Eye On Boise

Parks chief addresses lawmakers, says nothing

Posted by Betsy

Jan. 15, 2010 10:26 a.m. • 3 comments

There was quite a bit of interest in the first speaker to address a rather obscure subcommittee of the House Resources Committee today: State Parks Director Nancy Merrill. She’s at the center of one of Gov. Butch Otter’s most controversial budget cuts for next year - his “conceptual” proposal to eliminate the state Department of Parks & Recreation, sell its headquarters buildings and merge park operations into the state Department of Lands. Otter has indicated he may keep the department if a case can be made for how it can continue to operate, but lose most of its $6.4 million in state funding.

Merrill, however, merely said how honored she was to be the first speaker to address the panel, and introduced her staff members who were handling the three administrative rule changes on the subcommittee’s agenda. Afterward, she huddled with subcommittee Chair Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, then left the room without commenting to waiting reporters, shepherded by DFM analyst Keith Reynolds, who said she was due at a meeting with the governor’s staff.

Three comments on this post so far. Add yours!

oldfisherman on January 15 at 1:47 p.m.
I would hope the Legislature looks at ALL the issues with dismantling IDPR prior to making a final decision. When you consider the lost revenue to rural Idaho and Urban as well from folks wanting to recreate and spend hard earned dollars locally, it adds up very fast. As usual, Public input proably means little to the decision makers. Idaho is hurting financially, they need all the possible income dollars they can muster.
ericn1300 on January 15 at 2:06 p.m.
Good point oldfisherman. Since tourism is so important to rural Idaho closing down destinations makes no sense. Even if it’s in state people using them, a trip to the park involves fuel tax, beer tax, sales tax and other fees and taxes for the state and income to the rural business that serve the touristas.
homedog on January 16 at 11:06 a.m.
You know, I can’t help but wonder if this idea isn’t a big smokescreen for something else. Why would we move state parks to Lands, which is obviously incompetent and really bad at management of public lands. Why would we risk putting prime property that will only appreciate in value in the hands of an entity that can legally sell the property? It just doesn’t make sense. Not only that, but given local public sentiment over the value of area state parks, how would they ever get the votes in the legislature to get this through? Come on Betsy, you are the best reporter we have right now. While this bonehead suggestion will obviously generate increased public awareness and support for these Idaho jewels, the energy that’s going to be spent fighting over a really bad idea like this isn’t really time well spent. Help us figure this one out. What’s Butch really up to here?