Archive for January, 2010

Someone is building a hotel and convention center in our region and it’s not near downtown Tucson. The Pasqua Yaqui tribe is building a hotel and convention center west of downtown Tucson. Private money building private projects is a novel concept. Unless and until Tucson government starts getting out of the way we’ll never see a downtown revitalization.  

The best quote from the article:

Larry Hecker, a local attorney and member of Downtown Tucson Partnership’s board, said the Sol Casinos project announced Friday can only increase the viability of Tucson as a convention destination.

“I think the more people who identify Tucson as a destination for these kind of things - a destination for conventions and for large group meetings - the better everyone does,” Hecker said. “It just enhances Tucson’s image in the marketplace as a desirable place for conventions and group meetings.”

At the same time, the revitalization of the Tucson Convention Center is progressing “fairly aggressively,” Hecker said.

Kimberly Schmitz, director of communications and public relations for the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau, also welcomed Sol Casinos’ plans.

“The Pascua Yaqui have created some really great products for our destination,” Schmitz said. “An additional 215 rooms to Southern Arizona’s offering are always welcome, and we will definitely look forward to promoting this and the convention center as part of our product.”

Tucson trolley loses brakes, hits 3 cars

By Josh Coddington - josh.coddington@azcapitoltimes.com

 Published: January 26, 2010 at 6:10 pm, 

Capitol Police Officer Scott Schade positioned his patrol car to prevent the trolley car from moving any further, after it had run the tracks with no brakes and hit three cars. (Photo courtesy of the Tucson Police Department)

A trolley car full of passengers crashed into three vehicles after its brakes went out Jan. 16 in Tucson.

The trolley, part of the system that has been operating in Tucson for about six months, was travelling south on Fourth Avenue when operators realized the brakes had failed. Loaded with approximately 10 passengers, it picked up speed as it rolled down an incline at the entrance of the Fourth Ave. tunnel, which was recently expanded to handle cars and the trolley line. It hit two vehicles along the way.

It was headed toward the intersection at Congress Street, a busy arterial road, before losing momentum on a small hill leading out of the tunnel. That’s when it reversed course and rolled backward into a third vehicle.

Tucson Police and Capitol Police Officer Scott Schade arrived shortly after, parking their patrol cars behind the train to prevent it from moving any further.

Schade said the vehicles were damaged, but no injuries were reported.

“It was pretty lucky. It could have been something pretty major,” he said. “There is an electrical line in there, who knows what could have happened.”

Schade said there have been a lot accidents associated with the trolley system.

“It’s just been a nightmare I guess down here,” he said. “Ask any officer about the trolley, and they will just shake their head. I’d like to see them shut it down actually.”

Just another reason that the board of directors of the Tucson Chamber need to do the right thing and ask their fearless leader to step down.  After that happens, it’s time to rebuild the Chamber to be the effective force it needs to be.

Just so you know, the board that enables the stagnation at the Chamber is listed below.  Please urge them to enact change. An effective Chamber benefits all of Tucson, not just its members.

Tucson Chamber 2009-2010 Board -

They only meet quarterly.

Executive Committee

Chairman of the Board

Ray Bargull
Sundt Construction

Ray.bargull@sundt.com

Vice Chair, Program of Work/Chairman-elect/Secretary

Gary Clark
Southwest Gas Corp.

GARY.CLARK@SWGAS.COM

Vice Chair, Budget and Finance

Brian Sonnleitner
BBVA Compass Bank

Brian.Sonnleitner@groupobbva.com

Vice Chair, Education and Community Development

Wendy West
IBM

wwest@us.ibm.com

Vice Chair, Economic Development

Randy McDonald
Citi Cards Tucson

randy.q.mcdonald@citi.com

Vice Chair, Public Affairs

John Sundt
1st Deed Funding, LLC

info@1stdeed.net

Vice Chair, Governmental Affairs

George Favela
Qwest Corporation

gfavela@qwest.com

Vice Chair, Membership and Communications

Mike Jameson
Tucson Newspapers

mikejameson@tucson.com T

Past Chairman

Bonnie Allin
Tucson Airport Authority

boallin@tucsonairport.org

Board of Directors

Jim Arnold, KOLD TV

jarnold@kold.com

Barry Bendall, Wells Fargo

Steve Christy

steve@stevechristy.us

Steve Craddock, Lennar

steve.craddock@lennar.com

Wyllstyne Hill, Raytheon

Paul Kappelman, Northwest Medical Center

Paul.kappelman@triadhospitals.com

Wendell Long, Sol Casinos

ceo@solcasinos.com

Zory Lopez, American Airlines

zory.lopez@aa.com

John Low, Asarco

jlow@asarco.com

Daniel McGraw, Chase

Mark Mistler, BBVA Compass

Bill Petrella, Westin La Paloma

bill.petrella@westin.com

Wayne Silberschlag, Burlini/Silberschlag, Ltd.

schlag@bursil.com

Richard Underwood, AAA Landscape

richardu@aaalandscape.com

William Valenzuela, WG Valenzuela Drywall

valenzuelab@wgval.com

After years of court wranglings it looks like the Goldwater Institute shot a big canon across the bow of to cities and towns that chose to use tax dollars to entice business into their jurisdictions.  As you look at this decision ask yourself if it’s OK for your government to pick winners in the market place? Ask if you have enough faith in our political system to allow elected officials to hand over $100m of your tax dollars to a private firm?  Can you think of any potential tax hand overs going on here in Tucson?

Read the article HERE from the Arizona Republic:

A deal that could give nearly $100 million in tax incentives to the Phoenix retail-and-housing development CityNorth can proceed, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday - even though the deal “quite likely” violated the state Constitution.

Though the court allowed the deal, its ruling laid out strict new provisions on tax incentives. Those rules could have a deep impact on future tax-incentive deals, which cities have long used to attract new commercial development and the accompanying sales-tax revenues.

There are implication here in southern Arizona as well.

Here are existing agreements the town of Oro Valley has with developers.

• Oro Valley Marketplace: Vestar Development Co. in Phoenix gets 45 percent - up to $23.2 million - of sales taxes generated at the shopping center.

• Oracle Crossings: B.P. Oracle Crossings Investors LLC gets 46 percent of sales taxes - up to $6.5 million - of sales taxes generated at the shopping center.

• Steam Pump Village: Evergreen-Steam Pump LLC gets 40 percent of sales taxes.

• Hilton Tucson El Conquistador Golf and Tennis Resort gets a rebate of one-third of the town’s 6 percent bed tax.

• The town also has an agreement with Cañada del Oro Partners, whose projects remain undeveloped. Details were not available.

Capitol Media Services’ Howard Fischer contributed to this story.

The state wide impact will be felt. From the Explorer:

Turken v. Gordon has been pursued in the court system by The Goldwater Institute. In prepared remarks Monday, Goldwater litigation director Clint Bolick said the court’s decision “vindicates a core protection of taxpayer rights in our state constitution. The days of rampant corporate welfare in Arizona are coming to an end.”

“The ruling should stop schemes that government concocts to subsidize developers based on grandiose promises that often fail to materialize,” Bolick said. “Although we’re disappointed that the Court allowed the CityNorth deal to stand for now, that development has proved to be such a disaster that it’s doubtful taxpayer money will ever change hands. CityNorth will stand as a monument to government folly.”

HERE

Pima County is being run by, controlled and directed by a very strong environmental lobby that has the singular focus of keeping the environment priority one and jobs, affordable housing and strong families a distant second.

PIMA COUNTY:
• Covers 9,184 square miles
o 42.1%  is owned by the San Xavier, Pascua Yaqui and Tohono O’odham
reservations.
o 14.9%  is owned by state of Arizona
o 14.9% is Forest and BLM Land
o 12.1% other public lands
o 17.1% is individually or corporately owned
o Current indebtedness $757 million, if include bonds passed but not sold it goes over $1.07 billion

BOND FUNDS:  Approved by 66% of voters – no budget crisis in 2004.

• All $174.3 million of the 2004 Open Space Bond funds have now been spent.
o $164.3 million for open space and habitat protection and another
o $10 million to protect Davis-Monthan Air Force Base from urban encroachment.

o Purchased over 51,000 acres of private land
o 127,000 acres of leased State Trust Lands
• PAY BACK: with interest that is $226.59 million dollars ($1.30 payback per $1 spent according to letter Ray Carroll to Chuck Huckelberry, December 29, 2009)

NEW BOND REQUEST FOR NOVEMBER 2010:  $285 million
• The Conservation Acquisition Commission (CAC) Recommending a new bond for $285 million for more open space
• PAYBACK: with interest that is $370.5 million.

• County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry is recommendation $120 million.
• PAYBACK: $156 million

Take a look at Boulder Colorado, the first municipality in the US to embarked on an aggresive no growth policy in the 1960’s.  

In the decade of the 1950s, Boulder’s population grew from 25,000 to 37,000 and during the 1960s it grew by a whopping 29,000 to reach 66,000. Some initial efforts to manage this growth included the “Blue Line,” a citizen-initiated amendment to Boulder’s charter in 1959 that restricted the extension of city water service above an elevation of 5,750 feet. It was later extended by ordinance to sewer service. While a few exceptions have been granted at the ballot box, the effect of this measure was to limit the city from extending water service to properties along the mountain backdrop. Property owners can still develop in the county, but at much lower densities than is typical in the city and only with individual water and septic systems.

Another important growth management program began in 1967, when Boulder became the first city in the United States to pass a tax specifically dedicated to preserve open space. This open space system forms the outer extent of the Boulder Valley, a joint planning area between the city and county.

What are the results after 50 years of restricting land use?

What Are the Pitfalls?
· Boulder’s region encompasses the whole county. Therefore, the city’s surging job growth and limitations on residential growth have had a significant impact on housing demand in adjoining communities. The most striking example is the nearby town of Superior. In 1990 the population of Superior was 255; in 1996 it was 3,377. It has practically no jobs and no sales tax base. This regional imbalance between jobs and housing has created tremendous problems with traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing and school facility needs.
· Getting a hold on sprawl is only half the equation. What happens within the urban service area is the other. In Boulder’s initial planning efforts, there was a clear expression of a preference for infill and redevelopment over sprawl. Since there is no requirement that a certain amount of land be contained within its service area (such as the 20-year required land supply within Oregon’s urban growth boundaries), Boulder does not have to make a trade-off between expansion versus infill and redevelopment. However, it is increasingly difficult to convince specific neighborhoods and the community as a whole that additional density is in their best interests.  not grow.

By STEVEN GREENHUT

Sacramento

An old friend of mine has a saying, “Even the worm learns.” Prod one several hundred times, he says, and it will learn to avoid the prodder. As California enters its annual budget drama, I can’t help but wonder if the wisdom of the elected politicians here in the state capital equals that of the earthworm.

The state is in a precarious position, with a 12.3% unemployment rate (more than two points higher than the national average) and a budget $20 billion in the red (only months after the last budget fix closed a large deficit). Productive Californians are leaving for states with less-punishing regulatory and tax regimes. Yet so far there isn’t a broad consensus to do much about those who have prodded the state into its current position: public employee unions that drive costs up and fight to block spending cuts.

Earlier this month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a budget that calls for a $6.9 billion handout from Washington (unlikely to be forthcoming) and vows to protect current education funding, 40% of the state’s budget. He does want to eliminate the Calworks welfare-to-work program and enact a 5% pay cut for state employees. These are reasonable ideas, but also politically unlikely.

Associated Press

Los Angeles County employees rally for a new contract.

 

As the Sacramento Bee’s veteran columnist Dan Walters recently put it, the governor’s budget is “disconnected from economic and political reality.” Mr. Walters suspects what will happen next: “Most likely, [the governor] and lawmakers will, to use his own phrase, ‘kick the can down the road’ with some more accounting tricks and other gimmicks, and dump the mess on whoever is ill-fated to become governor a year hence.”

Mr. Walters’ Jan. 10 column was fittingly titled, “Schwarzenegger Reverts to Fantasy with Budget Proposal.” Shortly before releasing his budget, the governor and Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg held a self-congratulatory news conference. Mr. Steinberg used the spotlight to bemoan what he deemed to be unfair attacks on California. Mr. Schwarzenegger told a hokey story about his pet pig and pony working together to break into the dog’s food. It was an example, he said, of how “last year, we here in this room did some great things working together.”

Meanwhile, activists are fast at work. For example, the Bay Area Council, a moderate business organization, is pushing for a constitutional convention to reshape California’s textbook-sized constitution. The council’s aim is to ditch a constitutional provision that requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature to pass budgets. Other reforms being proposed include a plan to institute a part-time legislature and another plan to require legislators to pass drug tests. None of these ideas will ratchet down state spending.

To do that California needs to take on its public employee unions.

Approximately 85% of the state’s 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000%. State revenues increased only 24% over the same period. A Schwarzenegger adviser wrote in the San Jose Mercury News in the past few days that, “This year alone, $3 billion was diverted to pension costs from other programs.” There are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

Many of these retirees are former police officers, firefighters, and prison guards who can retire at age 50 with a pension that equals 90% of their final year’s pay. The pensions for these (and all other retirees) increase each year with inflation and are guaranteed by taxpayers forever—regardless of what happens in the economy or whether the state’s pensions funds have been fully funded (which they haven’t been).

A 2008 state commission pegged California’s unfunded pension liability at $63.5 billion, which will be amortized over several decades. That liability, released before the precipitous drop in stock-market and real-estate values, certainly will soar.

One idea gaining traction is to create a two-tier pension system to offer lesser benefits to new employees. That’s a good start, but it would still leave tens of thousands of state employees in line to receive lucrative benefits that the state must find future revenues to pay for. Another is to enact paycheck protections that require union officials to get permission from their members before spending union dues on politics (something that would undercut union power).

My hope is that these and other reforms find support in unlikely places. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a well-known liberal voice, recently wrote this in the San Francisco Chronicle: “The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians—pushed by our friends in labor—gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages. . . . [A]t some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.”

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, another prominent liberal Democrat, told a legislative hearing in October that public employee pensions would “bankrupt” the state. And the chief actuary for the California Public Employees Retirement System has called the current pension situation “unsustainable.”

As the state careens toward insolvency, these remarks are the first sign that some people are learning the lesson of the earthworm.

Mr. Greenhut is director of the Pacific Research Institute’s journalism center and author of the new book “Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation” (The Forum Press).

The City of Tucson caved to neighborhood pressure in 1999 and passed an ordinance limiting the size of retail ‘big box’ stores in the city limits to under 100,000 square feet. 

To appease a few neighbors (surrounding what was El Con Mall) the geniuses leading the city of Tucson cut off a revenue stream  equal to more than $100m. One large retail store can generate $2 to $4 million per year in general fund sales tax collection for a municipality. Two to five big boxes hitting the streets per year and you can see how the dollars add up. The reality is that these retailers  will still come to Pima County but locate outside of city limits. Marana, OroValley and Sahuarita benefit and you as a consumer have to drive a little further to buy you a years supply of pickles.

From today’s paper a new Costco has finally made it through the planning stage after years of wrangling with neighborhoods, bureaucrats and politicians. Not only did it take years to launch but they went through the shake down of kick backs to job training fluff organizations, grants to non profits and neighborhood improvements.  Really makes you want to come to Tucson doesn’t it.

The new Costco would measure 180,000 square feet, which is a “big-box” under Tucson code that classifies every store of more than 100,000 square feet as a big-box store that has to follow special rules.

After years of city debate about the property, the City Council voted 6-1 in March 2007 to allow a big box on site, but with extra conditions put on Eastbourne, including $2 million to pay for job training, business-assistance programs, neighborhood improvements, economic-improvement grants to area nonprofit organizations, and improvements for pedestrian access and roads. That money will be matched with $4.5 million the city expects from construction sales taxes at the site.

Jim Portner, a consultant for the project’s developers, said the 14 acres will be sold to Costco after the final construction permits are obtained from the city. The remaining retail will be developed by Eastbourne and Retail West, he said, although there are no other stores currently signed on to move in.

It’s a great first step maybe next time we can get one approved quicker without shaking down the big bad developer.

The phone rings. The executive director of one of our prestigious economic development organizations is on the line.  “Would you like to serve on our board?”

Your heart’s all aflutter and you feel honored. And you should be.

“Yes,” you say. At that moment you have entered a whole new world of responsibility and accountability. Print this story
Being asked to serve on a nonprofit or association board is a rite of passage for many local professionals. Board service builds your résumé, is a great way to network your business, and you can spend an hour a week giving back to the community. Agencies, bureaus, chambers and nonprofits rely on the business community’s leadership and dollars to steward them into the future.

We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but it’s important to draw some lines and point out that serving on a board is a big responsibility. The members of that association — or if they receive tax dollars, the taxpayers and elected officials — are counting on you to make sure the director and staff are operating in an effective and legal manner. That’s an important job.

Believe it or not there are boards in Tucson that really don’t want or care about outspoken opinions. Shocking but true, some boards might select you because you can’t spend that much time, or you won’t rock the boat. Besides, lighting the world on fire isn’t your cup of tea. In these instances you’ve been invited to be on the board to maintain the status quo. A board made of status quo keepers and poker buddies of the director are sure to lead that organization into the swamp of indifference.

Here are some tipoffs that you are serving on a board that isn’t really looking to have your voice heard:

• If the paid executive director identifies and invites you to the board there may be a problem.

• If you look around at other board members and see mid-level managers from unrelated industries it means the movers and shakers aren’t involved.

• If there are more than 20 board members there may be a problem.

• If the executive director withholds financial data or ignores your request for information, there might be a problem.

• If you’re wined and dined more than you’re asked to roll up your sleeves, there might be a problem.

• If the organization’s revenues are shrinking, customer base is evaporating and effectiveness is diminishing all the while the staff is getting raises, there might be a problem.

• If your board meetings revolve around golf, travel or lavish meals, there might be a problem.

• If your board meets once a quarter, once a year or regularly misses its quorum, there might be a problem.

• If the ability to bring in fresh blood on the board isn’t there, there may be a problem. Some boards recycle the director’s old friends again and again.

• If you look around and see the same 10 or so people on every other board you’re on, there might be a problem.

• If your board comes with free parking for life and there are over 70 members there might be a problem.

A note of wisdom from two self-proclaimed wise guys, think long and hard before you say yes to joining the swanky new board of the week. Be prepared to learn the market of the organization you are volunteering for. Take the time visit with staff and customers. Do your homework. Look to competitive organizations to see what the management is doing right and what they are doing wrong. Speak up, ask the tough questions and hold the staff of the chamber, bureau or nonprofit accountable for decisions.

There are people within the organization or in the community that depend on you doing your part to ensure things are on the up-and-up. Ask yourself: Are my actions on this board serving the least of the my members? If they are, then you’re on the right track.

If you take your role for granted we all lose. Do the right thing, we are all depending on you.

Contact Joe Higgins at joe@joehigginsinc.com or Chris DeSimone at provenpartners@comcast.net. They’re the hosts of “Wake Up Tucson,” which airs 6 - 8 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Check out their blog at www.TucsonChoices.com.

Copyright © 2010 Inside Tucson Business