullhead City. Not only does stopping these grants and projects hurt the Board’s credibility, it hurts their credibility. It puts a scar on Show Low because land has been cleared for their project to put in a park. It leaves a scar in the middle of their community that can be compared to someone going in to KCSP with a can of spray paint. It is something they can’t do anything about for the foreseeable future. He appreciates the Board’s time and does not envy the position they are in. It is tough for everyone from the local level all the way up. He doesn’t envy what has to be done, but he would appreciate the Board looking into keeping those grants that are under contract because not doing so puts them in a tight spot.
Mr. Scalzo noted that one of the parks under consideration for closure is Lyman Lake. He asked if that would have an impact in that area of the White Mountains and place more demands on cities like Show Low.
Mr. Mangum responded affirmatively. He stated that he grew up in rural AZ. He’s lived in the Valley and in Prescott. He has the incredible opportunity to live in rural AZ and raise his family there. Money was not free-flowing when he was growing up. They took vacations to state parks. As he looks around the room, he sees places he visited as a kid and as a father of young children, they take their vacations to state parks. It means a lot to a native of AZ; it means a lot to his family – his brothers and sisters and their families. He doesn’t envy what the Board has to do. ASP means as much to the citizens as to parks and recreation professionals.
Ms. Westerhausen asked what people, like Mr. Mangum and others who are here, do specifically to get the ear of their legislators to help them understand what they are doing to this agency.
Mr. Ziemann responded that they should certainly be contacting their legislators and let them know the impact that the cuts passed last Saturday morning will have on their communities and the impossible position they are putting the state in in breaking contracts that have already been executed.
Mr. Mangum stated that that is exactly what they have been doing. He sits on the Legislative Board for the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association (APRA) and they are doing their best whenever they receive alerts regarding things like this to get it out to their constituents and colleagues and to get people to bang the drums so to speak at the legislators. He added that we need everyone to jump in to protect our parks and recreation.
Mr. Landry stated that phone calls, faxes, letters and E-mails don’t do it. It has to be face-to-face with the legislators. There are so many problems that it’s hard to do. Mr. Mangum responded that he agrees and that he has appointments on February 11th to meet with his legislators.
Mr. Ziemann stated that, just so there’s no misunderstanding, those concerns were all raised with the legislative staff and with legislators. All of those issues were raised that this would be extremely problematic, but they did it anyway.
Mr. Thomas Wilson addressed the Board. He stated that he is the Director of the AZ Museum of Natural History in Mesa. They are a grantee of the Heritage Fund. He noted that if one looks at the list for closure and does a cost benefit analysis, the ax falls unduly hard on the state historic parks. There may be other ways to do that analysis. He thanked the Board for all the hard work they are doing. He knows every Board member loves the parks. His question concerns the Heritage Fund. The language in the Agenda says the Board will consider suspending grant payments. He would like clarification on what “suspending” means. Obviously, one aspect is contractual obligations that have already occurred such as with contractors, etc., that they thought was encumbered and would come to them. Another aspect is that they’ve used some of their money from the Heritage Fund to try to leverage federal funds; they’ve used it as matching money for federal grants. He doesn’t know what the consequences for them will be on something like that. He thanked the Board for what they do for the State of AZ.
Ms. Shifra Leah Boehlje addressed the Board. She stated that she is a volunteer at Ft. Verde State Park. She read her statement as follows: “I’m Shifra Leah Boehlje, a resident of Phoenix and a volunteer at Fort Verde State Historic Park. I am concerned about the possible closing and subsequent destruction of this beautiful historic landmark. We must all be vigilant in saving our few remaining historic buildings as a legacy for our future generations. If we don’t preserve these buildings and artifacts we will be destroying the only remaining monuments devoted to the memory of those soldiers who gave their lives for this GREAT STATE. You have been empowered as stewards of this history and must protect and maintain these buildings and artifacts as such. I am so dedicated to this cause that I will do all within my power to save this fort and our history.” She added that, as a volunteer, she’s had little input for generating interest in our parks. If this Board would give her broader scope to plan activities and to advertise these activities, she believes she can do this.
Mr. Landry noted that he had to leave the meeting at this time. He left the meeting at 11:10 a.m., leaving the Board with a quorum to continue.
Ms. Sandy Bahr, the Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter, addressed the Board. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak to the Board. The Sierra Club has been advocating for national, state, and local parks for more than 100 years. The history with ASP has been difficult. In the best of times the legislature has not stepped up to its responsibilities to the parks and funded them properly. The passage of the 1990 Heritage Fund came about primarily because the legislature had not adequately funded parks. This budget is a demonstration of the lack of commitment to parks. The Sierra Club advocated to the legislature very strongly that they have a parks system that is already strapped and have not given them adequate funding in good times. It’s cut to the bone. The parks need to be held harmless in this budget. In the big scheme of things, we are talking about a relatively small amount of money in the overall budget. She stated that they did focus a lot on the Heritage Fund because that’s something they worked hard on over the years. This is the first time ever that they’ve taken ASP’s Heritage Fund money. She feels it’s a sad commentary. She would like to be able to say to close a few parks and that will show them. But, frankly, she doesn’t think they care. The people who will suffer are the people living in the local communities where the parks are an important part of their economies. It’s an important part of our history. Places like Homolovi are critical to protecting those resources. Without ASP’s protection, she is concerned about what will happen to those resources. She suggested the Board do what a previous speaker suggested and not accept the cuts. If the Board has to, then take it directly to the people. She stated that she personally believes that the only way we will see our parks system functioning the way it should is through a voter-approved measure. She added that she cannot accept the Board going after the Growing Smarter dollars which are voter-approved. She believes those dollars are protecting important state trust lands. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul. It was very hard to get that money. What happens to the Heritage Fund, SLIF, etc., demonstrates the importance of the Voter Protection Act. She noted that the governor said she supported ASP then put more cuts on the table at the last minute. Ms. Bahr stated that she grew up in a family with limited income. The state parks were critical. Those are the places where people can go with their families. We shouldn’t be raising the fees so that families can’t go and we shouldn’t be abdicating our responsibility to protect the resources in the parks, whether they are historic, cultural, or natural resources. It’s important to fight back.
Chairman Woodling noted that he sat in the Senate Natural Resources Committee meeting yesterday. They listened to ADOT and then they listened to ASP. Mr. Travous mentioned that it was the first time in 16 years or so that the agency has been asked to come to that committee and present a program of what we do and how we conserve the historical aspects of the state. He believes that Mr. Travous and Mr. Ziemann did a very good job. He knows at least one freshman Senator on that committee who is from the ranching industry. He heard things they said yesterday that were politically expedient for them to say. He was very disappointed. They were talking about how we can save a penny here and a nickel there but they weren’t addressing the real issues. There were some comments made that were appropriate to our situation but he got the feeling that we were just taking up their time and that they weren’t really interested in what we had to say in the big picture. He knows the people support us but he’s not so sure the legislature does. He agrees with Ms. Bahr’s comments.
Mr. Winkleman noted that Ms. Bahr has a long history and a lot of experience in working with the legislature in this type of situation. It’s a terrible time; everyone’s howling; there were marches on the capitol last week. When she says to take it to the people, he asked if she has something concrete that the Board can do. He has gone to the legislators and is lucky to get 3 minutes of their time. As the Chairman said, he’s not sure they’re listening. Saying something and actually doing it are two different things.
Ms. Bahr responded one thing would be to have community meetings in places where parks are potentially on the chopping block. The legislators need to feel the heat in their own districts. The Heritage Fund money benefits every single legislative district in the state. The topic of privatizing the parks comes up every time. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park doesn’t make a lot of money, but it’s a wonderful park. When she says to take it directly to the people that means going out and going around the legislature to some degree. She personally thinks that for the future the Board needs to seriously think about a citizen’s initiative. While that’s not a popular thing to say, she believes that the Board needs to look at a citizen’s initiative for parks. The Board can bang their heads against the wall only so many times before figuring out a different approach. She knows that doesn’t solve the short-term problem. She suggested looking at the license plate fee. There would have to be an easy way to administer it. The Board needs to look at creative ways to achieve an ongoing dedicated fund. The legislature will not do it with the General Fund.
Mr. Colton noted that the parks are located in 14 counties. Most of the legislators are in the other county. In talking about economic viabilities of small rural communities around the state, environmental and historic preservation, natural and human resources in those areas, and the social benefit of having these places here it should be a no brainer. But it’s not. While he’ll refrain from saying it’s a no brainer, he believes it has something to do with those making the decisions.
Ms. Jean Emery, Board Member of the Benefactors of Red Rock State Park addressed the Board. She stated that she has been affiliated with ASP in the past. She served as a former Assistant Attorney General representing ASP and then as the first Chief of Resources Management. She is here in her capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of the Benefactors of Red Rock State Park which is a group of individual citizens who have come together to raise funds and make financial contributions to the park that cannot otherwise be accomplished as a result of the budget issues all of the parks face. Additionally, she wanted to say that Red Rock State Park has a very large volunteer contingency. They have drawn extensively from the community and the community is deeply in involved with the park. She noted that she has a lot of friends in this room, but after her comments, that may not be the case. She noted that Messrs. Landry and Winkleman suggested looking at other options. She assumes that cuts need to happen. This is not something she supports, but that’s what the Board has to face. As Mr. Landry said, it can’t be all about the numbers. She suggested that the Board consider adopting a methodology or a construct or a test to apply to the decisions to be made about these cuts. The test she suggests the Board consider is whether they are saving an agency or saving the resources. She called the Board’s attention to the Mission Statement that was read earlier this morning, particularly the last three words: “benefit of the people”. To that end, will the decisions that might be made benefit the people. Do they touch the people? Arguably, the seasonal employees touch the people of AZ far more directly than the folks who work in the Phoenix Office. Granted, everyone here working at ASP is trying to benefit the resource. All the work done goes to benefit the resource. But, can we apply that analysis? Just as a point of suggestion and for illustration purposes only, she stated that if the Board were to take the salaries of those sitting at the table across from the Board (the Executive Staff) they might cover three or four of the parks on the list of parks to be closed. It’s easy to lop off an arm or lop off units; it’s nice and clean. It’s easy to lop off a unit that is way out there 300-400 miles away where no one sees those people or even know who those seasonal employees are. It’s the people who come to the gates who see and know those people. They are the ones who take the dust off the artifacts and make sure the lights are on and open the doors and clean the rest rooms. She asked that the Board adopt a methodology that would help them determine whether this will benefit the agency or the resources. The Board has the units being lopped off but this office is ticking away. She asked if the Board has achieved its mission. She believes, unlike the Land Dept., ASP has a high number of uncovered employees who are at-will employees. She doesn’t think the RIF rules and process would affect them. It does apply to Civil Service employees. On behalf of Red Rock State Park, she noticed that gift shop revenue is not included. If the staff is going to apply some analysis about how much revenue a park brings in per visitor a number of parks (Red Rock and Tonto) have very productive gift shops and bring in quite a bit of revenue. If it does come back to numbers, then ask what the numbers are and what the revenues really are.
Ms. Nancy Smith, Great American Puppet Theater addressed the Board. She stated that they were a recipient of a Heritage Fund grant to fix their leaky roof. She is a puppeteer. They have a building that is on the National Register of Historic Places that had no electricity and a very leaky roof. They have been fixing it up for some time and are still having trouble with the roof and some other things that the grant addressed. Aside from being a puppeteer and now a historic building renovator, she is by nature an environmentalist. She asked what “suspension” of grants really means and what it will mean to the grant funds that she has also leveraged with this particular grant. She also wonders if this is really legal. She knows that the Heritage Fund money they received came from the Lottery; it’s always been advertised that lottery dollars are doing this, this, and this. All of a sudden they’re swept into the General Fund? She stated that she wishes the Board would be more proactive in letting the legislature know that that’s not what this money was meant for. Then she listened to the Board talk about the parks. She runs a non-profit that is 25 years old. As she explained to her mother-in-law once, she doesn’t work to make money; she makes money to do her work. She can’t just look at dollars and cents and assess the value of it. If she did that, all she would do is one person’s birthday party show and the kids who really needed the show to help them stay in school would be left out. When the Board look at the list of parks they can’t say, “This one makes money; this one doesn’t.” If the Board loses that park that doesn’t make money, it loses so much. We’ll lose those historic buildings. We know that our land is fragile. What Puppet Theater does is to try to figure out how to make one program happen because they’ve done the others. In looking at the numbers, if one goes down the list to Lake Havasu it shows 248,851 visitors with a net revenue of $0.04 per visitor. Surely that could come up. That could be something that’s done in the short term. Instead of talking about which parks should be closed, maybe look at this a little more carefully and say, “What is the possibility of getting more money?” If those people all paid a dollar more it would be $248,851 right there. She doesn’t know where that money comes from – docking boats or something. But even asking for an additional $5 wouldn’t be too much to ask. She hoped that, aside from saying these parks have to be closed, the Board would be a little more creative and look at what it has and see where the Board could go from there in the short-term. She also thinks that the money from license plates is a good idea.
Ms. Elizabeth Stewart, former Parks Board member, addressed the Board. She stated that she is a life-long user of parks. She was on the Parks Board in 2002 when the issue of closure of parks came up before. After a six-year term, one looks back and there are some things to be really proud of and there are some things that, if one had to do over again, would have been done differently. The thing that comes to the top of her list every time is that she regrets that she voted to close parks. The reason she regrets that is that she felt she and the rest of the Board members did not sufficiently explore other options. She was very heartened today by the comments of many of the Board members regarding the need for a menu, the fact that once something is sacrificed it’s lost, etc. She urged the Board to look at this a different way. She recognizes that this is a much worse budgetary crisis than the one the Board faced in 2002. She is not in any way minimizing what is before this Board. She believes that there is no way to avoid some reduction in staff. However, once decisions are made staff lives are affected forever; resources are affected forever. There is irreparable damage once a park is closed. As other speakers have pointed out, the Board may not be able to close many of these parks legally because of reversion clauses, liability, and duty to protect artifacts and other resources. Perhaps it may be better to consider a different way of looking at this. Things mentioned today are seasonality and reduction in days of operation. Staff can’t necessarily move from Lyman Lake to Patagonia, but there are many parks within an hour’s drive from each other. During her tenure on the Parks Board it was not unusual when there were special events for people to be assigned for a day or a period of time where they drove an hour. She would say many people would rather drive an hour than lose their jobs. It may be possible to reduce some of the services provided in some of the parks and still keep them open. She’s not sure why furloughs can’t be done at ASP if they can be done at universities. These are things that need further exploration. It is obviously more difficult to come up with this kind of menu or options and it’s more difficult to operate, but for the staff, citizens of AZ, and the resources it may be the better way to go. She agrees with other speakers that closing parks will not get the legislators’ attention. She believes that the focus really needs to be on the resources, the people, and the staff. She is concerned that the cultural and historic parks, although they may be a high-cost per visitor, are taking a disproportionate hit on the proposal. It might be helpful to look at the fact that not much money will be saved by closing them. In 2002 the Board closed a lot of historic parks and really didn’t save much because skeleton crews were left there. The places couldn’t really be boarded up. Attempts to board up and completely close historical or cultural parks would result in greater damage and much more irreparable than the damage that would be done to our recreational parks by shuttering them. As Ms. Emery pointed out, the Board needs to look at what the damage is in addition to what is being saved. She suggested that the Board change its focus. When she worked for the AG’s Office, she represented a lot of state agencies. They were going through performance audits all the time. One of the auditors said that they don’t really save any money when they audit the small agencies because there isn’t that much there to save. She believes that it’s the same with the smaller parks that are on the list. If the Board looks instead at the high-dollar cost parks – the parks that cost a lot to operate (KCSP, Patagonia Lake) – they may bring in a lot of revenue; there may be ways to reduce some of the operating costs and still maintain most of the revenue. If the operating costs can be reduced at some of the large parks, six or seven small parks can be saved and affect a lot less people and resources. She applauded the Board for not rushing to take any action today. Obviously, this is an urgent problem, but it’s important to do it right.
Mr. Vic Linoff, Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, addressed the Board. He stated that, based on the discussion today, he knows he’s addressing the wrong body. In reality, access to the Board is easier than access to those making the wrong decisions down at the legislature. He thinks we should be talking about, recognizing, and being aware of the value of the Heritage Fund grants. He particularly appreciates Mr. Landry’s remarks regarding the legal obligations to honor pre-awarded contracts and determining whether that is legal. In the larger picture, grants are essential to preservation, as the Board well knows. That small amount of money goes a long way throughout the state. It is also essential to our economy. Preservation grants are dependent on those small dollars the Board provides to important projects in the state. Regarding the economy, he would ask we all consider the larger economic picture. These grants really represent an economic stimulus. By pulling them away, we are really creating a house of cards. By not having grant contracts, we are contributing to a further decline in our economy because we aren’t stimulating the circulation of those dollars both in employment and investments in other goods and services. Suspending the grant agreements, in his estimation, violates the real spirit of the voter intent when they approved the Heritage Fund. Decisions are made by the legislature; but we, as citizens on various boards and commissions play a role as advocates. He would look to the Board to be at the legislature, pounding the table at the legislative meetings, and using their positions to get this word out. Staff cannot do it as effectively as we can as volunteers. He knows these are painful decisions. In the scheme of things, the entire Parks budget is relatively small. No one wants to waste taxpayer money. ASP is taking a disproportionate hit in a number of areas that really provide great benefit to a lot of people.
Ms. Maureen Rooney addressed the Board. She is a private citizen who lives in the Coronado Historic District. Last Friday she was on contract with the City of Glendale to administer a Heritage Grant fund that would have improved 10 properties. She is feeling like life is unfair. Two of those 10 property owners had notices to proceed. Every one of them had an easement required against their property for this grant fund that they will not get apparently. She is asking the Board for a very small favor. The Board has really big problems to deal with and she appreciates that the Board is doing that. She requested that if the Board has given a grant, it has a notice to proceed, and has an executed contract let it be and they’ll figure out how to deal with it in the future. Everyone knows we are in bad times. She’s OK with not having her contract honored, but there are two property owners who were ready to go and they are not so OK with it. She noted that she appreciates Mr. Landry’s comments.
Mr. Jerry Van Gasse addressed the Board. Mr. Van Gasse noted that all these great places came about through people who were passionate about them and had vision. One can’t put a price on any of these properties. This is a unique state. When he leaves here he is going down to City Council. The first thing they hammered was parks. City parks, state parks, federal lands – they can’t speak. It’s the people with the vision and passion who have to speak for them. It’s the vision and passion that will sustain them. At one time these processes and budgets weren’t so politicized. In the 1970s and 1980s he worked with two individuals at total ends of the political spectrum – Barry Goldwater and Mo Udall. But their passion and vision for this state was so great that they worked together to get things done. He doesn’t see that any more. What he still sees out there now is Stewart Udall who currently lives in Santa Fe. He was the most prolific Secretary of the Interior this country has ever had. He left Phoenix and Arizona, which he loves – he was born and raised here – because no one would consult with any of these types of visions. We have these resources all around the state; people are passionate about it that we’re not even reaching out to. That’s the resource we should be tapping into. The numbers are meaningless; we need to go out and find these people.
Ms. Bonnie Bariola, Florence Preservation Foundation, addressed the Board. Their foundation sponsors Historic Preservation Heritage Fund grant applications. These projects benefit the community and they also help the economy. The Town of Florence, after sitting vacant for 32 years, have just completed the rehabilitation of a hotel. This has been an inspiration to the people of the town. About 750 people turned out for the ribbon-cutting ceremony last Friday night. She was very excited about that until she went to a meeting Saturday morning and learned that McFarland State Historic Park, just across the street from the hotel, is going to be closed. Unfortunately, as Mr. Travous stated earlier, the walls are falling down at McFarland. ASP had funding to rehabilitate the building, but that money was taken away, too. She concurs with Ms. Stewart’s comments to look into funding other than just the numbers. She noticed that, on the list, McFarland is the highest by cost-per-visitor. She suggested that the Board look at other things than just the bottom line. She suggested cutting McFarland back to 1.5 employees instead of 3 employees; stay open just 5 days per week instead of 7; and give the other parks that were going to be closed the option of doing the same. She asked the Board to use some other method in order to keep those parks open and cut the costs down. She added that she has 3 additional signed contracts for projects in Florence that are in dire need of rehabilitation. A couple of them can probably wait. She is not at a stage in the process that it would be drastic right now to wait. Her question is what happens to the contracts that are already signed – would they ever get it back? While the Board may not know the answer, she has to tell the town something.
Chairman Woodling stated that the Board has heard from all of the speakers; they’ve heard from staff and the Board members themselves on this situation.
Top of Page 
Board Home Page 
Read Public Comments
[Skip] Home Find a Park Arizona Map Fee Schedule
PDF Documents Require Adobe Reader
Read External Link Disclaimer