Politics

By Marshall J. Vest
EBR and Forecasting Project Director

September 1, 2011

In our annual update of 30-year projections, we’ve lowered the forecast significantly. That’s partly due to decennial Census counts that found far fewer residents than expected and new estimates that show population growth currently near zero, a phenomenon that is likely to extend a few more years. Also, there’s realization that fallout from the financial crisis will take a long time – perhaps a decade – to repair. Arizona already has lost a decade of growth, or more, in many industries (as measured by employment). And we are in the midst of losing an entire decade, or more, of population growth, due to low mobility rates. As a result, Arizona’s population will barely top ten million 30 years from now.

The recent recession wiped out a decade’s worth of progress, but Arizona’s growth will eventually return and once again rank amongst the fastest-growing states. In our annual update of our 30-year projections, we show Arizona’s population topping 10.2 million in the year 2041. That will easily put Arizona in the top ten largest states. By 2041, nearly four million more people will call Arizona home than live here today. Projections for each 10-year interval for selected aggregate measures are presented in Exhibit 1.

Highlights of the 30-year forecast include the following:

•Over 1.8 million new jobs will be created in Arizona over the next three decades, boosting the total to 4.2 million.

•Per capita personal income relative to the nation will continue its downward slide from 87% today to nearer 83% thirty years from now. This ratio peaked at 95% in 1971. Per capita income is an aggregate measure comprised of demographics (age structure), wage levels, industry mix, and labor force participation rates. The projected downward trend will keep Arizona near the bottom of all states on this measure.

•Arizona’s employment-to-population ratio plunged during the current recession and will remain well below its peak established in 2000 (43.3%), and after dipping below 37.2% last year, finishes in 2041 at 41.2%. Arizona’s ratio consistently runs 3-4 points lower than nationwide (Exhibit 2).

•As the population continues to age, an increasing share of personal income will come from transfer payments, of which social security is the largest component. The share will rise from 21% today to 26.5% by 2040. Per capita transfers in Arizona today are roughly equal to the corresponding nationwide measure.

•Retail sales relative to income will continue to fall, dropping below 18% from nearly 45% in the early-1960s. An aging population that spends more on services (especially health care) and a smaller portion on taxable goods accounts for the drop. This has serious implications for a tax system heavily reliant on retail sales.

•Over the long term, migration flows will continue to account for the lion’s share of population growth. On average, natural increase (births minus deaths) accounts for one third while net migration provides the remainder. The latter varies significantly, of course, over the business cycle. During the recession, with mobility rates at a six-decade low, migration flows swung deeply negative for the first time in recorded history. By 2015 net migration will again approach 100,000 annually. Natural increase moved significantly lower during the recession due to falling births, but will stabilize at 40,000 new residents annually (Exhibit 3).

•Manufacturing, government, utilities, retail trade and mining will represent smaller shares of total jobs 30 years from now. Manufacturing’s share will decline from 6.2% to 4.0%, government from 17.0% to 14.2%, utilities from 0.5% to 0.3%, and retail trade from 12.3% to 12.0%. Mining jobs will all but disappear.

•Sectors that will gain the largest shares are professional and business services (from 14.3% to 16.7%), health care & social assistance (from 12.6% to 14.7%), and financial services (from 6.9% to 7.7%).

•In our “high” scenario, Arizona’s population reaches 11.2 million in 2041. In the “low” scenario, it is 9.8 million, compared to 10.2 million in the “most likely” scenario. Michigan, the seventh largest state, today has 9.9 million.

•Today, Arizona’s 6.4 million population ranks 16th, just ahead of Tennessee. In thirty years, Arizona likely will overtake Indiana, Massachusetts, Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, and Michigan to become the eighth largest state.

•The range for 2041 metro Phoenix population is 6.7 to 8.0 million. Metro Tucson’s range is 1.4 to 1.5 million people. The “Sun Corridor” megapolitan population (both metros — three counties combined) ranges from 8.1 to 9.5 million.

•By 2041, 71% of Arizona’s population will reside in the Phoenix metro area (Maricopa and Pinal counties). Metro Tucson (Pima County) will account for 14.2%. Today, the shares are 65.8% and 15.3%, respectively.

Arizona was the second-fastest growing state over the past decade, even though population growth disappeared during the recession. Low mobility rates will limit Arizona’s growth for a few more years, but growth will return to more historical levels by mid-decade.

A history of population growth and components of change are shown in Exhibit 4. During the 1970s and 1980s Arizona’s population swelled by nearly a million persons each decade. During the 1990s, a surge in migration pushed the gain to nearly 1.5 million. That pace appeared to be on track until the recession arrived in late 2007. The lack of jobs, accompanied by the loss of mobility due to the fall in housing prices and legislative action to restrict illegal immigration, brought population growth to a halt. So, for the decade just past, Arizona’s population swelled by “only” one-and-a-quarter million. Interestingly, almost half (45%) of the gain was due to natural increase. With mobility likely to remain at low levels for at least a couple more years, we expect population to increase by a little over one million during the “teens”. Our projections show net migration rising to 1.3 million per decade during the 20s and 30s.

Over the next 30 years, Arizona will add 3.6 million residents, or roughly half of the numbers here today. We can only guess what Arizona will be like, but it’s clear that a great deal of change lies ahead.

Access EBR’s Latest Forecast Data Online

Posted: Friday, September 16, 2011 7:00 am | Updated: 11:58 am, Thu Sep 15, 2011.

The Tucson region has set another record – the median home price last month fell another 2 percent to $122,200 from its peak of $225,900 in February 2006. No doubt most of the rest of the country has gone through similar adjustments but economists say Pima County is in for a longer down cycle.

Admittedly, Phoenix fell more than Tucson during the recession but the Phoenix metropolitan area is already showing signs of recovery.

Tucsonans resist the Phoenix model. Phoenix has freeways while Tucson widens roads. Phoenix has two dozen municipalities in its metropolitan area all competing to have the safest neighborhoods, best businesses and superior quality of life. Tucson has five municipalities and more than 36 percent of its population living outside those cities towns where Pima County tries to maintain its stranglehold.

Even though residents resist doing anything that resembles our neighbors to the north, Tucsonans throughout the region need to realize Phoenix is recovering from the economic recession because companies have invested capital in facilities and are hiring people there.

In case you haven’t been keeping up:

Intel Corporation is spending $5 billion to build a new state-of-the-art chip-making plant in Chandler, which will bring the firm’s job base in the area to 9,200.

Republic Services Inc., an $8 billion waste management company relocated its headquarters to Phoenix from Florida in 2009 after at $6.1 billion merger with Allied Waste Industries, which had been its largest competitor. In Tucson, Republic operates SaguaroEnvironmental.

Insurer USAA expanded and added 450 jobs in Phoenix in 2009 as it consolidated and closed offices in Sacramento, Calif., and Norfolk, Va.

Stirling Energy Systems, which is based in Phoenix, received a $100 million investment in 2008 from NTR, a renewable energy company in Ireland that now has a controlling interest in the Arizona firm and is moving quickly to grow its business in the utility-scale solar market.

CyrusOne, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell, just this month announced it has purchased a 40-acre parcel in Chandler where it will spend $150 million to build a 1 million square-foot data center.

Honeywell Aerospace, which is headquartered in Phoenix, is now the area’s third largest employer and just this month received a $450 million contract from NASA to help it extend the life of existing satellites and develop ground systems for new satellites.

Petsmart Inc., also headquartered in Phoenix, is the nation’s largest specialty pet retailer with $5.9 billion in sales last year through its 1,197 stores.

Electronics distributor Avnet Inc., also based in Phoenix, did $19.5 billion in sales last year.

Discount Tire Co., headquartered in Scottsdale, in May opened its 800th store, a location in northern California. It now operates with 13,000 employees fixing 6,000 flats a day and selling $3 billion worth of tires in 23 states per year.

Go Daddy, the domain name registry that has made a spash with its racy commercials, is headquartered in Scottsdale where its 2,900 employees brought in $741 million in revenue last year.

While Tucsonans may not want to admit it, these kinds of businesses bring both money and a quality of life to a region. Relocate America.com released its list of top 100 markets to live for 2011 and Phoenix, Scottsdale and Prescott are on it. Tucson isn’t. El Paso and Albuquerque also made the list.

We’re not advocating Tucson should be exactly like Phoenix but our economy would be a lot stronger now if we had leadership that would at least consider reading a page or two from the playbook Phoenix leaders are using.

Then, if Tucsonans are so bent on not becoming another Phoenix, we have to ask what do we want this region to become?

Contact Joe Higgins and Chris DeSimone at wakeuptucson@gmail.com. They host “Wake Up Tucson,” 6-8 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Their blog is at www.TucsonChoices.com.

(CNN) — On a recent sunny Arizona morning, Judy Macintyre, a 72-year-old tourist from Minnesota, is ready to board a bus. But this is not just any tour. To Macintyre, it’s an opportunity to take an in-depth look at a controversial issue she wanted to explore for a long time.

The tour titled “Border Crisis: Fact and Fiction” is intended to allow tourists to see immigration at one of the hottest spots on the border. And that’s exactly what the adventurous Minnesotan wants to do.

“It’s such a complicated issue, and there’s so many sides to it, and people need to come together, work together instead of fighting against each other like they all seem to be doing right now,” says the retired professor who used to teach at the University of Minnesota business school.

Experiencing the realities of the U.S.-Mexico border up close is as simple as buying an $89 ticket. The Tucson, Arizona, office of Gray Line Tours is offering the trip twice a month.

The tour operator bills the trip as “a fact-finding mission” that allows tourists to draw their own conclusions. “Don’t let the politicians and news broadcasters become your only source of information,” the tour description says on the Gray Line Tours’ website.

Tourists are taken to the border fence. They take a look at a pedestrian bridge connecting the two countries. They see Customs and Border Protection agents in action at a crossing point, although they can’t get too close for security reasons. And then they go to the areas where more than a hundred immigrants die each year. Since last October, more than 130 migrants have died while trying to cross the Arizona desert, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.

At one stop, they take a look at a water station for migrants crossing the desert. The tank was installed by Humane Borders, a human rights group. Tour operator Bob Feinman shows the blue, 65-gallon plastic tank filled with water to the tourists. He explains that for some people the tank is the difference between life and death.

“It’s a hundred-and-something degrees out here. You’re dying of thirst. That’s what this is for, with or without a map, whether you found it on purpose or whether you stumbled across it,” Feinman says.

Near the town of Arivaca, Arizona, tourists are also taken for a walk in the unforgiving Arizona desert.

Sherlee Terres, a tourist taking the trip, says the desert walk gave her a good idea about what migrants experience.

“I wouldn’t make it three miles. It just seems so desolate. I’m not from Arizona originally. I was just looking at the branches with the thorns and thought, ‘wow, what would happen if you were trying to get through, a thorn would just tear your clothes and your skin,’” Terres says.

The tour also includes a get-together with ranchers who want a more secure U.S.-Mexico border and who are deeply concerned about drug traffickers and smugglers.

Dan Bell, one of the ranchers who takes time to speak with the tourists, is concerned about border security and the impact of illegal migration to his property.

“The border is secure in areas where it was easiest to secure. The places that are really difficult to secure are the places that remain wide open, and those are the places where most of our ranches are located on,” Bell says.

Tourists also hear from those who advocate easier access of products and migrant labor to the United States. Christopher Ciruli, former chairman of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, says that trade between the two countries is very important for communities on both sides of the border.

“We need to facilitate trade between the two countries. We need to facilitate the people crossing between both, and we need to make sure that we have human life interests whether it would be the people working at the border or the people trying to cross so that we’re not causing more deaths at the desert,” Ciruli says.

In the end, tourists are left to draw their own conclusions. The tour company claims the trip is intended to be apolitical and aims to educate and alert people to the realities of living on the border and the issues of life and death that play out every day in that part of the country.

The tour started in April. According to Gray Line Tours, about 100 tourists have traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border so far, but interest is increasing as the weather cools down in the Arizona desert.

The tour starts at 8:30 am and lasts eight hours. At the end of the trip, Judy Macintyre, the retired professor, says it’s an eye-opening experience. “I think every congressperson should take this tour and take the information that we got.”

Journalist Valeria Fernandez contributed to this report.

TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) - The Pima County-wide first responder communication system will be going online in late 2013, but without one of the larger towns in the area.

The Pima County Wireless Integrated Network, or PCWIN, will allow firefighters, police, deputies and other emergency services to easily communicate on the same radio system.

The town of Marana isn’t a part of this effort, even though Marana residents are paying for it.

They are helping retire a $92 million bond Pima County voters passed in 2004.

It pays for PCWIN.

Marana’s mayor says opting out of PCWIN is not a problem for Marana.

Ed Honea says the problem would be in joining PCWIN, and giving up the town’s state- of- the- art system that Marana taxpayers have paid for.

“Our taxpayers have already paid for this technology. We already have it in place. Why would we give it to someone else and then turn around and lease it back, and not have any control over it?” Honea asks.

He says the safety of Marana citizens would not be jeopardized by not participating in the regional communication system.

But not everyone agrees, especially not a representative of Pima County, the government that would be in charge of PCWIN.

Pima County Supervisor Richard Elias calls Marana’s decision to opt out “irrational.”

He says, Marana knows it will be very expensive to opt back in.

“At that point we will have already designed a system and spent money on that design with our vendor and finding the sites and locations for the various kinds of antenna needs that we have,” Elias says.@

A lot of this comes down to trust.

Mayor Honea says it’s no secret there are trust issues between Marana and Pima County because of recent battles.

Copyright 2011 KOLD. All rights reserved.

Posted: Friday, September 9, 2011 12:00 pm | Updated: 11:21 pm, Fri Sep 9, 2011.

By Inside Tucson Business staff | 0 comments

As Tucson’s Nov. 8 General Election nears, it’s becoming more obvious that Pima County Democratic Party chairman Jeff Rogers is stepping up his behind-the-scenes efforts to manipulate and control Tucson city government. Specifically, he’s told Councilman Paul Cunningham, a Democrat, to toe the party line.

To that end, Rogers told Cunningham he is not to second motions made by Republican Councilman Steve Kozachik that would allow for public discussion in meetings on items not in Democrats’ interests. That way, Democrats won’t have to take stands that could be used against them in election campaigns on issues they’re trying to avoid.

A WORD FROM THE DIRECTOR

The results are in! MPA conducted a public policy survey to provide us with information that we can utilize in our advocacy efforts.  The goal of the survey was to identify specific issues throughout the region impacting members of MPA.

Over 100 individuals, including non-MPA members, who have worked on land use projects within the last 5 years, took the survey. Overall, Marana and Sahuarita were preferred in terms of development process and fees; the City of Tucson was identified as having the most difficult process and the County was noted as being too environmentally sensitive. While I did not expect the results to be much different than what I regularly hear from the MPA membership, I have a better understanding of the most important issues hindering a broad spectrum of the growth community. I have identified specific items where MPA will be proactive in improving different aspects of land use and development in our region. Exhibit A provides a snapshot of how the jurisdictions compare to each other, while Exhibit B illustrates the perception of our survey takers. Jurisdiction by jurisdiction, here are the highlights:

Exhibit A.

CITY OF TUCSON

Pros: The development service process is improving with several recent steps including a revised Certificate of Occupancy process, new Parking Ordinance and active creation of a new Land Use Code.

Cons: Applicants continue to have issues with poor customer service, lack of review consistency and overall confusion with the steps and requirements associated with the development process.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively working to identify specifics within each of these areas in order to communicate them to Development Services, Management and City Council. We are presently focusing on water policies, which are discussed HERE within this newsletter.

PIMA COUNTY

Pros: Department heads within Development Services and Building are very helpful in working to address and resolve problems and issues.

Cons: The County continues to support ordinances and policies that are largely unbalanced towards environmental issues and hinder reasonable land use and development.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively engaged with County staff in working on a proposed off-site mitigation ordinance. Presently we believe the draft unreasonably obstructs land development, but staff has shown a willingness to make modifications to the proposal. MPA will remain diligent in staying ahead of issues to ensure ordinances find a respectful balance between growth, development and our environmental surroundings.

Exhibit B.

TOWN OF ORO VALLEY

Pros: Although the overall score was very poor regarding the Council’s relationship with the development community, the individual comments were encouraging in stating that, “It appears that the Council and Town Manager are looking for ways to improve relations with the business and development community.”

Cons: Rated the jurisdiction with the highest fees and some of the most difficult laws and regulations, survey takers were indecisive in stating if the fees or public input process were more burdensome.

MPA Action Item: A better balance must be created if Oro Valley hopes to have successful, revenue generating development on their last remaining acres.  Council recently made a couple of changes to the public input process. As these steps are tested, MPA will carefully observe how effective these changes are or are not. Additionally, MPA is co-hosting a forum with Council and staff to identify specific issues with the land use and development process. We will urge the Town to create a process in which they review their fees and make sure each fee is true cost recovery and necessary.

TOWN OF MARANA

Pros: The Council is recognized as being very reasonable and development friendly.

Cons: The survey actually did not clearly identify any issues with the Town, other than hoping the Town remains responsive to the development community.

MPA Action Item: MPA will encourage the Town to move forward in updating their Land Use Code based on the analysis created by Clarion several years ago.

TOWN OF SAHUARITA

Pros: Survey respondents agree that Sahuarita’s fees are fair and reasonable, as is their land development process.

Cons: Largely, the concern is that the Town relies too heavily on Pima County codes and ordinances, which are regarded as burdensome to the development community.

MPA Action Item: MPA is actively involved in working with  Town Management and staff on several codes including the Landscape Code and Riparian Habitat Text Amendment. It is our goal to provide information and feedback on these ordinances, as well as future policies and ordinances, that help the Town achieve their growth goals.

Lisa and I look forward to taking each of these steps, in addition to responding to land use and development policy issues in each jurisdiction as they arise.  As always, feel free to contact me directly via e-mail or my cell phone at 520.878.8811.

Amber Smith

Executive Director

Arizona Daily Star – Rob O’Dell – Tucson City Manager Mike Letcher resigned Tuesday, effective in August 2012, in the face of rising criticism over a series of management scandals at City Hall.
Although Letcher said he would step down in 11 months, it’s unclear if the City Council will allow him to stay in the job for that long. Only Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, his strongest supporter, fully endorsed the 11-month timeline Tuesday.
Others, such as Paul Cunningham and Steve Kozachik, said they would never agree to the 11-month timetable. Kozachik called for Letcher to be fired immediately.
The council is scheduled to discuss both Letcher’s employment status and problems with Parkwise, the downtown parking program, today in closed session.
Letcher announced his resignation in a seven-page letter sent to many city employees Tuesday, in which he also made scathing comments about Kozachik and put the blame for many of the city’s problems on several of his subordinates, including Deputy City Manager Richard Miranda, and the media. Cunningham called Letcher’s memo a “manifesto.”
Letcher said he should have disciplined ParkWise Director Chris Leighton after an initial audit of problems in the department in November 2010, and wanted to fire him over the summer, but the city attorney’s office advised the Civil Service Commission wouldn’t uphold the termination. Letcher said he will now try to write Leighton’s position out of the budget.
The city manager discussed a number of personnel and discipline issues in his letter, despite city officials insisting for weeks the details could not be given out. For example, Letcher said a ParkWise supervisor in charge of finances was out on family and medical leave when the city learned of numerous financial problems in the department. She quit while on leave but would have been disciplined if she had come back, he said in the memo.
The supervisor who was responsible for managing the city’s 911 system, which has had numerous problems that could have contributed to the death of a 10-year-old girl, is in the process of being demoted, Letcher’s letter states.
City Attorney Mike Rankin said he couldn’t comment on whether the personnel disclosures violated city policy or employee privacy because he will be giving the council legal advice on the topic. He said the attorney’s office provided legal advice on the Leighton matter, but won’t disclose what it was.
Letcher said he wrote the letter “to make it clear” where he stood, adding it’s something the city and the community need to understand.
The letter also referenced upcoming problems in Tucson Water and with the city’s Sun Tran bus service. A payroll audit of Tucson Water will occur soon based on reports from employees of potential issues, while there are $10 million in unanticipated costs for Sun Tran over the next several years, including $5 million to $6 million next fiscal year, the letter stated.
Letcher laid the blame on Miranda, saying he will bring the issues up in Miranda’s annual review, which was already scheduled to occur next week. He had a closed-door meeting with Miranda on Tuesday to talk about his expectations for the review, Letcher said.
But he contended he wasn’t scapegoating Miranda. “I’m not a person who throws people under the bus. It’s not in my DNA,” Letcher said.
The mayor can’t vote to fire the city manager, so four of the six council members must vote to remove Letcher if they want him gone sooner.
At least four council members raised the possibility of moving on without Letcher.
Councilman Richard Fimbres said he’s weighing the pros and cons of letting Letcher serve until 2012 or appointing an interim. He said Letcher’s done a good job closing the city’s persistent budget deficits.
Councilwoman Shirley Scott said she’s taking all the facts into consideration before she makes a decision on Letcher.
Cunningham said there was “no chance ever” that he would accept Letcher working until August 2012, contending Letcher is “out of his mind” if he thinks that will occur. Firing Letcher would trigger six months of pay plus other benefits, so Cunningham said he hoped there was a way for Letcher to move aside gracefully.
Kozachik said Letcher needs to be fired as soon as possible. He was sharply criticized in Letcher’s letter for interfering with Letcher’s job on a day-to-day basis.
“What he needs to understand is that I don’t work for him; he works for me,” Kozachik said. “His own people don’t trust him. His own people don’t respect him.”
On StarNet: Read more about local, state and national political news at azstarnet.com/politics
Mike Letcher Timeline
• 2001: Mike Letcher is hired into the manager’s office from Sedona.
• 2005: Letcher is a finalist for city manager; job goes to Mike Hein.
• April 2009: Letcher is hired as city manager in late April, several weeks after the council fired Hein.
• May 2009: Letcher proposes a rental tax; council approves his plan for several tax increases to generate millions in new revenue, but not the rental tax.
• June 2009: Saying the city lacks money, Letcher tries to eliminate funding for July 4th fireworks, even though he just gave out raises to workers in his own office equal to what it would have cost to put on the fireworks.
• Nov. 2009: $32 million budget deficit announced just after November election.
• Dec. 2009: City announces there could be massive layoffs, including police and firefighters.
• Jan. 2010: Council again rejects rental tax, institutes furloughs and fee hikes; about 100 employees laid off.
• Sept.-Oct. 2010: Letcher warns there will be massive layoffs if city sales-tax increase is rejected by voters.
• Jan. 2011: Letcher announces there will be no layoffs after all, despite failure of sales tax.
• May-June 2011: City’s new 911 system plagued by dropped calls and other glitches, possibly resulting in the death of a 10-year-old girl.
• July 2011: Letcher gives pay raises and additional duties to three employees close to him, despite city furloughs and pay freezes for all other city workers.
• Aug. 2011: Letcher transfers the 911 system to the Fire Department with one day’s notice.
• Aug. 2011: Audits show ParkWise department riddled with problems, from theft to missing money to leaking of confidential bid documents.
• Sept. 2011: Letcher submits resignation, effective August 2012.
Others commentS on resignation
Reaction to City Manager Mike Letcher resigning, effective August 2012:
• Councilman Paul Cunningham: “If you’re averaging a fiasco a month, you’re obviously not doing a good job.”
• Republican Mayoral Candidate Rick Grinnell: “He’s unqualified to do this job. He’s way over his head. If I get elected I would ask for his immediate resignation.”
• Democratic mayoral candidate Jonathan Rothschild: “I think he made the right decision. From what I’ve been hearing, rightly or wrongly, he’s lost the faith or trust of a lot of people in the city.”
• Former Democratic Mayor George Miller: “That’s ridiculous. Eleven to 12 months from now? That’s crazy. Either he’s the person in charge or he is not.”
• Dean Cotlow, commercial real estate broker: “That’s laughable. He should be fired today. You have to be accountable for your actions.”
• Ron Shoopman, president of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council: “It is difficult for the city manager to be successful in the city of Tucson. The (city) charter is flawed.”
• Councilwoman Karin Uhlich: “I think Mike has done the job he was hired to do. I do think he has served the city well.”
Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_aa18f56c-3956-58b9-ab49-1ad7e6c1f9e7.html#ixzz1XGXKDk6E

Wednesday’s Tucson city council’s study session agenda includes an executive session which says in part, time has been set aside for discussion of dismissal or resignation  of a public officer or appointee.
News 13 managed to catch up with five of the six council members at the annual Labor Day picnic and while they were not talking publicly, on the record or on camera they left little doubt they will be debating the future of Mike Letcher, who has been Tucson’s city manager since 2009.
Letcher was given the job amid much fanfare following the firing of his boss at the time, Mike Hein.
Letcher was approved by a 6 to 1 vote in part because of his 30 years experience in city government.
One council member said Letcher was appointed to bring transparency to the office and to find and fix problems.
He found some of those problems, the council member said, and now he’s being held responsible for them even though they did not happen on his watch.
The financial irregularities in Parkwise is one example, we were told.
But another council member says in proves his failures continue to add up.
Letcher was a big defender of the 911 call center change to a new system.  The installation was botched which led to a series of media stories critical of the system and the way Letcher handled the aftermath.
Another council member questioned the timing of the discussion just weeks before a general election which could change the dynamics of the council and will change the face in the mayor’s office.
Another said it appears the council is split down the middle with three wanting to replace Letcher and three who do not.
When Letcher accepted the job, much was made of the fact he was just weeks away from retirement but decided the city needed continuity in the manager’s office especially because of pressing economic difficulties.
Letcher, according to another, could be given the option to retire at some point while conditions for a severance and other benefits is being worked out.
We’re told, it’s likely there would be a nationwide search if Letcher is replaced.

TUCSON – With his company’s business up and inventory at a five-year low, real-estate agent Greg Hollman said the housing market in Arizona’s second-largest metropolitan area is thriving.

“The Tucson housing market is doing well in many areas, especially properties in the lower-priced end,” he said.

But that assessment runs counter to a recent national report that branded Tucson the nation’s sickest housing market.

24/7 Wall St., a financial news and opinion website, based its analysis on vacancy rates, unemployment rates and historical median home prices. Indianapolis, Memphis, Tenn., Atlanta and Baton Rouge, La., followed Tucson on its list.

According to the report, 6.8 percent of listed homes were vacant in Tucson, a figure exceeding that of any other market ranked.

No one is arguing that Tucson’s housing market is breaking sales records. One out of every 54 housing units received a foreclosure filing between January and June, RealtyTrac reported. Home prices have dipped 34 percent over the last five years, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

But Hollman, who is president of the Tucson Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service, said the vacancy rate is an unfair measure in a place where many snowbirds have second homes.

He said using median sale price also produced misleading results because many sales of late have been low-priced homes, which pushed the median price down.

“I think it’s completely unjustified,” he said. “It’s a fabrication of current market conditions in Tucson.”

Other recent reports have presented Tucson’s real-estate market in a more positive light. Inman News placed Tucson fourth among America’s 10 best places for real-estate investment. Among other factors, the report considered low and falling prices, an improving unemployment rate and high projected return on investment over the next decade.

Fiserv Case-Shiller listed Tucson as one of 20 metropolitan areas where housing prices are expected to rise in 2012.

So is Tucson’s housing market sick or healthy?

It’s a matter of perception, according to Marshall Vest, an economist with the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management. One study sees the glass as half-full, while the other sees it as half-empty, he said.

“I think both of those statements make sense, and both are consistent with one another,” Vest said. “If you have a market with high inventory and prices are way down, yes, it’s sick, but it’s also ripe for investment.”

Phoenix has it worse by many measures. Home prices there have dipped 49 percent over the last five years, yet the nation’s sixth-largest city dodged the sick list, to the surprise of Vest and dismay of Tucson real-estate agents.

“As I look around at housing data from around the country, I can tell you that we’re far from the sickest,” said Hollman, who is also regional vice president for Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Arizona.

Jerimiah Taylor, a real-estate agent with Jerimiah Taylor Team of Keller Williams Realty, said Tucson is a market of opportunity.

“In as much as our market isn’t in a good state, we’ve also depleted our inventory,” he said.

Taylor said buyers are scrambling for low-priced homes. He recently listed a house for $147,000 and sold it within three days for more than $170,000.

“If you are a buyer that wants a great deal, there’s nothing sick about this market,” Taylor said.

The average property in Tucson had been on the market for about 162 days as of Aug. 28, according to real-estate-market data provider Altos Research, which called Tucson a buyer’s market with a high inventory and low prices.

Tucson’s total sales volume rose 27.9 percent from July 2010 to July of this year. Sales of 1,124 units were 41.9 percent higher than the previous July, according to monthly statistics from the Tucson Association of Realtors.

Barbara and Tom Dougherty sold their four-bedroom home of seven years within four days at $387,000, but at thousands of dollars less than they had listed.

“We sold it at a very good price for the buyer,” Barbara said. “We didn’t make very much money on that house.”

Vest said the strength of the Tucson market is its affordability and that wise investments are made when prices are lowest.

“It’s a destination of choice and will continue to grow,” Vest said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2011/09/02/20110902views-mixed-housing-tucson-worst.html#ixzz1Wu1I5ji0

Hey Tucson and Pima County how about you come up with one of these – HERE.