2/26/2009 4:29:00 PM Breaking News: Money transfer may save Jerome State Historic Park
Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert,said the money is going to be repaid -- eventually -- by taxpayers.
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- The state House gave preliminary approval Thursday to a controversial -- and possibly illegal -- transfer of funds from a voter-approved initiative to keep open state parks.
The voice vote came over objections from several Democrats who said while the goal might be worthwhile, the maneuver violates the Arizona Constitution. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, even predicted not only that the state would be sued but that it would lose, putting taxpayers on the hook for legal fees.
That did not deter Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, who crafted the plan. He said it makes no sense to keep more than $65 million unused in a special account when taking $20 million of that would prevent the closure of any parks.
And Nichols said the money is going to be repaid -- eventually -- by taxpayers.
The Parks Board voted a week ago to shutter three facilities as a way of dealing with the decision by lawmakers to take more than $4.8 million out of its nearly $28.5 million operating budget.
The Legislature also took close to another $19 million out of special funds such as money the state collects from boaters to underwrite the cost of police and sheriff's departments patrolling lakes.
And Parks Director Ken Travous said the closure of those parks on Thursday -- Tonto Natural Bridge and Jerome Historic, coupled with McFarland Historic which already was shut down -- won't be enough to balance the budget. He wants the board to close at least two, and possibly up to six, more.
Nichols said none of that would be necessary if HB 2088 is approved.
The legislation taps a fund approved by voters in 1998 which sets aside $20 million a year for 11 years to help purchase or lease state trust lands in urban areas to keep them out of the hands of developers.
But the money can be used only to match other funds raised by other sources, whether public or private.
"There is not one single city, county, town that's out there asking for any of this money as matching funds to use to buy land to prevent urban sprawl,' Nichols said. "So we have $65 million sitting basically in the state coffers basically doing nothing in these times when we need to find every penny that we can to help different open spaces stay open like the state parks and help our smaller rural communities that get a lot of their income and revenues from people coming to these parks.'
But Sinema said the Republicans who control the Legislature were the ones who decided to cut $580 million in state spending and sweep a similar amount from special funds to balance the budget.
"That was their prerogative,' she said. "But to go now at attempt to take funds from a voter-protected initiative is likely unconstitutional.'
And Sinema said the state will lose any lawsuit.
That presumes the measure actually becomes law.
The constitution does allow lawmakers to tinker with voter-approved measures, but if it "furthers the purpose' of the framers. Foes, including Sandy Bahr, lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said the raid does not do that.
But the constitution also allows such changes only with a three-quarters margin: 45 of the 60 representatives and 23 of 30 senators. Tuesday's preliminary House approval occurred on a voice vote,
The bill cleared the House Government Committee on a 6-3 margin, with all Democrats opposed. And Republicans hold only 35 of the 60 House seats.
Rep. Ray Barnes, R-Phoenix, had his own reasons for wanting to use the trust land funds: the recession.
"Those are the times when crime increases the most,' he said.
"Those are the times when people are looking for cheap ways of entertainment.'
Bahr, however, noted that only about half of the money would be given to the Parks Board to keep that open space accessible. She noted some of the funds would go to restore money taken from the Department of Water Resources for water banking while some would be given to the Land Department which "isn't in the business of conservation.'
