Archive for February 12th, 2009

Water Water Everywhere. . .

Okay, I am just getting up to speed on the water debacle. Let’s see if I got this straight:

1. Tucson Water tells everyone to conserve water, but now that we do, they find that this hamstrings them financially. So a 6% dip in water hookups and usage equals 15.4 million in lost revenues. The immediate answer would be to raise rates as a reward for conservation.

2. Was there never a plan for what would happen should water use decline? Were the commercials and hand wringing just a form of nagging that was never meant to be effective? Surely somebody somewhere had a plan for what might happen should water use actually fall, right?

3. Apparently not, if this gentleman is symbolic of the brain trust managing water in Tucson:

“Water is too cheap here,” said the planning commissioner, Sean Sullivan, an environmentalist who also sits on a commission overseeing a regional water study. “If you’re paying $20 to $30 a month on your water bill, you’re not looking to save water.”

OK brianiac, apparently the prices ARE enough to get people to conserve. I’m sure rewarding them with raising rates will make them proud of their efforts. I wonder what Mr. Sullivan’s paycheck totals per month. If we are looking to cut expenses. . .

4. So in order to make everything right, we are going to sell a good portion of our allotment of water from CAP.

To help bridge a $6.5 million budget hole for Tucson Water this fiscal year, the City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to sell more than one-third of its Central Arizona Project water share to pay it off.

The council also approved Tucson Water’s plan to sell 50,000 acre-feet of CAP water — enough to serve up to 150,000 households for a year — to the Arizona Water Banking Authority for next fiscal year as well. The fiscal year begins on July 1.

Tucson’s allocation of CAP water — which comes from the Colorado River — is just over 144,000 acre-feet a year. An acre-foot is about 324,000 gallons.

5. So we conserved enough water that we could sell it back and still probably not break even. Great! People in San Diego and Phoenix can water their lawns, and it will only cost us each a few extra dollars a month. Can’t go wrong with that deal.

The next time Traceoff and Uhlich start their sustainability riff, someone needs to introduce them to the business end of a water ballon.

Excuse me while I wash my car.

We ran a story a few weeks back about a developer in Marana that is full on in the middle of an environmental night mare. Read the original post HERE.  At issue in today’s paper is whether or not ‘30 days to turn in your signatures’ to the issue on the ballot actually means 30 days or would 31 days be o.k.  Keep an eye on this one. If the court upholds their opinion not to allow the public vote to be counted the enviro’s will go to plan ‘B’.  For plan ‘B’ click HERE and read another saga going on between the County/City and SDCP.

Development referendum on ballot; votes won’t count
By Shelley Shelton
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.12.2009

A referendum on whether a Marana housing development in an environmentally sensitive area can move forward as planned is on the town’s March primary ballot, but none of the votes on the issue will count.
“At this point, there is no referendum for the primary election,” said Gilbert Davidson, Marana town manager.
The developer has been wrangling in court for more than a year because it says the petition that led to the referendum was filed two days after the 30-day deadline for such petition drives.
The 30-day deadline fell on a Saturday, when town offices were closed, so the town set the deadline for the following Monday.
Lawyers for the developer, Red Point Development, have argued that state law allows a petition deadline to be extended only if the original deadline falls on a Sunday or a holiday.
As of December, it looked like the referendum would move forward, and it was set to be placed on the ballot.
But two weeks ago on Jan. 27, Peter J. Eckerstrom, presiding judge for the Arizona Court of Appeals, reversed that decision but didn’t say anything else about it.
Meanwhile, the ballots had already gone to the printer, so the referendum is on them even though the votes won’t be tallied.
“All we have now is the ruling that the lower court was reversed,” said Carolyn Campbell, executive director of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, which is one of the development plan’s opponents. “We don’t know what points the court reversed on.”
Opponents are concerned that the rezoning approved by the Marana Town Council in October 2007 — allowing for up to 311 homes on 133 acres on the east side of Interstate 10, north of West Cortaro Farms Road — could do extensive damage to Hardy Wash, which runs east through the property.
The group still hopes to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court in time to get the issue on Marana’s May general election ballot, Campbell said.
It’s unclear when the deadline for such an appeal would be, said Larry Kreis, general manager for Red Point.
Technically, the law says the plan’s opponents would have 10 days after a decision is rendered to file an appeal.
But because the judge hasn’t released the details of his ruling, it’s possible the clock hasn’t started on that yet.
Campbell said a Monday phone call between the judge and all the parties’ attorneys indicated there’s not a timetable in place.
Meanwhile, Kreis said the development company is moving forward with the process that developers must go through with the town.
The rezoning was just the first part, he said.
Some of the environmentalists’ concerns have been addressed in discussions that were happening while the court case was pending, and other concerns will be raised in the planning and zoning process, he said.
Because of the economy, nobody is in a big hurry to go and start building anything anyway, Kreis said.
● Contact reporter Shelley Shelton at 618-1921 or sshelton@azstarnet.com

Rio Nuevo may lose funding on July 1
By Daniel Scarpinato
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.12.2009  

PHOENIX — Funding for Tucson’s Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment project could be gone by July 1.
Skeptical members of the Senate Finance Committee said they didn’t get the answers they wanted from Rio Nuevo’s project director at a hearing Wednesday.
Some said not only did Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko fail to outline how the city has spent $60 million in state money, but they said the project seems to have drifted from its original purpose.
As the state faces a $2.4 billion shortfall next year, several committee members said they are interested in possibly cutting off the state dollars to avoid deeper cuts to K-12 education and state agencies when the new fiscal year begins July 1. An estimated $600 million in state money would flow to Rio Nuevo over the 22-year life of the project.
“When you come down here, you better have your ‘A’ game, because we are doing a lot of things we don’t want to do,” said Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, the committee chairman. “I just think we had to pull teeth to get answers.
“I thought that presentation hurt them a little bit today — I really do,” Waring added.
Some members said they’d like to see the funding cut off next year to help balance the state budget, especially after renewed concerns about a lack of accountability.
Shelko said pulling the state dollars would spell disaster for Rio Nuevo.
“If they want to sink Tucson, I suppose that’s a choice,” Shelko said. “Where would we have the ability to do these kinds of things? We wouldn’t.”
In his testimony, Shelko painted a bright picture of Downtown and argued that it just needs more time, pointing to projects in other cities that have taken 30 years to succeed.
“Downtown is not going to grow in five years; it’s not going to grow overnight,” Shelko said. “It’s going to take a long time.”
But senators were not impressed by the city’s list of Downtown accomplishments, which included a planned city-court complex and a Burger King. And Shelko had trouble citing specific dollar figures the committee requested.
“What we’ve done is allowed this entity to take state dollars at their will, and of course the people of Tucson are going to vote for it because it’s not their money,” said Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix.
The committee took no action, but city officials could find themselves in a position of having to better defend Rio Nuevo. The GOP committee members, in a position to negotiate the budget, are likely to discuss their impressions with colleagues in a Republican caucus meeting today.
“My concern with Rio Nuevo has been that’s it’s very difficult to get a straight answer on anything,” said Sen. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley. “If the city of Tucson wants to use its own sales-tax revenue and put it into Downtown projects, they should be able to do that, but I think the state general fund money should be returned.”
Rio Nuevo is funded through a tax incentive financing district that redirects state sales tax dollars to Tucson for use in the district. Originally approved by voters in 1999, lawmakers extended it in 2006.
But the project and its organizers have faced criticism over the years for what’s been perceived as a lack of progress.
A Star investigation last October, referenced by several committee members, found that of the $63 million in taxpayer dollars spent over the past 10 years, much of the money has gone to plan projects that stalled, including studies, consultants and public relations.
Shelko questioned the “motives” of the Star for running that story and said the city has made all its expenses public, even though it stalled releasing documents to the Star for months.
At times sarcastic, lawmakers grilled Shelko on projects that never developed. In particular, they questioned studying the construction of a Rainbow Bridge over Interstate 10 that would house the University of Arizona science center.
“So, you were going to build a building that was a bridge that sat on top of the freeway?” said Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu.
“It was a very unique concept,” Shelko responded. “Unfortunately it costs somewhere well over $300 million and it was an infeasible project.”
Laughing, Waring asked: “So, Mr. Shelko, just to be clear, you spent $9 million and have built nothing? It’s a yes or no.”
“Right,” Shelko replied. In actuality, $13 million was spent studying the science center.
Glenn Lyons, CEO of the Downtown Tucson Partnership, testified he was pleased legislators extended the district in 2006 and that continuing it is important to private-sector growth.
“I’m pleased you’re pleased,” Warring said. “You may be the only one in the state.”
Shelko said after the meeting that the mistake the city made was in “managing the public’s expectations.” And he said he was “proud” of progress so far.
“We’d all like a do-over on some things,” he said. “I don’t think, in a general sense, that the city has mismanaged Rio Nuevo.”
Contact reporter Daniel Scarpinato at 307-4339 or dscarpinato@azstarnet.com.
56 Comments on this story