Archive for February, 2010

We live in the desert, water is a precious commodity. In the west, if you control the water you control EVERYTHING.

Water and Wastewater is the issue of the future for southern Arizona. The two biggest bureaucracies in our region, Tucson and Pima County control the water supply and wastewater processes for the entire region.  For the past 20 months a group of citizens (primarily from the environmental side of our community) have been assembled to learn, talk and plan for the future of ALL of southern Arizona.

 A note that breaks down the core concern of the report from Chris Sheafe:

The problem some of us see with the report is that the report resolution directed staff to proceed on the basis of the report which would codify the allocation of 25% (10,000 Acre Feet) of our Effluent into an Environmental Effluent Pool which would be limited to environmental projects only at no cost to the projects.  The report makes this allocation absent any review of the long term economic sustainability impacts for such an allocation because no economic analysis of its impacts has been made.  Staff was directed to proceed with implementation of the conclusions of the report.  The idea is that economic analysis would be deferred until the next phase of the report is completed after the allocation decision has been set in stone.

It turns out the 10,000 acre feet is the result of a meeting between four individuals ten years ago without any basis for justification for that amount of water being taken off the table for other uses and without any form of economic impact analysis or any evidence confirming that amount of water is required to satisfy the goal of gaining a Section 10 permit for Pima County in order to satisfy the ESA (Endangered Species Act) requirements for only the listed species. 
 
In the long run the economic health of the region is dependent upon a healthy environment and a healthy economy.  Water is needed for both.  To pre-allocate a large amount of water to one use is ill advised and sends the wrong message to the world about Tucson’s future water supply and or its ability to meet demands from future economic opportunities.  This is the most serious and the latest threat to our ongoing battle to save the precious water available to the region and preserve while preserving as many options for the future that are possible. It removes the burden upon environmental uses to justify their need based upon their individual merit, removes any economic analysis for individual projects and removes many options for the greater Tucson metropolitan community.

A GUEST OPINIONfrom The Tucson Weekly about the Water/Wastewater study from member of the citizen advisory panel:

The Tucson City Council needs to support these recommendations to ensure our area’s water future

by Jim Barry, Chris Brooks and Bonnie Poulos

This past December, a volunteer citizens’ committee, in conjunction with a large, multi-disciplinary array of city and county staff members, wrapped up a 20-month study of the water and wastewater resources of the city and county; the goal was to “develop a common understanding of the basic facts and critical factors related to planning for a sustainable water future.”…….

…….This is an important study for the Tucson region because of what it proposes for growth policies. In the past, we have largely reacted to growth as it occurred. As proposed in the Phase II report, proper planning for growth can protect our existing water supplies, limit the need for costly new water supplies and protect the environment……

……..We also must allocate water for the environment. Historically, the environment has been viewed more as a supplier of water than a user. But as we have seen nearly all riparian ecosystems in the Tucson basin altered or eliminated by our ever-increasing thirst, the environment has inevitably been sacrificed at the altar of growth. Viewing this as an either-or issue has caused us to miss opportunities to accommodate both the environment and the economy for the overall good of the community. The Phase II report outlines a series of policy changes that can promote allocation of water necessary for the environment without compromising our ability to support continued growth. Our overall quality of life depends on changes like this…..

Who are the CITIZENS in charge of our water future?

Chair Jim Barry- Barry is a retired Pima County director who once ran the transportation department under Huckelberry. Barry is the go to guy on major Pima County efforts and has a proven record of doing the bidding for current administrator, Chuck Huckelberry. Barry is the uncle of Board of Supervisors odd man out, Ray Carol. From the Tucson Weekly, 2004

Barry, a 20-year county executive who also has lobbied state and federal governments and served in the county transportation department, has about a half-year to kick around or get kicked around by his nephew and fellow Chicago native, Republican Supervisor Sugar Ray Carroll (Tucson Weekly)

Marcelino C. Flores served as the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe jurisdictional representative at the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Governments, Environmetal Planning Advisory Committee for five years. He is quoted in a PAG report on the role of solar in our region.  Flores is a transportation and land planning professional for the tribe.

Christopher Brooks – Hydrologist. Brooks is a arid desert water specialist. He blogs at Watering The Desert. He covers desert issues and the City of Tucson’s rain water harvesting effort.

Bruce Gungle, a 24 year Tucson resident with a professional background in atmospheric science including lightening strike analysis and rain fall.  Gungle serves on the Pima County planning commission which worked recently to implement the SWIP which would implement put to a $30k per house impact fee for developments on the western edge of Tucson city limits.

Vince’s position as water resources coordinator for Diamond Ventures, Inc. includes working with the company’s development and wet utility divisions on water planning and policy issues. He was appointed to the Citizens Water Advisory Committee by Ward 4 Council Member Shirley Scott and sits on both Conservation & Education and Finance Subcommittees. Vince’s involvement as a member of the West University Neighborhood Association includes volunteer support of the Community Food Bank and assistance with neighborhood planning efforts. His professional affiliations include Urban Land Institute and American Planning Association. Vince is a native Tucsonan whose family has lived in the region for over 100 years.

Bob Cook – Author and contributor to Sustainable Tucson. Cook As a sustainability advocate, he served on the City of Tucson’s Cost of Growth Task Force; contributed to the early development of Civano-Tucson’s Solar Village as past-chair of the Tucson-Pima Metropolitan Energy Commission; promoted multi-modal transportation and transitoriented development as Treasurer of the 2003 Citizens Transportation
Initiative ballot measure; co-founded Sustainable Tucson in 2006, a community-building and advocacy
organization promoting regional sustainability; and currently serves on the Pima County Planning & Zoning Commission, Bob co- authored two books in 1975 on environmental planning and renewable energy development; graduated with distinction in economics from the University of Arizona.

He has been involved in neighborhood and environmental issues for the last 13 years. Rob helped found several local neighborhood and environmental organizations and served onthe boards of several local non-profit organizations. He remains active in the Sierra Club, Center for Environmental Connections, Environmental Justice Action Group and theGem and Jewelry Arts Academy.
Rob has also served on several policy-making committees dealing with neighborhood issues, open space and the environment. Some of these are the Tumamoc Area Plan Update Committee; Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission Subcommittee on Environmental Ordinances; Pima County Open Space Acquisition Review Committee; and Steering Committee for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. He was also on the City of Tucson Board of Adjustment for eight years.

Tina Lee – Tina has been appointed to various commissions Water commissions in the City of Tucson from Ward 3 and Ward 2. As an environmental consultant, she specialized in resolving regulatory compliance issues under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for public and private sector clients.

Joseph Maher, Jr. holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Arizona and established his own architectural business in 1983. His credentials reflect a comprehensive diversity of master planning, site and building analysis and feasibility studies along with the diverse and exciting concepts of creating user friendly, functionally cost as well as energy efficiently designed sustainable architecture of all types including Solar & Environmental Homes and additions.

Bonnie Poulos, a research scientist at the UofA studying shrimp farming. Paulos has weighed in on numerous Tucson and Pima County issues relating to planning, billboard lights and much more. Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission; 2002 to present
Neighborhood Infill Coalition; 2002 to present
Campus Farm Neighborhood Association; 1983 to present
Aravaipa Canyon Ecosystem Management Plan Citizen Advisory Committee, 2006
Cost of Growth Task Force for COT General Plan; Sept. 2000 to January 2001
City of Tucson (COT) Planning Commission; 1998-2001
Tucson Regional Transportation Coalition; 1993-1995
Pima County Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee for the
Southeast-Rincon area; 1991-1992
COT Storm Water Management Study Citizen Advisory Committee; 1988-1994
COT Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee; 1986-1992
North side Area Plan Citizen Advisory Committee; 1986-1987
Pima County Deputy Registrar; 1984-1992

Mark R. Stratton the director or Metro Water which operates in the north west portion of Pima County as an independent water district. In digging in a bit looks like the regional water story started to take shape back in 2005.    Councilwoman Scott stumbled across documents that showed that Tucson Water’s director Dave Modeer (now the head of the states CAP) was going from water department to water department to test the waters on a regional water supplier. Pima County waste water wasn’t mentioned in the original discussions.

Utah is hovering at just over 4% unemployment. It seems the economic crisis skipped over their state and landed in Nevada, Arizona and California. How did they do it? Here’s a hint; it took leadership and years of planning. Utah leaders embarked on a multi year project, Envision Utah. The Southern Arizona Leadership Council brought in organizers of the Envision Utah program about a year ago. A crowd of about 500 heard how Utah navigated through the wide variety of interests to come out with a comprehensive plan that would set their state on the path to prosperity for the next generations.

A project mirrored after “The Envision Utah” is well underway here in Tucson. The local effort, coined “Imagine Greater Tucson”, is  lead by local land use attorney Keri Silvyan. I was in the audience and impressed with the concepts and the plan Utah embarked on. What Utah did, and what Silvyn is mirroring locally, is Utah leaders called together a large number of stake holders from varied backgrounds to build relationships and discuss their common future. T

The Envision Utah process put business, politicos and community activists together, discussed each groups particular needs and then used computer models to show what would happen over 20 years if certain paths were taken by the community.  For example, if the community wants more open space then the land values would increase, dense population and infill would have to occur and mass public transportation would be required. If the community wanted more growth related industries (housing and sprawl) then the cost of supporting the infrastructure and finding water would have a cost to the entire community.

What’s important is that if Arizona as a state or Pima County as a region starts moving towards a Utah model, their must be voices from all sides being heard and respected. In southern Arizona the environmental voice is organized and focused and the business voice is unorganized and somewhat scattered.

What Happens If That Happens?

Environmentalists ability to influence our community is well documented. We are right in the middle of one of the largest movements in our history to combine water and waste water delivery. In the desert, the people that control water have the power. A large part of the comprehensive water plan included riparian re-establishment of the Santa Cruz. The plan calls for a whopping 25% of reclaimed waste water being sent to the Santa Cruz for creating a river that hasn’t flowed in a generation. The committee that has worked on the process for the past 20 months isn’t exactly ‘fair and balanced’. The business community had one seat on the board and isn’t happy with the results. This debate is the classic growth, no growth debate Tucson has been waging for 60 years.  The no growthers are winning and that might not be that bad.

From this weekends Arizona Republic:

Faced with high population growth in the 1990s, Utah civic leaders became concerned about how to accommodate so many new residents without disrupting the state’s high quality of life.

Traditionally, elected officials would have taken the lead to manage growth. But residents of the libertarian-leaning state resisted that kind of top-down control.

So reformers in Utah instead started from the bottom up, building a grass-roots movement that led to the voluntary adoption of measures that observers say improved the state’s economy and helped it weather the current recession.

Compare that approach to Arizona’s, where reform organizers have so far limited public involvement to surveys and a few public forums.

To align the visions of elected leaders with the people they serve, Arizona may have to become more like Utah.

 

The Utah model

 

Although managing growth, not government reform, was the Utah initiative’s goal, the process did lead to change in how elected leaders work. In fact, the approach has become a model for problem-solving throughout the U.S. and even in some foreign countries.

Envision Utah was created in 1997, and together with state government, it developed tools to help communities plan. It educated the public on how to accommodate growth through higher-density zoning, the expanded use of mass transit and other strategies.

That education led residents to support proposals they might have once rejected.

The key to reform efforts that work, organizers said, is a bottom-up approach that makes citizens champions of the process. The core of Envision Utah’s model is to ask residents to reflect on their values and hopes for the future and then translate their thinking into action through interactive workshops. In its early days, Envision Utah would hold 50 public meetings for each step of the process.

Large-scale public participation is a catalyst for action, participants say. Tom Jensen, an architect from Logan, Utah, says political candidates in his region now compete with one another over who better supports the vision developed by residents for the Cache Valley.

“This has a greater chance to be implemented because it’s a grass-roots vision,” said Jensen, who also has an office in Tempe. “It gives political leaders cover.”

One example: Grass-roots support led elected officials in nine different communities around the Great Salt Lake to adopt a plan limiting development on the lakeshore.

While focused on growth issues, Envision Utah also has used its model of public engagement to create disaster-preparedness plans for the state and address issues related to higher education.

“We think that this is a process that can be used to address a number of issues in a community,” said Alan Matheson, a Tempe native and attorney who now serves as Envision Utah’s executive director.

Jeff Edwards, president and CEO of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, said the state’s reputation for collaboration has helped officials lure businesses.

“Envision Utah has been a great tool for us in communicating to companies that this is a community that works together,” Edwards said. “We kind of take it for granted. They say, ‘Trust us, this is not the way it happens in other states.’ ”

While no group can take sole credit for a state’s economy, lately Utah has had plenty for Arizonans to envy. The state’s unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, compared with 9.1 percent in Arizona.

The key to success, Matheson said, is not only involving the public from the beginning but also keeping it involved until the end. Persistence, he said, also is critical.

“We’ve all seen examples of good plans that sit on the shelf,” Matheson said. “But nothing happens in the public realm without public support. The way you get public support is by giving people ownership in that plan.”

 

Arizona’s effort

 

In Arizona, would-be reformers have made some efforts to involve the public.

The Arizona We Want, an initiative of the Center for the Future of Arizona, aims to take the results of the October Gallup poll and translate Arizonans’ goals into concrete steps to achieve them. The extensive poll of 3,606 Arizonans was designed to produce “actionable insights” into residents’ thinking. Using questions tested in dozens of other communities, Gallup found Arizonans are highly engaged in civic life compared with residents in other states.

Despite that engagement, polls regularly find dissatisfaction with elected leaders.

“The endgame is still the endgame: to get citizens and leaders working on the same things, to start pulling together on the things that we need to do,” said Pat Beaty, director of the initiative and a senior fellow at the Center for the Future of Arizona, the group led by former ASU President Coor.

Beaty said the institute needs to move beyond abstract goals to engage citizens about issues affecting their communities.

“You can talk about the Arizona we want,” Beaty said. “But it has to become embedded in the Flagstaff we want, the Yuma we want, the school we want.”

Coor has toured the state for the past three months, meeting with elected officials and civic leaders and soliciting their ideas and support. And the center plans to send questionnaires to candidates for elected office so citizens can see where they stand on those topics.

O’Connor House Project participants have taken their ideas for reform straight to the Legislature. A spinoff group, Government for Arizona’s 2nd Century, is working with lawmakers to support bills that will ask voters to create a lieutenant governor’s position, eliminate term limits and end taxpayer funding of candidates.

To date, the group’s efforts at public involvement have been limited to an invitation-only town-hall meeting for business and civic leaders. The approach has raised questions about how the group will develop the support necessary to succeed.

The bills cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are scheduled to be heard in the Rules Committee this week.

Michael Bidwill, president of the Arizona Cardinals and chairman of the government-reform effort, said the time is ripe for change. “We have a unique chance to improve the way our government works,” he said. “When you look at any public-opinion poll, a lot of people are looking for government to work better.”

Organizers acknowledge reform in Arizona has had a spotty history. Many efforts lose steam before any real change is accomplished. Still, the state’s current crisis has brought a rare opportunity for real change.

“I see this groundswell starting to build,” said Sue Clark-Johnson, executive director of the Morrison Institute of Public Policy at Arizona State University and the former chairman and CEO of The Arizona Republic. “In the decades I’ve lived here, I have seldom seen such a compassion and a caring and a concern for the future of this state.”

But concern alone won’t be enough to reform state government.

“You can’t just do a vision and walk away,” said Brenda Scheer, dean of the University of Utah’s College of Architecture and Planning and an Envision Utah board member. “People have to own it, and they have to be champions of it.”

Men’s Heath gave Tucson and F as one of the drunkest cities in America. Read the findings and the full report at this months issue of the magazine.

PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2003:
There Goes the Neighborhood
Have neighborhood associations lost their political muscle?
By JIM NINTZEL

Last month, Yolanda Herrera tried to organize a citywide workshop for neighborhood associations to learn more about the liquor license application process.
Herrera, president of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, has frequently opposed new liquor licenses in southside Tucson, so she thought other neighborhoods might benefit from her experience. She worked with a social service agency to reserve meeting space and got various city and state officials to agree to come by.

Once all that was done, she dropped off a pile of fliers at the city’s Department of Neighborhood Resources more than a month before the event–but the city staff didn’t end up sending it out until weeks later. The invitations arrived in mailboxes just four days before the get-together.

Had she known city officials would just sit on the flier, Herrera says she would have found other funds to mail it out. As it was, the shout-out was sent too late for many people to set aside time to attend the training session.

Herrera says that’s just one example of the way city officials have quietly pushed neighborhood issues aside.

“Long story short, they are no longer neighborhood friendly,” says Herrera. “They’re selling us out to the business people.”

It’s an increasing complaint about the Department of Neighborhood Resources, or DNR–which some activists have taken to calling “Do Not Resuscitate.”

“We’re paying this huge part of the budget for DNR, but the services are not coming down to the neighborhoods,” Herrera gripes.

She sees the impact on her southside neighborhood as banks are replaced by payday loans outlets and traveling vendors set up shop in empty lots. “It’s starting to look like Nogales down here,” she says.

Although City Council members talk about supporting neighborhoods when they campaign, they don’t always open their doors once they’re in office, according to some neighborhood activists.

Brad Holland, a lawyer and musician who serves as president of the Midtown Neighborhood Association, says he’s seen a definite shift since Ward 6 Councilman Fred Ronstadt and Mayor Bob Walkup arrived at City Hall.

Holland says the midtown neighborhood, which is bordered by Swan Road, Speedway Boulevard, Alvernon Way and Grant Road, has problems that are serious enough that city officials don’t completely ignore them.

But Holland sees money that could be reinvested in neighborhoods, such as the Ward 6 Back to Basics dollars, instead being spent on downtown projects.

“We have some real needs in midtown,” he says. “We have meth monsters; we have drainage issues; we have slumlords; we have crime; we have 22 registered Level 3 sex offenders within the square mile of midtown. There’s a lot of things we could have down with $800,000 in regards to quality-of-life issues.”

While he can call Ward 6 staffers, Holland complains that he doesn’t have access to Ronstadt or Walkup. “There’s a difference for us as far as the mayor’s office is concerned,” says Holland, who is supporting Democrat Tom Volgy’s effort to unseat Walkup in this year’s mayoral race. “We can’t even get in the door.”

Valerie Greenhill, communications director with Walkup’s re-election campaign, says Walkup’s office has no record of Holland requesting any meetings.

“The mayor is accessible to all neighborhoods,” says Greenhill. “He’s always available to meet with constituents. It’s interesting that these claims are coming up in the middle of the campaign season.”

Greenhill says Walkup has supported neighborhoods through a variety of programs and “is absolutely committed to improving the Department of Neighborhood Resources.”

In Ward 3, Councilwoman Kathleen Dunbar, who was fiercely opposed by neighborhood associations when she ran for office two years ago, has worked vigorously to neutralize neighborhood unrest. She turned down Walkup’s request to redirect her Back to Basics dollars to downtown, choosing to spread them around the ward instead, and has assigned staffer Bennett Bernal to handle constituent service.

Dunbar healed some wounds with neighborhood leaders along Mountain Avenue earlier this year when she backed their opposition to a controversial public art project. She’s recently been trying to address development and parking issues around the UA and has given meeting space to Campbell Avenue merchants who were incensed at her for her support of a grade-separated intersection at Grant and Campbell.

But other parts of Ward 3 still feel neglected. Jerry Anderson, a Democrat who stepped down two years ago after one term as Ward 3 councilman, says that new city restrictions and a decline in available resources have hurt neighborhood organization efforts. In his work with a group called Ward 3 Neighbors, he’s seen the city limit the ability of the group to host or promote political forums.

“All in all, it’s been a challenging time for neighborhoods to really provide a service to the residents of their neighbors that straddles the fine line between politics and community service,” says Anderson, who is also supporting Volgy in the mayor’s race. “The city seems to have taken a very stance about telling neighborhoods about what they can do and what they can’t do. I don’t think that’s neighborhood-friendly at all. And I’m confident that’s going to change in November.”

Neighborhood associations have certainly lost the ability to work together to dramatically affect larger community issues, as they did in the early ’90s when they pressured the Pima County Board of Supervisors to turn down legendary land speculator Don Diamond’s massive rezoning of Rocking K Ranch. (Diamond would later persuade the board to a pass a less-intensive rezoning.)

The big mover and shaker in that struggle was the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. But the aging organization has been overshadowed by the rise of other political machines, such as the Pima County Interfaith Council.

Sharon Chadwick, a longtime leader with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson who introduced candidates at a coalition-sponsored debate in June, didn’t return numerous phone calls to discuss the organization.

Part of the reason that neighborhood power has waned is the basic reactionary nature of neighborhood associations, says Paul Mackey, a local political activist who has studied and worked with the groups, most recently as a liason to a UA campus planning process.

Mackey, who calls the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson a “relic organization,” says that associations generally form when neighborhood residents recognize a problem in their neighborhoods. Once the problem is resolved, many neighbors get back to their lives outside of politics.

In some cases, council offices have been able to neutralize potential uprisings by finding money, through Back to Basics and other programs, to take care of some neighborhood needs, such as installing sidewalks, streetlights or speed humps to slow traffic on residential streets.

If neighborhood associations have much political weight left, it’s in city primaries. Democrats who can grab the neighborhood-friendly label tend to come out ahead: Jerry Anderson worked that constituency to upset Michael Crawford in 1997, Molly McKasson won the 1999 mayoral primary and Paula Aboud channeled it to beat Vicki Hart in 2001.

But when they face Republican opponents in the general election, those Democratic candidates have ended up losing in recent years, despite the 3-2 voter registration edge of Democrats in Tucson.

There are more factors at work than just neighborhood support in those losing campaigns; McKasson was hobbled in her race against Walkup by her support of an unpopular CAP water initiative, while Aboud was a rookie politician up against Dunbar, who had both name recognition and campaign experience from her one term in the Arizona House of Representatives. Both Republicans also benefited from independent campaigns that hammered the Democrats.

Nevertheless, whatever the reasons for the Democratic defeats, the end result has been a council that is less responsive to neighborhood activists.

The neighborhood’s win streak in Democratic primaries could come to an end next week, if Lianda Ludwig fails in her bid to knock out Ward 2 Councilwoman Carol West. Ludwig, who has bagged the endorsement of the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson, has played to neighborhood issues, such as a fight over the future of Case Natural Resources Park and the big-box Target store at Harrison Road and Old Spanish Trail. (See “Analyze This,” Page 17.)

West, who defends her record on neighborhood issues, says she didn’t expect to win the endorsement of the Neighborhood Coalition. “I wasn’t surprised at all,” she says. “They have their own agenda.”

But increasingly, it seems, it’s an agenda that neighborhood activists can’t implement.

Holland optimistically predicts change is on the horizon. Many residents are organizing, particularly via e-mail.

“There is a heightened neighborhood response,” Holland says. “I’d say it is an adversarial response. The neighborhood response is not, ‘Let’s get together and work with Fred and the mayor and Kathleen and Carol.’ The discussion is ‘How do we respond to the threat of Fred and the mayor and Kathleen and Carol?’”

COLORADO SPRINGS — This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won’t pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

“I guess we’re going to find out what the tolerance level is for people,” said businessman Chuck Fowler, who is helping lead a private task force brainstorming for city budget fixes. “It’s a new day.”

Some residents are less sanguine, arguing that cuts to bus services, drug enforcement and treatment and job development are attacks on basic needs for the working class.

“How are people supposed to live? We’re not a ‘Mayberry R.F.D.’ anymore,” said Addy Hansen, a criminal justice student who has spoken out about safety cuts. “We’re the second-largest city, and growing, in Colorado. We’re in trouble. We’re in big trouble.”

Mayor flinches at revenue

Colorado Springs’ woes are more visceral versions of local and state cuts across the nation. Denver has cut salaries and human services workers, trimmed library hours and raised fees; Aurora shuttered four libraries; the state budget has seen round after round of wholesale cuts in education and personnel.

The deep recession bit into Colorado Springs sales-tax collections, while pension and health care costs for city employees continued to soar. Sales-tax updates have become a regular exercise in flinching for Mayor Lionel Rivera.

“Every month I open it up, and I look for a plus in front of the numbers instead of a minus,” he said. The 2010 sales-tax forecast is almost $22 million less than 2007.

Voters in November said an emphatic no to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city’s $212 million general fund budget. Fowler and many other residents say voters don’t trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don’t believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget.

• Though officials and citizens put public safety above all in the budget, police and firefighting still lost more than $5.5 million this year. Positions that will go empty range from a domestic violence specialist to a deputy chief to juvenile offender officers. Fire squad 108 loses three firefighters. Putting the helicopters up for sale and eliminating the officers and a mechanic banked $877,000.

• Tourism outlets have attacked budget choices that hit them precisely as they’re struggling to draw choosy visitors to the West.

The city cut three economic-development positions, land-use planning, long-range strategic planning and zoning and neighborhood inspectors. It also repossessed a large portion of a dedicated lodgers and car rental tax rather than transfer it to the visitors’ bureau.

“It’s going to hurt. If they don’t at least market Colorado Springs, it doesn’t get the people here,” said Nancy Stovall, owner of Pine Creek Art Gallery on the tourism strip of Old Colorado City. Other states, such as New Mexico and Wyoming, will continue to market, and tourism losses will further erode city sales-tax revenue, merchants say.

• Turning out the lights, literally, is one of the high-profile trims aggravating some residents. The city-run Colorado Springs Utilities will shut down 8,000 to 10,000 of more than 24,000 streetlights, to save $1.2 million in energy and bulb replacement.

Hansen, the criminal-justice student, grows especially exasperated when recalling a scary incident a few years ago as she waited for a bus. She said a carload of drunken men approached her until the police helicopter that had been trailing them turned a spotlight on the men and chased them off. Now the helicopter is gone, and the streetlight she was waiting under is threatened as well.

“I don’t know a person in this city who doesn’t think that’s just the stupidest thing on the planet,” Hansen said. “Colorado Springs leaders put patches on problems and hope that will handle it.”

Employee pay criticized

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as “Ferrari”-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

Businessman Fowler, saying he is now speaking for the task force Bartolin supports, said the city should study the Broadmoor’s use of seasonal employees and realistic manager pay.

“I don’t know if people are convinced that the water needed to be turned off in the parks, or the trash cans need to come out, or the lights need to go off,” Fowler said. “I think we’ll have a big turnover in City Council a year from April. Until we get a new group in there, people aren’t really going to believe much of anything.”

Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor). “We have jobs, we pay taxes, we use services, just like they do,” Rivera said, acknowledging there is a “level of distrust” of public officials at many levels.

Rivera said he welcomes help from Bartolin, the private task force and any other source volunteering to rethink government. He is slightly encouraged, for now, that his monthly sales-tax reports are just ahead of budget predictions.

Officials across the city know their phone lines will light up as parks go brown, trash gathers in the weeds, and streets and alleys go dark.

“There’s a lot of anger, a lot of frustration about how governments spend their money,” Rivera said. “It’s not unique to Colorado Springs.”

Michael Booth: 303-954-1686 or mbooth@denverpost.com

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473#ixzz0etttVvtZ

The names have been changed (sort of) to protect the innocent – or in this case guilty. Read the soap opera story we all know too well, by x4mr – HERE.  Bravo!

City of Tucson 2009 Audited Financial Statements
“Breaking out the green eyeshades”
 
 
The FY 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was recently released.  I have been working my way through the 170+ pages of dense financial reports.  A couple of items may be of interest.
 
Let’s give credit where credit is due. 
 
The City of Tucson has been awarded the “Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting” for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR for FY 2008.  Tucson’s CAFR has been adjudicated by its peers as representing the highest standards. This is the 27th consecutive year Tucson has received this award.  While most constituents may not be especially familiar with this award, Rating Agencies and institutional investors place great value on this award.  Congrats!!  (FY 2009 CAFR, Page xiii)
 
Oops!!
 
Several accounting restatements can be found in the footnotes.  Perhaps the most significant is a big hit to Rio Nuevo.  ‘Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt’ was revised from $57 million to $27 million – $30 million of assets.  What does this really mean?  “$30 million of stuff we were told Rio Nuevo owned, is really not owned by Rio Nuevo.”  The building, land, and equipment is still there but, as it turns out, Rio Nuevo does not own it – accounting was a little off.  This does not instill confidence in the financial reports we receive on Rio Nuevo.  (FY 2009 CAFR, Page 40-41)
 
This can be very important to lenders.  The City has utilized “Certificates of Participation” (COP’s) as one of its primary financing vehicles.  COP’s involve a sale-lease-back arrangement where the City pledges specific assets.  A lender may not be very happy if they lend you money secured by assets that you do not own. 
 
There are those who believe that the accounting for Rio Nuevo has been haphazard and may not have followed all the policies and procedures.  This restatement adds fuel to this fire.  Many have been asking for an audit of Rio Nuevo; this restatement is a clear signal that something unusual may really be there.
  
Audited Financial Statements
 
The City of Tucson is a $1.3 billion/year business entity with thousands of employees and vast real estate holdings.  Elected officials act as the board of directors of this large business entity.  The best board members understand that effective decisions are backed up by a solid grasp of the financial statements.  Not everyone has the inclination to pour over 170+ pages of audited financial statements and 150+ pages of the budget.  Elected officials should make sure someone on their staff invests the necessary time to digest these critical statements or they should reach out to someone who does.  Perhaps my small contribution to our community is that I read all these pages of balance sheet, income statements, and cash flow statements and try to distill the information into ideas that are effective, useful, and actionable.

Why Should You Care?
 
All this accounting and green eye shade stuff is incredibly boring – so why should you care?  These accounting screw-ups may be costing you millions of dollars per year – leaving less money for police, fire, pot holes, parks,…
 
At least one academic study has found that cities with accounting restatements make it more expensive to borrow money – somewhere around 3-tenths-of-1-percent (see reference below).  This may not sound like much, but the City of Tucson and Rio Nuevo have about $700 million of bonds outstanding (CAFR FY ’09; pg 53, 59).  This adds up to about $2 million/year of additional interest we may be paying – ouch!

TIMELINE

Timeline for Kino Hospital/UPH Hospital at Kino Campus

1972: Pima County proposes building a hospital on the South Side. A $10 million bond to build the hospital is approved by 70 percent of the voters.

September 1973: Pima County begins a “condemnation” process to obtain land owned by Howard Hughes at Ajo Way and Campbell Avenue for the hospital. The county ended up paying $900,000 for the site.

June 1974: The cost to build the hospital is estimated at $29 million.

September 1974: New county hospital is named Kino Community Hospital.

March 1975: Kino is referred to as the “hospital of the future.”

December 1976: Kino is dedicated.

March 1977: Kino is opened to the public after incurring $534,000 in debt.

August 1977: The county turns the hospital over to a management company.

November 1977: Citizen editorial calls the hospital “sicker than many of its patients” because of mechanical breakdowns, forced resignations, thefts and increased operating expenses. Hospital is $1.3 million in debt.

December 1977: 71 nurses sign a letter to the editor concerned that care at Kino is substandard.

May 1978: Kino is $3 million in debt.

July 1978: County supervisors discuss selling Kino. They vote “no” in November.

July 1979: County talks again of selling Kino. The board votes “no” in September.

August 1981: The Kino emergency room closes at night because of a lack of nursing staff.

November 1981: Once again, the county board discusses selling Kino.

October 1983: Kino is $9.8 million in debt.

December 1983: The University of Arizona proposes buying Kino.

May 1984: Kino records its first profit. Transfer to University of Arizona begins.

October 1984: The transfer to the UA is stopped and the county retains the hospital.

May 1985: Kino’s 10,000th baby is born.

1987: Kino shows first year of profit with $460,000.

January 1990: Kino considered in “serious condition” when management is taken over by Schaller Associates Inc.

February 1992: The UA expresses interest in expanding to Kino and wants to use it as a clinic while closing down the emergency department.

November 1992: Pima County Supervisor Ed Moore makes several attempts to close the hospital or at least limit Kino’s functions.

January 1993: The Tucson City Council passes a resolution 6-1 urging the Pima County Board of Supervisors to keep Kino open.

January-July 1993: The fighting between the supervisors over the future of Kino escalates until then-supervisor Raúl Grijalva calls it a “pretty intense war.”

September 1993: University Medical Center, Tucson Medical Center and Carondelet Health Care propose taking over Kino Hospital as a joint venture.

October 1993: The county Board of Supervisors look at privatizing, or selling, Kino Hospital.

1994: Hospital’s debt is estimated at $4 million.

May 1996: County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry proposes using part of the hospital as a mental health facility for juvenile offenders.

June 1997: The hospital announces a $1 million surplus. Also announced: Kino will treat Chicago White Sox players while they are in town for spring training.

August 1998: The county announces that the hospital had incurred $18 million in debt over two years.

July 1999: Kino is $40 million in debt.

October 1999: The Pima County Board of Supervisors approves a $200,000 audit of Kino’s finances.

May 2000: Kino’s labor and delivery services are transferred to University Medical Center.

July 2002: Kino’s $40 debt repaid by a 30-cent increase in the primary tax rate in 2000. However, a new $12 million debt was estimated, mostly because of providing care to indigent patients who don’t pay their bills.

January 2003: County administrators explore the possibility of making Kino solely a psychiatric hospital. A few weeks later, University Physicians and the University of Arizona begin to look at plans to take over Kino Hospital.

May 2003: The county announces that it will fully subsidize the hospital until June 2004, when UPH would take it over.

February 2004: UPH begins transitioning physicians, supplies and staff to the hospital. Upgrades begin.

June 2004: The hospital’s license is transferred to UPH and the hospital’s name is changed to UPH Hospital at Kino Campus.

Source: Tucson Citizen archives

———

Request for Psychiatric Urgent Care Center

Chairman Larry Hecker re-stated the subcommittee’s motion: to recommend that if there is an election held in May 2006 for the Regional Transportation Plan, that the County Bond Advisory Committee consider requesting that the Board of Supervisors add a question to the May ballot asking voters to approve $63 million for an 80-bed psychiatric unit, psychiatric urgent care center, and psychiatric research institute.

Neal Cash, President of the Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) described his organizations responsibilities to provide behavioral healthcare via a contract with the State, as well as the current methamphetamine crisis that has driven the request for a psychiatric urgent care center. Mr. Cash stated that a psychiatric urgent care center would provide an alternative location for people in need of a behavioral and/or drug treatment facility, compared to emergency rooms, the jail and the juvenile detention center, which is currently where many of these people end up.

There was discussion regarding the need for the 80-bed psychiatric facility due to the successful and speedy transition of the hospital at Kino from mainly a psychiatric facility to a full service hospital. There was also discussion about the costs to the criminal justice system, including the jail and the juvenile detention 

Dan Eckstrom spoke about a meth free alliance that he’s involved in, as well as how the south side community could benefit from economic development such as this.

Mr. Huckelberry requested that a recommendation on the proposed research facility be held off until the County Attorney’s office can verify whether the County has the statutory authority to fund such a facility, and whether there are any private activity tax impacts due to the federally funded research that would occur there. Mr. Huckelberry also clarified that the County does have the bonding capacity for these proposed projects. In fact, because the bonding capacity is growing and the secondary property tax rate continues to decline, staff has been directed to begin preparing for a County-wide bond election in 2008.

MOTION: Tom Warne moved, seconded by Wade McLean, to recommend to the Board of Supervisors $18 million in general obligation bond authorization for a psychiatric urgent care center and $36 million in general obligation bond authorization for an 80-bed psychiatric unit, and that the Board have the ability to adjust the recommended dollar amounts for inflation. It was clarified that this recommendation was for bond issue to be placed on the ballot for May 16, 2006.

Discussion: Committee Members John Neis and A.C. Marriotti stated their concerns that placing a bond issue on the May 16 ballot along with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) plan, may have a negative impact on getting the RTA planned approved. Mr. Marriott also questioned whether making a recommendation for a future bond election was part of this Committee’s obligations. Chairman Larry Hecker, Vice-Chair Carolyn Campbell and Committee Member Patty Richardson, who also serve on the RTA Citizens Advisory Committee, responded to these concerns and stated that they did not feel that a bond issue would impact the success of the RTA plan. Ms. Campbell requested that discussions regarding this issue be held with the various RTA committees and informally with other jurisdictions.

The motion was approved 10-2 with Committee Members John Neis and A.C. Marriotti opposed.

Top 10 Reasons To Come to Tucson

Ten – You can feel the sun on your toes in February! Sandals, shorts and sunglasses – pick up free sunscreen at the Visitor’s Center!

Nine – Golf!  There are ____ golf courses in the Tucson valley – play them all! – get a free Mulligan from me!

Eight – The Arizona Sonora Desert Museum!  The views, the animals, the gift shop and the incredibly good restaurants.  The javalinas are waiting to greet you!

Seven – Hiking!  All grades of trails for every level of walker.  Hike through a saguaro cactus forest and stop once in a while to look at our gorgeous mountains!

Six – Margaritas and Mariachis!  Countless Tucson restaurants have live music and a wide variety of margaritas (the lime counts as a fruit for a balanced diet!).

Five – Resorts and spas!  You deserve to be pampered, while enjoying the warm sun and stunning desert and mountain views. Oh, don’t gawk at the celebrities – down deep inside they ARE shy!  A winter tan and a white strapless dress – priceless!!!

Four – Gardens, humming birds, food and gifts! Tohono Chul Park, Tucson Botanical Gardens, the Arizona Inn and the Desert Museum give a wide overview of nature and attracts humming birds galore – their restaurants serve delicious food and the gift shops sell gorgeous jewelry and other gifts.

Three – The smell of tamales, creosote after a rain and flour tortillas being made next to your table while you eat (take a dozen home with you!).  There are people who weep when they remember the smell of creosote bushes after a rain – you never forget it!  It is as unique as the smell of green corn tamales cooking at Lerua’s or the smell of flour tortillas cooking at Teresita’s Mosaic restaurant.

Two – History!  Tucson is the only city in America that has been continuously inhabited and cultivated for over 4,000 years.  Wander through history museums, the Pima Air Museum or take a historic walk downtown.  Walk in the footsteps of the past, bask in the beauty of the present.

One – The people!  The Native people are still here, it was then New Spain, then Mexico, then a Territory and finally a state on February 14, 1912.  We come from every state in the nation and almost every country on earth and chose to live here.  We cannot wait to share our city with others.

Although annexing the affluent, unincorporated foothill neighborhoods would certainly improve Tucson’s financial means, it won’t be an easy task:

Bob: Annexation isn’t going to happen
Editorial
Inside Tucson Business
Aug. 14, 2006

Poor Mayor Bob Walkup. He’s feeling lonely these days as the only elected Republican at City Hall. That must be the reason behind his newly launched attempt to extend Tucson’s city limits out to take in the Catalina Foothills and Casas Adobes. That is after the city gets done annexing as much of the booming southeast side as it can. Talk about a marketing problem. This one will be like pushing a wet noodle uphill–the Catalina Foothills.

Rule No. 1 when it comes to marketing is create a desire for your product. Where’s the desire? Certainly not at Tucson City Hall. This is a place that likes things just the way they are right now. The bloated bureaucracy is happy with its power and seemingly not having to be answerable to anyone. The politicians in office are satisfied with their status quo. On political maps, Tucson is a blue city–a City Council comprised of five Democrats, one independent and Walkup, all by his little lonesome as the only Republican.

Why would all those Democrats want a bunch of new Republicans to be able to vote in city elections? The areas Walkup is targeting are filled with Republicans. In Catalina Foothills School District No. 16, Republicans have a 25 percent voter registration advantage over Democrats. Another way of looking at it is to consider in Pima County’s Justice of the Peace Precinct No. 1, which takes in most of the Foothills, Casas Adobes and goes all the way up to the Pinal County line. Admittedly Walkup’s proposal doesn’t include the entire area, but it does include a lot of it and Republicans outnumber Democrats by a 3-to-2 margin.

Tucson’s suburban municipalities–Oro Valley, Marana and Sahuarita–are all tilted toward Republican voter advantages. There is no way five Democrats on the City Council want those kind of numbers to spoil their next election.

Annexation is a two-way street. For as much as City Council members don’t like the idea, there also is no compelling argument for people in Walkup’s targeted areas to go along with it either. Quite the contrary. Steve Emerine addressed some of why this is the case in his Valley Views column in the July 31 issue of Inside Tucson Business. (In fact, the curious among us wonder if perhaps that column might have prompted Walkup’s renewed efforts.)

There is no upside for a resident to want to become part of the city. Instead, you would:

• Be part of a higher crime rate.

• Higher city sales taxes.

• Higher property taxes.

• Poorer garbage collection with no options.

• A City Council that is often viewed as a sideshow when it comes to trying to make decisions. (Granted, the county Board of Supervisors acts this way at times, but why add another layer?)

We take pity on Walkup and his lonely state at City Hall. It looks as if he’s bound to stay that way.