Archive for February 17th, 2009

For Immediate Release: February 17, 2009

Goldwater Institute Files $20 million in Prop 207 Claims against Maricopa County
Institute seeks compensation for homeowners whose property rights have been violated

Phoenix–The Goldwater Institute filed legal claims today against Maricopa County totaling $20 million on behalf of more than 175 property owners. The compensation claims were filed under provisions of Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which requires government to compensate property owners when it passes laws or rules that reduce existing property values.

In 2004 the Arizona Legislature passed a law requiring Maricopa County to implement a series of building and development restrictions on land surrounding Luke Air Force Base. The county believes the law is illegal for a variety of reasons and in 2008 took the state to court to have it thrown out. Pending an outcome in that lawsuit, the county issued a moratorium on building permits in the “Clear Zone” and other areas adjacent to the base.

“While the Goldwater Institute strongly agrees with efforts to protect the base, it is unfair to ask a handful of homeowners to bear the cost,” said Carrie Ann Sitren, the Goldwater Institute attorney representing the property owners. “In any event, stopping homeowners from installing solar panels or a swimming pool doesn’t protect Luke.”

The moratorium has caused severe reductions in property values–95 percent for vacant lots that were already zoned for housing and 50 percent for lots with single-family homes already built–and has prevented homeowners from doing simple renovations.

Residents in restricted areas are being denied permits for maintenance and upkeep of their existing homes including the installation of pools, fences, and standard repairs on plumbing and electrical work. For example, Robert Landers, a six-year Air Force veteran, has been denied a permit to install a therapeutic spa his doctor prescribed as a precursor to surgery.

“The county is stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said Ms. Sitren. “On one hand it’s being forced by the state to limit these people’s property rights, but on the other its moratorium is overly broad and unnecessary. The people of Arizona spoke loud and clear when they passed Prop 207 by a two-to-one margin in 2006. If the government takes away the value of someone’s property, the owner must be compensated.”

Filing a claim for compensation is the first step in a formal Prop 207 lawsuit. Today’s claims were filed with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. The county has 90 days to respond to the claims, and can either repeal the moratorium, grant waivers to property owners, or pay the requested compensation.

The Goldwater Institute is a nonprofit public policy research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

X4mr weighs in on the the future of the gem show. Hey Tucson elected officials and bureaucrats, are you on this one? What’s our plan?  Please don’t mess this one up too! - click HERE;

Rumors regarding the loss of the gem show are not new. Every year word spreads around that it may leave, and it doesn’t. However, each year the talk seems to have more substance, and new this year are the quotes from Gem Show Chief Douglas Hucker, “I would have never considered leaving the city of Tucson for somewhere else, but I am now.” Hucker goes on to comment about Rio Nuevo, “I’m not sure a bridge painting on Fourth Avenue, or some track being laid down for a (streetcar) … that doesn’t represent significant movement for me. There needs to be more. They (the city) better focus on revenue-producing things or they will lose their biggest revenue producer.”

The dissatisfaction has been growing for some time, and I am not talking about the lack of hotels or arenas. The undercurrent involves the taken for granted treatment the show has received over the years. Either last year or the year before that, when the show had a reception of sorts expecting to be greeted by dignitaries including the Mayor, perhaps a few more elected officials, and others (chamber employees, etc.), very few attended. Certain gem show officials were quite incensed, and I paraphrase the sentiment with, “You know, we really like Tucson, and the weather is great, but guess what?”

February 15, 2009, 8:15 p.m.

CARLI BROSSEAU
Tucson Citizen

The city will conduct an “internal review” of payments to the University of Arizona for UA’s planned Science Center complex downtown, Tucson City Manager Mike Hein said Thursday.

Hein said the review was prompted in part by political pressure from the state Legislature, which has threatened to revoke the tax-increment financing district Tucson has relied on to fund downtown and Rio Nuevo redevelopment.

But some city accountants have been questioning UA’s invoices for months. In October, Rio Nuevo Finance Manager Stacie Bird asked Hein to sign a memo that said Hein approved “expenditures the City does not allow on other District projects.” If he didn’t sign, she wanted a meeting with him and UA officials to talk about the spending.

Hein signed it.

Then on Jan. 29, Tucson Finance Director Frank Abeyta ordered an audit of city payments to UA and of the outstanding bills for the Science Center, Rio Nuevo’s flagship project.

Hein, through Bird and Assistant to the City Manager Jaret Barr, put a stop to the audit that day, saying it wasn’t the city’s role to question UA’s expenditures.

On Jan. 30, Abeyta ordered Bird to stop all payments to UA, then abruptly quit. He had been head of the city’s finance department for only four months.

Neither Abeyta nor city officials will say whether the dispute over the audit was the reason for Abeyta’s resignation, but Abeyta, in an exchange of e-mails with Bird Jan. 29, questioned the appropriateness of some UA bills.

In an interview Thursday, Hein cited staffing concerns, the cooperative ideals of public partnerships and the terms of the contract between the city and UA as reasons for resisting an audit and for paying the full amount billed by the university.

He said the city is bound to pay its share of project expenses even though invoices show spending that the city and the Rio Nuevo district normally wouldn’t cover.

But last week members of a state legislative committee criticized Rio Nuevo’s lack of transparency and money management and also complained about a lack of tangible results.

UA’s bills may not help the Rio Nuevo projects’ reputation with legislators.

The charges Bird labeled “questionable” included $161,585 for salaries, $2,155 for food, $14,374 for new computers and a $2,289 trip to Pisa, Italy. The items in doubt accounted for more than $186,000 of the $692,000 the university spent on the project in June and July.

The most recent invoices reviewed by the Tucson Citizen show that spending patterns haven’t changed much, and documents supporting much of the billed amounts were missing.

Receipts lumped with the January invoice show another trip to Pisa, costing $1,188 in June, and requests for reimbursement for a $3,927 trip for two to attend a planetarium conference in Chicago and $1,784 for a university employee to learn about data mining and information storage at a resort near Las Vegas.

The slips showed meals for two in June and July in Tucson at Sullivan’s Steakhouse ($127.98), Barrio Food & Drink ($73.51) and the Arizona Inn ($49.92), and a $165 charge from a HoneyBaked Ham Store that included a $30 delivery fee.

January’s invoice lists a charge of $77,025.42 for “other specialty & design consultant fees.”

Abeyta wrote in an e-mail sent to Bird at 7:54 a.m. the day he resigned that “The City Manager said he would rather not know what discrepancies we find in the payments to U of A. . . . Also he indicated what you said, that as long as U of A approves the expenditures, we don’t have to. I obviously don’t agree with that.”

Abeyta said he was concerned that unless the project was slowed, the city would be spending money on the Science Center that had been allocated to other projects. “Since we have only $2 million from this bond issue, someone has to slow this project down,” he wrote.

UA has billed the city for about $1.3 million of the $2 million Rio Nuevo bond allocation already. The city has not paid the university any of that amount.

Bird, who reports directly to Hein but earlier also to Abeyta in his role as Rio Nuevo treasurer, said Thursday the delay in payments was because of work on the city’s sale of $80 million in Rio Nuevo bonds, not questions about the UA’s spending.

The city has agreed to pay half the cost of the Science Center, up to $130 million. UA has spent and approved more than $13.3 million so far, according to its expenditure summary.

The contract states that Tucson must reimburse the university for “one-half of the total design phase amounts expended to date at the end of the month.” There is no clause clarifying procurement policies.

The contract does, however, give the UA an out if its funding is cut by legislators, allowing it to renegotiate terms or cancel the deal.

University of Arizona President Robert N. Shelton said Saturday that the Vice President of Business Affairs Joel Valdez and Hein have been discussing a revised construction plan for budgetary reasons.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, who presides over the Rio Nuevo council subcommittee and whose ward covers much of the Rio Nuevo district, said Thursday, “This has been very difficult. . . . We are bound by the terms of the agreement.”

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, who called for a city audit commission in June after a dispute with Hein and questions over budget figures, said a review of the UA Science Center invoices could be the commission’s first work.

“It’s true that we have to watch all costs at this time, but transparency and accountability remain priorities,” Uhlich wrote in a statement. “Mayor and Council amended the outside auditing firm contract to allow for ’spot audits’ costing less than $50,000. That may be a way to contain the cost of any review needed.”

UA’s Valdez, a former Tucson city manager, declined to comment on specifics of the university’s spending Thursday. He did say, however, that “I’m not opposed to an audit.”