Phoenix trailhead parking fees city council vote

[Moovyoaz]

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I would like to remind you that the Phoenix City Council votes this week on enforcing the Parks Board's recently approved fee to park at preserves. This would be yet another new fee placed upon the taxpayer in Phoenix, while very little of the burden to balance the budget has been felt within the city's organization -- all so Phoenix can afford an average cost of labor of almost $100,000

The council needs to see and hear from you about your position on this new fee before it is too late. Round up all your neighbors and come to the council's Formal meeting this Wednesday at 3 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (200 W. Jefferson Street). There will be an opportunity to speak if you would like, and even if you cannot stay until the end, you can fill out a card stating your position. Please see my column below that outlines why I will vote against this fee.
Respectfully,
Sal DiCiccio
Councilman District 6 - Ahwatukee, Arcadia, Biltmore and North Central
602-262-7491 council.district.6@phoenix.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The latest citizen sacrifice: Hikers
The city of Phoenix is getting ready to bleed yet another passionate segment of its citizenry, hitting them up for a few more dollars because they truly care about a narrow aspect of city life and are willing to pay more for it.
Then the city will turn around and give that money to its employees. There is insufficient backbone to say no.

This time it’s the hikers
You’ve seen this movie before: Threaten to kill or severely cut some service with passionate (or desperate) supporters. Offer up a disaster scenario if more money isn’t produced. Then, after the initial wailing and public apoplexy, come up with a slightly lesser fleecing of this group to gain public compliance. Hey, it’s only a few bucks and it will keep our (fill in the blank) hiking trails, softball fields, library hours, etc. etc. etc.

The Oscar for this performance came during the budget hearings, where police, firemen, libraries and seniors centers were offered up as sacrifices to the fiscal gods if the public didn’t approve a $50 million food tax. Take a wild guess where all the public hearings were held? Libraries and senior centers, naturally.

The ugly truth is that the $100 million in new taxes and fees Phoenix has already imposed on its citizenry in the past seven months is not necessary to keep those services and protections. It’s to find enough money to pay for 14,000-plus union-represented employees who average $100,000 a year in compensation.

The parking fee – at trails you already pay for three ways – came about after the city drastically cut services and hours for parks, then gave the parks board the notion that if it didn’t raise money for the general fund, much more would be cut. That’s where the $5 a day parking fee came up (later reduced to $2 – hey, a comparative bargain). Then the city management promised that all the new dollars would go to parks.

First off, management can’t guarantee that. Even the Council can’t guarantee that.

On Sept. 15, the Phoenix City Council will be asked to approve enforcing this latest rummage through your pockets (3 p.m., Council Chambers, 200 W. Jefferson). No Council approval, no new fee. I say it’s time to separate the taxing-and-spending addict from its drug, which is your money.

If you want to learn more, contact us. Or show up at the Council meeting and tell Phoenix it has enough of your money already. And be sure to send this around to your email list.

Councilman Sal DiCiccio represents District 6, which includes Ahwatukee, Arcadia, Biltmore, East Camelback and North Central. He can be reached at council.district.6@phoenix.gov.

[big_load]

Whatever they charge, it will still be peanuts compared to the rental car and hotel taxes.

[chumley]

Why don't they put parking meters at the city owned golf courses ? Let those folks figure out how long to play a round.

I think parking is a "free" perk as part of the fee users have to pay to spend 4 or 5 hours enjoying their public, city-owned park land. (Minimum $10 in summer, usually closer to $45, but as high as $99 in winter)

Phoenix golf courses have been ridiculously mismanaged at great expense to taxpayers, but there is a comparatively substantial fee required for Joe Public to use it. Can you imagine having to pay $10 every time you wanted to hike Camelback?

[Tough_Boots]

I think saying this will lead to city toll roads is more than a tad exaggerated and labeling something you disagree with as "svengalis" is nonsense and not an intelligent way to argue any point. I'm also not necessarily for overcharging people for the use of city land. Though if I'm going to assume that Thoreau is correct and not just spouting off assumptions that money that should be used for the parks is being diverted elsewhere, then I don't see a major problem with an inexpensive yearly pass option. If he can give me a detailed report of the city budget and use of funds, then I'll be a believer. So many people complain that their taxes go to so many things they don't use-- and then they're the same ones that complain when asked to pay for the things they do use. I wish people protected other things with as much fervor as they did their pocket books.

[Tough_Boots]

Does anyone know how much state grant funding the parks get as opposed to city money? One might then argue that if they are majority city funded, then Phoenix residents get free parking and others pay a small fee (definitely not hourly).

[BobP]

Phoenix golf courses have been ridiculously mismanaged at great expense to taxpayers

Agreed....not a golfer but did play when I first moved here..

Anyone remember the Alt fuel fiasco that was originally budgeted at $5 million and ended up costing us taxpayers a half billion or more. :roll:

I'll find a new playground.

[BEEBEE]

Does anyone know how much money comes from the pockets of citizens to fund parks? Does the money come from people or the Easter Bunny?

The money still comes out of the pockets of citizens who know how to spend the money they work for far better then anyone else.

Grants are not free someone is still funding them.

[chumley]

@BobP
Hahaha. Yeah what ever happened to all those $50,000 Escalades fitted with a CNG tank to get a $25,000 rebate from you and me? I don't see them so much anymore. :roll:

[Tough_Boots]

Grants are not free someone is still funding them.

Yeah... I know that. You are not getting my point. State grants would mean taxpayers state wide are paying for the park as opposed to Phoenicians. I'm questioning which citizens are paying the most for it already.

The money still comes out of the pockets of citizens who know how to spend the money they work for far better then anyone else.

oh really? I know that sounds great but do you really think the average citizen is qualified to run a city?

[chumley]

do you really think the average citizen is qualified to run a city?

I don't. Unfortunately, we elect average citizens to run our cities.

[outdoor_lover]

I am totally against this and think it's just wrong...but I just have to laugh at the Discriminatory way in which they are thinking of doing this...If you're going to charge to Park so you can access a City Park, then you charge at all points of Entry, not just one...Charge at Echo and everybody is just going to say "screw you" and they'll go over to the Cholla Side...Charge just at Pima Canyon and everybody is just going to drive to one of the other TH's and Park...From strictly a Business standpoint, it makes absolutely no Sense at all...It's like saying "We're going to charge everyone that comes through the Front Door of this Theater a Fee to get in, but if you go in the Back Door, you can get in for Free.... Whatever! Another Genius Government move! ;)

[chumley]

@Outdoor Lover
That's how fees work. The National Forest Service uses it everywhere. Tonto Pass is required at a trailhead, but if you park on the side of the road and start hiking, there's no fee. In Sedona you have to pay at some trailheads but not others. They are based on amenities provided due to popularity/use. The same thing applies here, and we all know that it would expand from the initial three sites over time.

[outdoor_lover]

@chumley
And I get that, but especially with South Mountain, there are several TH's there that have Amenities...Why just Pima? That's the part I don't really get, but it is what it is...I'm against the whole thing anyway and if I have to pay to Park, I'll just go somewhere else...It's not like I frequent 2 of those 3 anyway even though Camelback is the closest for me....

[chumley]

@Tough_Boots
The Phoenix Budget is available online at their website.
https://www.phoenix.gov/budget

Here are some relevant stats for the 99.97% of people who only care enough about this topic to bitch about it in a forum but not to research it for themselves:

Page 3:

2013-2014 Phoenix Operating Budget: $3,502,506,000
General Funds/Parks & Recreation: $94,371,000
Special Revenue Funds/Parks & Preserves: $3,005,000
Special Revenue Funds/Golf: $8,834,000

Page 265:

General Funds: $94,370,834 (see above)
Other Restricted Funds: $2,395,709
Federal and State Grant Funds: $888,118
Parks and Preserves Funds: $3,005,223 (see above)
Golf Special Revenue Funds: $8,784,673 (see above)
Total: $109,444,557

So out of nearly $110 million, less than $1 million is from Federal or State Grants. I don't know what the $2.4mil in restricted funds means.

Page 267:

The Parks and Recreation Department receives revenue from the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds. The revenues generated by the department are not intended to fully recover all costs. General City Sales Tax, Primary Property Taxes, State Shared Revenues and other General Fund department revenue are used to support all General Funded departments*. Other sources allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department include Grants, Golf Funds, Tennis Center Funds, Parks & Preserves Fund Sales Tax, and Other Restricted Funds for rental fees and donations.

*A portion of the primary property tax is levied specifically for Parks and Recreation services. However they are not shown separately here.

Page 267 has a very nice table breaking out all the revenues brought in by Parks and Recreation. Swimming Pools, Tennis, ballparks, permits, etc.

Page 277 shows that $45,830,725 goes to Maintenance at City Park facilities including but not limited to turf management, facility repair, removal of safety hazards, playground and restroom cleaning, trash patrol, and general up-keep.

Page 278 shows that $6,047,636 goes to Specialized Maintenance at City Park facilities including but not limited to forestry, welding/fabrication, and clean up after storm damage.

Page 283 shows that $2,783,010 goes to Management and landscape maintenance in the preserves, including patrols, trail maintenance, and general oversight.

Page 284 shows that $3,932,180 goes to Management and maintenance of mountain parks and associated facilities, including ranger patrols, trail maintenance, and general oversight.

Page 296 shows that $9,884,673 goes to Golf course administration and maintenance with pro-shops for the six City golf courses.

The remaining funds are divided between numerous other athletic programs, pools, after-school programs, teen centers, community centers, etc.

It looks like the $6.6 million highlighted in blue above are allocated almost exclusively to hiking-related expenditures in city parks. Trailhead management (waste collection, restroom cleaning, etc.) likely comes out of the $45.8 million general maintenance budget.

======
The information I don't have is how much the budget has changed over time correlated to the pattern of use over that same time period. If use has increased at a much higher rate than funding, then there might be a case for additional funding. Or if some uses are disproportionate, then perhaps the city is looking at splitting those funds more evenly. For example, do more people hike Camelback Mountain than use city pools? City pools charge a fee for use. Common logic would ask why not Camelback too? A pool is infrastructure that requires maintenance and staff. But have some trails become so popular that they also require infrastructure and staff as well? (see recent Echo Canyon renovations).

I didn't look into the Police/Fire budgets to see the costs associated with injured hiker rescues, but given the frequency you see the helicopter hovering over one of those mountains or an ambulance at the trailhead, I would guess there's a pretty good sized chunk of cash set aside for those services as well. Not that a parking fee would go anywhere near that budget. Just an observation of the multi-faceted complication that is a city budget!

[jimmyjam]

@BobP
Hahaha. Yeah what ever happened to all those $50,000 Escalades fitted with a CNG tank to get a $25,000 rebate from you and me? I don't see them so much anymore. :roll:

They're at Wally World shopping with food stamps.

[Tough_Boots]

@chumley

Thanks Chumley! I'll be looking at that later today. I'm glad you have more free time at work than I do

[Bradshaws]

I have to say, after reading this and getting all worked up, it dawned on me that I paid $75 for an annual pass for the Maricopa County parks and I've also purchased an annual $80 "America the Beautiful" pass before so I guess I would pay to access a hiking trail and parks(that tax dollars paid for) .
To tell you the truth I don't go to any of the trailheads that this would impact. The reason I don't visit these trails is specifically because of the congested parking and crowded trails and if these fees relieved some of this I may check them out.... and YES I would pay to do so

[joebartels]

@chumley & Tough_Boots I'm not even sure of the purpose of the fees. All I saw was "Attend an Aug. 20, 2014 open house to discuss parking and resource management at desert preserves. If you're unable to attend the meeting, you can submit comments by phone". How can you comment on something you do not have information on? Think I saw a sign for another meeting on the 28th, not listed on their site.


So based on your guys most appreciated research is this about lack of funding, emergency vehicle access or neighbors that bought land around public interests not wanting the public?

32nd & Lincoln fills up before Squaw or Camelback. Either the area is too small to generate revenue or plenty of overflow at the shopping strip means no roaming cars and easy emergency access.

The previous gripe from neighbors around Echo was emergency vehicles couldn't get into their neighborhood. Understandable. They have their own access road now.

[BobP]

I'm not even sure of the purpose of the fees

( 2018-08-28 dead link removed )
This article splains some stuff

[big_load]

... the city has now hired a consultant who will study parking at the trailheads and report back to the Parks Department board for evaluation ...

The fees will pay for the study about whether there should be fees.

[Dave1]

... the city has now hired a consultant who will study parking at the trailheads and report back to the Parks Department board for evaluation ...

The fees will pay for the study about whether there should be fees.

No surprise a NJ guy would pick up on this!