Posts Tagged ‘City of Tucson’
Translation: If you don’t approve to tax yourself more to support an inept (and possibly corrupt) municipality, kiss off!
City may cut, end furlough days for some
Rob O’Dell Arizona Daily Star Arizona Daily Star
Posted: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:00 am
To appease unions upset at the city’s ongoing budget cuts, the City Council on Tuesday will consider ending furloughs for some employees and halving the furloughs for most employees if the economy improves.
The city has had unpaid furloughs for two years, and will continue them for the fiscal year that begins July 1. For next year, employees again were facing nine furlough days, which constitutes 3.5 percent of their salaries.
Union officials, including those in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have urged for months to end furloughs for those employees in enterprise departments such as Tucson Water and Environmental Services. Union officials also want to end furloughs for any city employee who is funded with grant money from the state or the federal government.
Top city officials had been hesitant to agree, in part because eliminating furlough for some departments and not others can raise issues of equitable treatment. The issue is particularly problematic with grant funding because employees in the same departments could be paid through different funding sources.
But the council will consider a new plan that guarantees employees paid by the general fund and Tucson Water workers will have only five furlough days. They would need to be taken between July and December. The remaining four furlough days could be waived if the economy improves and the city’s budget is in better condition at midyear.
Employees in Environmental Services and those who are funded by grants could see their furloughs end by July and have no furloughs next year, said City Finance Director Kelly Gottschalk. The city will still have to work on the employee-equity issue for grant-funded employees, she added.
For example, more than 50 police officer positions are grant-funded, but the city doesn’t want to force officers not funded by the grant to take furloughs, while treating those funded by the grant differently, Gottschalk said.
“We’ll look at grant-funded employees grant by grant,” Gottschalk said.
The unions originally had sought an increase in the furloughs in early 2010 as a way to stave off massive city layoffs at the height of the city’s budget crisis.
Michael Coiro, the executive director of AFSCME Local 449, said he’s happy about ending the furloughs in Environmental Services and grant-funded positions, as well as the possibility employees paid out of the city general fund could have their furloughs nearly halved.
But he said he won’t accept that the furloughs for Tucson Water remain. He said city leaders have been hesitant to reduce those employees’ furloughs because they don’t want water users to pay more.
Coiro said city residents turned down a request to raise the city sales tax to pay for services, so he isn’t concerned about that.
“The users denied the tax,” Coiro said. “My heart is not bleeding for the citizens. My heart is bleeding for the employees.”
The Tucson Weekly makes their picks for City of Tucson City Council. Looks like the incumbents didn’t fair to well. The Weekly passes on picking the Republicans because that would would be way too far of a stretch. We commend The Weekly and Nintzel for resisting the temptation to go against his liberal roots and through a couple Democrats under the bus.
Ward 3: Sonoran Hot Dog
Voters will choose between Democrat Karin Uhlich, Republican Ben Buehler-Garcia and Green Party candidate Mary DeCamp.
Uhlich, who is completing her first term, is big on transparency and process, but we fear that too often, those terms have been used to cover an unwillingness to make a decision.
While we agree with Uhlich on some issues, her waffling on budget issues has cost the city. She led an effort to delay a 25-cent increase in bus fares last year, only to agree to an increase this year. Over that 12 months, the city lost out on a million dollars.
Uhlich also voted to cut the costs of the Parks and Recreation Department’s leisure classes when she was first elected. Now she thinks those fees need to be increased, but won’t support doing it until next year. That’s the kind of delay the city can scarcely afford.
Uhlich’s opponent, Ben Buehler-Garcia, is a decent enough fellow who has been active in economic-development issues. But we can’t endorse someone who is supporting something as dreadful as the Public Safety First Initiative, which will screw up the city’s budget for years to come.
We feel that Green candidate Mary DeCamp’s ideas—such as creating a new currency for Tucson residents—are just too far ahead of their time for her to earn a spot on the City Council. She can do more to push those innovations in the private sector.
And so we endorse the Sonoran hot dog found at El Guero Canelo, 2480 N. Oracle Road. This feast combines the four food groups—vegetables, grains, dairy and bacon—and reflects the melting pot of cultures that is Tucson. This dog never disappoints, even if it’s not very good for us.
Ward 5: Democrat Richard Fimbres
Richard Fimbres is new to the world of city politics, but he learned the ropes of managing public budgets while on the Pima Community College governing board. He’s got a solid background in law enforcement and budget review that will serve Tucsonans well if he wins his council race. Fimbres, who hopes to replace the retiring Democrat Steve Leal, has spent more than two decades managing programs with the Pima County Jail; he’s worked in law enforcement in the military; he’s headed up the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety; and he’s even been the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce’s Man of the Year. It’s an impressive résumé, and it’s enough for us to encourage you to vote for him.
His Republican opponent, Shaun McClusky, is a political rookie who supports the Public Safety First Initiative and shows little grasp of the city budget, which disqualifies him from our endorsement.
Ward 6: Jasper the Marbled Polecat
Councilwoman Nina Trasoff has disappointed us too often for us to support her. Like Uhlich, Trasoff voted to delay an increase in bus fares and supported an irresponsible decrease in park fees that she now regrets, even though she’s not doing anything to increase them—thereby solidifying the city’s economic base—until next year. And to say that she mishandled the fiasco with the Rialto Theatre over the summer is a considerable understatement.
Republican Steve Kozachik has done admirable work developing new athletic facilities at the University of Arizona, but like Buehler-Garcia and McClusky, he’s supporting the Public Safety First Initiative, which makes him far too irresponsible for us to support. Kozachik tells us he can identify all sorts of waste in the city budget, but he doesn’t want to share that info with us. Well, we’re not buying that he has a secret plan to balance the budget.
Unable to support either candidate, the Weekly instead endorses Jasper the marbled polecat, who arrived this summer at the Reid Park Zoo. Although a new resident of Ward 6, Jasper seems so adorable that we can’t believe he’d make a bad decision at City Hall.
You’ve quietly mumbled under your breath while watching the evening news. You’ve commiserated with colleagues at lunch. You may have even taken the time to write an e-mail or call the office of one of our elected officials. A handful of you may have even showed up at a city council meeting, taken your three minutes of fame at the podium delivering a speech that would make Jimmy Stewart proud. Or maybe you rationalized that you’re too busy. That someone else will carry the load. You wrote a check to a business association or chamber of commerce so your work is done.
What have your efforts accomplished?
Try higher property taxes, increased bed taxes, taxes on tanning salons, ballooning utility costs, more regulations and red tape, a rotting city core, larger pot holes, scarier streets, more graffiti, less baseball and a whole lot more vacancies. As business people, we want to believe Tucson welcomes our entrepreneurial spirit. We tuck in each night dreaming of a community that wants us to succeed. They appreciate the hard work and risks we take. After all small business is the economic engine the politicians all love to brag about. Dream’s over – time to wake up!
Our current flock of elected officials seem to have little interest in supporting you or making your road to riches any easier. You’re in this community to be taxed, regulated and demonized. If you’ve made a business career here you’ve really done something special.
Want to know how we got here? Take a look around. How many of our local politicos have ever owned their own business? How many have built a successful career in the private sector? How many have spent their careers in nonprofit or government jobs? Most have risen from the ranks of the progressive party machines. Are there exceptions? We guess so.
Let us share the real problem the business community has in our region. Our politicians don’t get us. They don’t respect us. And they certainly don’t fear us.
Since the dawn of the democracy, when elections come around politicians count votes. Environmental lobbies, neighborhood associations, unions and university and government employees vote. When a politician’s primary goal is to get re-elected or move to a higher office, catering to the groups that walk the streets, pick up the phones and show up at rallies is perceived as essential to future success.
What are we as a business community to do? For starters, we need to identify strong pro-business candidates then truly support them. The heat will get turned up on you or your business but you must take a stand. A trite chamber of commerce endorsement isn’t going to cut it.
We must ensure that our elected officials are true friends of business. If they aren’t we must take them out of office in a strong and swift show of force. When we do win a seat, the business community needs to remind the other sitting officials that we have the power to influence an election. Once they fear us, they will respect us. Once they fear us, they will listen to us. Once they fear us, things will change.
Don’t fall back on your indifference. Don’t go back to watching “Dancing With The Stars” or “The Biggest Loser.” Sure, we can continue to wait and hope someone else will carry the load but how’s that worked out for us so far?
Wake up business community. Wake up Tucson.
Early ballots will be arriving in mailboxes Oct. 8. If you haven’t requested an early ballot, call (520) 740-4330. Any registered voter in the city of Tucson can vote for any of the six council candidates running. This is a partisan race — for now — and it’s not limited to individual ward-only voting. Inform your employees, family and friends of what is at stake in this election. Research the candidates and measure results.
Contact Joe Higgins at firstname.lastname@example.org or Chris DiSimone at email@example.com. They’re the hosts of “Wake Up Tucson,” which airs 6 a.m. – 7 a.m. weekdays on The Voice KVOI 1030-AM. Information about the show is online at WakeUpTucson.net
We thought we’d take a hard look into the economics of the proposed hotel which will be the center piece of Rio Nuevo. The mismanagement has been legendary. The focus now has turned to a flagship hotel that just doesn’t seem to pencil out. It’s going to be guaranteed by general funds so the ramifications of the decision to go forward could potentially impact all of us.
The hotel loses about $54 million in the first few years – most of this is during construction (2010 – 2012) and the first year or two of operations.
This negative cash flow is address by the following:
1) Capitalized Interest: More money is borrowed through the sale of bonds than is needed to build the hotel, about $38 million more. This cash reserve is used to fund the negative cash flow. It also saddles the hotel with higher debt service
2) Site specific taxes are used to defray the negative cash flow: Transient Rental tax (extra bed tax) 6%; City Sales Tax 2%; Convention Center Surcharge 2%. This is projected to generate about $1.5 million to $2.5 million per year. This would add 8% to the cost of a room and 2% to holding an event at the TCC. Seems to us this would make things less competitive for the hotel and TCC.
3) The projections have the city kicking in $1.1 million/year in direct cash subsidy.
5) Since the hotel is owned by a public entity, they pay no real estate taxes or other taxes.
We question if the hotel can even get $157/night and 64% occupancy in 2014? $180 and 72% in 2016?
Two important footnotes from the financial statement that need to be pointed out:
Footnote #6 (page 30)
NOTE: Footnote on Pro Forma assumes convention center and arena will be renovated and expanded by 35,000 SF of exhibit space and 20,000-30,000 SF of meeting space otherwise projections would require reassessment. (this seems really big to us – where will the money come from? I don’t know of any specific plans to renovate?)
Footnote #5 (page 30)
Assumes hotel would be union run (a sure bet with the current council) If you remember Gaylor pulled out when strong union only language was installed into the bid process. Check out the post HERE.
The actual budget projection link can be found HERE
The bond will be sold for $189,000,000 at 6.25%
Here’s our analysis of the projections through 2017:
|Fiscal year||2010||2011||2012||2013||2014||2015||2016||2017||TOTAL 2010-2017|
|Net Operating Income (NOI)||$0||$0||$0||$6,844,000||$9,928,000||$12,129,000||$12,947,000||$13,367,000||$55,215,000|
|Debt Service INTEREST||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500|
|Debt Service PRINCIPAL||$2,437,000||$2,437,000||$2,437,000|
|Debt Service TOTAL||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$11,812,500||$14,250,000||$14,250,000||$14,250,000|
It’s that time of year again, the election cycle at the City of Tucson is beginning.
Being a fan history, I stumbled upon a great synopsis of the race in 2001 when two Republicans, Dunbar and Ronstadt won seats in Ward 3 and 6. Emil Franzi a long time campaign strategist broke down the race pretty well.
What jumped out to me was how Dunbar and Ronstadt won the race on the growing east side. The east has the Republican and moderate votes needed to change the democratic strong hold on city politics. In 2005, the national Republican brand was loosing it’s shine and their wasn’t any major issues to get the faithful to the polls and two upstarts, Uhlich and Trasoff won decisive victories. Ronstadt didnt’ really have his heart in the race and Dunbar stumbled late in her race and let her emotions take over. Either way both lost 60-40.
What happened in 05′ ?
1. Munger left the control of the Republican party and Judy White was at the reigns. Enough said.
2. The Democrats got their act together. They gained substantial ground under the leadership of Paul Eckerstrom.
3. There weren’t any independent campaigns to bring out the great unwashed conservative to moderate Republican base.
4. The national Republican ‘brand’ wasn’t as strong as it was in 2000.
5. According to Emil, the NRA stayed home and many of the die hard conservatives. With 20-30% turn out the guy that gets the most of their people to the polls wins.
6. With a 3-2 voter advantage toward the Dems, cross over voting didn’t happen.
What are we looking forward to in 2009?
1. Rio Nuevo – Rio Nuevo – Rio Nuevo; It’s been a mess and with elected officals continually botching the entire process some heads should roll. Council voted recently to send TIF money to a project that the State Legislators expressly asked them not to do. If they lose the funding it’s squarely on that vote.
2. Bush is gone, things are bad, will the Obama factor make a difference come November?
3. The bureaucrats, elected officials and residents of Tucson are finally connecting the fact that a healthy business class is critical to a healthy community. They’ve neglected, ignored to down right impeded the business community for the past few years. Is the pain enough to get a voter to try a different path? You think I’m kidding? Google Tucson and Land Use Code, Sign Code, Development Services, new ad-rental-vendor- taxes, Certificate of Occupancy, Infill Zoning, Historic Districts, Neighborhood Preservation, funding of Department of Neighborhood Services (to the tune of $1 million per year), loading every citizen committee with NIMBY neighborhood activists or groups like, Chicano Por La Causa, Habitat for Humanities, Casa Maria Soup Kitchen and more.
4. Police – Crime is OUT OF CONTROL! This council is dinking around with niceties that buy voters and neglecting the basics like protecting their citizens. If your city isn’t safe, houses don’t get bought, people don’t shop and your community rots from the inside.
5. Approval ratings for this council is in the low 20′s. Bush at the time of the polling was in the low 30′s.
6. The base may be fired up. A good candidate that is on the right side of the issues will bring out the right.
7. Will the business community finally get their act together and do something?
8. The Republican party has shifted to Bob Westerman. Bob and I campaigned together. He’s got a vision and a plan and he brings executive leadership from his career at Ratheon. Having been a candidate he knows what is desperatly needed. He’s inherited a mess but he’s starting to turn the ship.
9. The Citizen will soon be gone and the Az Star is loosing ground each and every day. Alternative sources of news like this blog and others are where people ar turning for their news. Jon Justice has rose to the top of morning talk because he’s found an audience that wants and alternative.
PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 15, 2001
Tucson’s leading political piranha chomps into the city election’s real winners and losers.
Last week, the Republicans won their first multiple victory in a Tucson city election since 1969 (non-partisan recalls don’t count) because they ran better candidates, were better organized and, courtesy of independent committees, had more money. Democrats blew it because they ran inferior candidates, had no real message and got bogged down by peripheral issues of interest only to the fringe portions of their coalition.
While Republicans went out of their way to appeal to Democrats, Democratic candidates never gave a GOP voter any reason to cross over besides the tired old bitching about “special interests.” Voters know that everybody is supported by some special interests-Dems have trial lawyers and unions. The special interest must be named. They would have done no worse visibly running against the Growth Lobby instead of tap-dancing and not wanting to be called “no-growthers,” which is what they were perceived as anyway.
The Republicans were hardly invincible in a 3-2 Democratic town. Poll data taken by one group supporting Republicans Kathleen Dunbar and Fred Ronstadt had Ronstadt up 10 points against Democrat Gayle Hartmann, and Dunbar about even with Democrat Paula Aboud in the last 10 days of the campaign. Ronstadt blew part of his lead with a dippy radio spot that offended many by playing off the current national crisis–a ploy that burned most candidates of both parties other places this election. Fred’s spot made it sound almost un-American to criticize him and demanded that Hartmann quit the negative campaigning while the independent committee supporting him and Dunbar was running one hell of a negative campaign against Aboud. Many noticed that hypocrisy. Many inaccuracies flawed that negative campaign against Aboud, but that didn’t stop it from working, nor did Aboud’s consistently evasive responses.
· THE GOP
The Kumbaya BS coming from GOP leaders about how it “wasn’t really a Republican victory” is peculiar. The state GOP didn’t drop a 30 grand bundle on this one because they just wanted good government. They, and all the Republican voters they urged to the polls, wanted a Republican win. They got it, and their leaders should politely revel in it and use it as a base for party building.
· AT-HOME VOTING
Besides allowing election officials to pander to the lazy, the stupid and the uninterested, this politically correct attempt to raise voter turnout has another constituency besides the election bureaucracy–those with enough money to run a lengthened campaign. For now that will favor the GOP in most local elections, as it did this year. And someday it will increase voter fraud. Chicago voters know–they don’t let election officials hold onto their ballots any longer than necessary.
· THE NRA AND OTHER GUN GROUPS
The Dems simply couldn’t leave a politically irrelevant symbolic issue in a City Council election alone. There were several hundred real bodies at a couple of gun-rights rallies for Dunbar and Ronstadt, crowds that clearly outnumbered those being drawn by the heavily touted neighborhood groups, and those attending were all voting one way. If the GOP doesn’t want to claim this win, the NRA should. They worked their several thousand members well. Mayor Walkup should notice that it’ll be easier next time if these people are at least off his back.
· SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK
He came out early and hard for Dunbar and later for Ronstadt. The most popular Democrat in Pima County is probably the least popular in certain Democrat circles. And the net result will be that even more candidates will be kissing his butt in 2002.
· MAYOR BOB WALKUP
Probably the luckiest man in local politics. He was standing just close enough to be able to claim he had some impact upon this election. He now has two years to come up with a program that reaches beyond slogan. Fixing some potholes would be a start.
· PIMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CHAIR JOHN MUNGER
When the French attempted to determine who had won the Battle of the Marne, their commanding general, Joffre, responded, ” I don’t know who won, but I know who everyone would’ve blamed had we lost.” Despite his modesty over claiming it for the GOP, Munger was party chair for the biggest local Republican win in three decades. We’ll claim it for him.
· NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING
Hartmann did it to Ronstadt; he whined and lost votes. The independent committee did it to Aboud; she whined and lost votes. It works. Get used to it–it’s only been around since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800.
· THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION AND SIMILAR GROUPS
Everybody lives in a neighborhood–so? The leaders of these groups never noticed that the constituency of those who looked upon them as leaders was shrinking and they weren’t replacing it. Part of that occurred when they added superfluous issues ranging from gun control to sign codes and forgot about stuff like sidewalks and street lights. Part of it was natural attrition and burnout. And a big part comes from geography and growth–these groups are mainly from the static central city, which is being gradually swamped by the growing east side. Dunbar and Ronstadt only carried the two eastside wards–and that was enough.
When these groups get some new leaders and some new ideas, they could again be relevant.
· THE PIMA COUNTY INTERFAITH COUNCIL
Ronstadt told them to stuff it. He won. They used to scare the hell out of every local politician. They no longer do. They should read a little more Saul Alinksy about when to bluff.
· THE ANTI-BILLBOARD LOBBY
City Councilmember-elect Kathleen Dunbar said candidly (candor was another reason she won), “Nobody cares about billboards”. It is hardly a hot-button issue, but those frightened by “visual pollution” are disproportionately represented in Democratic circles. It resembles what the late Murray Rothbard said about neo-conservatives: “There are only 105 of them in the entire country, and 78 of those have syndicated columns.”
· THE GREEN PARTY>br< What party? They found a decent candidate in Ward 3, and then allowed themselves to be guilt-tripped out of running him after they’d raised money to qualify for matching funds. The stiff they took a dive for lost anyway. They proved conclusively they are nothing more than a front group for the left wing of the Democratic Party, which they should all quietly return to and quit pretending they have a separate agenda.
· STEVE LEAL AND JOSE IBARRA
They will now act as ineffective symbols. Ibarra should find that easy, as he once worked for Supervisor Raúl Grijalva, who’s made a whole career out of being an ineffective symbol, even when in the majority and Chairman of the Board.
· THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY
While the issue of gun control wasn’t the deciding factor, those who get the support of the NRA, FACT and BrassRoots like Dunbar and Ronstadt are hardly out of the mainstream and can be elected without fudging their pro-gun position even in a generally liberal town.
THE DEMOCRATS allowed the GOP coalition to grow beyond its natural boundaries while their own shrank. To regain the political initiative they lost in the last three local elections they will have to either expand existing elements or find some new interest groups willing to go along with the most vocal parts of their existing team. The temptation will be to do nothing and just wait for the GOP to screw up. Arrogant Democrats will assume they will. The brighter ones will start looking for some new allies.
Why is the brain trust we’ve elected to steer our city proposing a 2% rental tax (which will cost the average renter $144 per year) and simultaneously adding $2 million to the low income housing trust fund?
While we’re on the subject, why on earth would the city want to administer, staff and support the low income housing trust fund department. Especially when things are being cut and departments merged? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to provide the funding source to any of the multitude of non profits already in the low income housing business. Listen to me, efficient and government in the same paragraph.
You could make the round about argument that by controlling the fund the council can ‘buy votes’ and ensure re-election…..but that’s just too devious.
Me thinks a new bureaucracy layer is being hatched right before our eyes……who could be set to run the new director of low income housing? Any guesses? I think I know….
Arizona 8th broke the story of a potential new city manager. Thoughts?
The Star’s O’Dell put this out today – HERE
Earlier this afternoon the Tucson City Council voted to terminate City Manager Mike Hein. This was yet another clear indication of the inability of this council to work either together or in cooperation with other departments within the City governance structure. Accounts of the day’s events indicate that this decision was discussed for a mere 20 minutes in a closed door session. It is remarkable that such a critical move was given such a brief airing. If any of the council members who voted to retain Mr. Hein had any designs on demonstrating leadership, they should have not allowed the move to go forward without an extensive discussion. Evidently nobody chose to exert a position of leadership and so the vote proceded. The vote is yet another demonstration that this council lacks the capacity to look at the implications of their actions prior to simply shooting from the hip. With this move, the City of Tucson now has a Fire Chief who may have to resign in June if he cannot sell his house and move into the City limits, an interim City Finance director, no eligible candidates for the vacant Police Chief position (a situation the council put themselves into after spending over $10,000 on a search, only to declare the search void and express their intent to consider internal candidates – none of whom meets the residency requirements imposed by the council itself), and we are left with an interim City Manager who has already submitted his resignation, effective in November. All of this while we are looking at a City budget deficit estimated to be at $80 million. You cannot make this stuff up, folks.
The State Legislature has made it clear that ousting Mr. Hein would set in motion the process of removing TIF funding for Rio Nuevo. Without that funding source, there is no Rio Nuevo, which means there is no downtown revitalization any time in the foreseeable future. We are additionally left to sail this rudderless ship towards the iceberg of a budget deficit that places the fiscal integrity of the City in serious jeapardy. Tucson deserves better. Tucson needs leadership and it is clearly not getting that from any of the current council members or the mayor.
Support my candidacy – votestevek.com – and I committ that I will at the very least bring a clarion call to within the council chambers that we simply cannot continue on in this direction or the City of Tucson will continue to lose quality jobs, continue to live in a lock-down situation due to a lack of police to respond promptly, and continue to provoke the State Legislature in the direction of pulling the life blood from any hopes we may have of revitalizing our downtown. It is the responsibility of the council to provide direction to the office of the Manager. None chose to do that – all of the council is culpable for the situation we now find ourselves in.
Council Candidate Ward 6
Authors on this blog have called from Mike Hein’s head. After 3 years on the job the drum beats are sounding. With one open seat and two freshman incumbents up for re-election it’s going to be an interesting 9 months. During an election year the word ‘scapegoat’ comes to mind.
Being the City Manager with this, Overwhelming underdogs of a council must make you want to hide under the covers each morning.
The City Manager definitely has a role in each and every one of the decisions that have lead us to the complete mess we are in today. He’s culpable and part of the problem for sure. Hein is the one making $240k+ while the 7 people that collectively tell him what to do make $180k combined! He’s playing a high stakes game but the game board, rules and even the numbers on the dice change from day to day.
Finanical Down Turn
The city is falling on hard times financially and the pressure is on. A manager needs to make quick adjustments to get us through the mess. As long as those adjustments don’t affect artists, free rent arrangements to non profits, funding for working poor, Job Path, graffiti classes, Kidco, Department of a(Organize The )Neighborhoods Resources, public access TV, bus fares, or cuts to any of the 5000 plus employees that are protected by a strong union he’s got full latitude to do what’s right for the community.
What can he cut? Police, road maintenance, garbage services and emergency response staff and equipment. You know, all the fluffy stuff a city wastes their budget on.
So if you can’t cut expense you gotta raise money. You raise money in a crazy thing called taxes. Here’s some of the BUSINESS specific ‘revenue enhancements’ implemented and or being concidered;
Impact Fee (ok by not repealing it its still at tax)
Tax to keep your development plan relevant for multiple years
Water meter hook up tax
Sign Permit Tax
Building Permit Tax
Business Licence Tax
Secondary Property Tax
Increased Landfill Prices
Increased Commercial Waste Fees
Increased Roll Off Fees
The ‘revenue enhancements’ affecting the RESIDENTS of our city;
Increased Utility Tax
Water Fees Increase up to 10% (on top of 8% last year)
Proposed garbage fee increase
Read our previous post HERE
So if you’re the city manger under this council you are officially between a rock and a hard place. Hein is dealing with so many council sacred cows and pet projects it’s tough to know where to turn. Hein can’t cut or raise revenues to certain populations. Hein is forced to focus increases on the one special interest not represented on this current council, the business community.
How does government pay for all the staff, programs, arts groups, low income housing? Oh yeah collecting sales tax from businesses that are brave enough to open in the city of Tucson. Get the picture?
There Are Short Comings….
I agree on management of Rio Nuevo. It’s been botched before Hein came aboard and until the legislature demands new people overseeing the entire project it will be messed up long after he leaves. Shelko and Barr, aren’t cutting it. Installing Hecker, Lyons and allowing Trasoff’s chief of staff’s wife into management/ oversight positions is highly questionable. Emails from personal accounts to cover tracks…..not good.
MTCVB and TREO need to pull their weight and function in the light of day. Development Services needs a complete cultural shift.
Hein pissed off council staff and learned how much power they actually had. Remember THIS near axing from last year?
Where is his plan? All I’m seeing is reaction to the follies that go on around him. How about a 5 year plan? A vison on where we are going?
What’s the deal with the botched search for a new police chief? Do we blame that on Hein?
Why Is Hein Worth Keeping?
What I like about Hein is his early shake up of the Tucson city bureaucracy. In a climate where you can’t fire people all you can do is shift them around. By moving around department heads and entrenched fiefdoms Hein took control of the staff. It sets him up to either put the right people in place and let them do their job or micromanage every aspect of every department he’s responsible for.
He thinks outside the box and isn’t afraid to take a different approach to a problem.
If he does go what can we expect from the next victim. Hopefully a potential candidate for the job reads the papers and our blog to get a sense of what they are in for. Tucson could be a career killer.
From Sunday’s Star – HERE
Larsen, co-owner of Larsen Baker Commercial Realty, rocked the crowd of commercial brokers at Loews Ventana Canyon Resort Thursday by imitating Mayor Bob Walkup in a mock state of the city speech.
Here are some of Larsen’s zingers …
“Tucson’s economy has been thrown around like a drunken dwarf at a biker’s rally.”
“We’re a tightknit group in City Hall. You scratch my back, and I’ll stab yours.”
“I’ve got to hand it to that Greg Shelko(Rio Nuevo director); he is always stirring up apathy.”
Larsen also suggested Rio Nuevo’s new slogan should be “where fun goes to die.”
“I want to be known as a green mayor. No one loves this planet more than I do. I live here most of the time.”
In a telephone interview Friday, Larsen said no one should take his comments too seriously. He’s a supporter of Rio Nuevo and the mayor. He was just trying to lighten up the conference.
“It was done in fun,” he said. “I don’t mind that you want to put a couple jokes in there. I was just trying to add a little lightening to what I thought was going to be a fairly somber outlook on commercial real estate.”
He then said the comments were nothing compared with the cracks he makes about the Star.
So, Larsen served up this one: “I heard you had to sell your corporate jet. It’s difficult to sell, though, because it only has a left wing.”
For those wondering, Larsen did say he expects retail vacancies to hit 12.55 percent this year.
Economic recovery will take 2-3 years, says Diamond
Diamond of Diamond Ventures Inc. gave the keynote speech at the Certified Commercial Investment Members Southern Arizona forecast competition.
He said it will take at least two to three years for the economy to recover — and that’s just getting back to normal, not back to what he described as the “euphoria” of the housing boom.
“This one is different. It’s not just a recession. It’s just a deep, deep feeling all over the world,” he said to the group. “I don’t think it’s down at the bottom because we are all trying to figure a way out of it.”
In an interview Friday, just before he headed off for a fishing trip, Diamond said Tucson is going to learn real quick how dependent it is on real estate and development.
“What this entire community is about to realize is that real estate is the driver for Tucson,” he said. “Now that our industry is totally depressed, we, being the entire community, should rethink and realize that we have to do some very innovative things to help our real estate industry recover.”
It’s too hard to get projects done in Southern Arizona, he said, and this downturn represents an opportunity to change that. Otherwise, when the bottom shakes out, Tucson will continue to lose business to other desert cities.
Diamond has some ideas — he didn’t want to share them — that he plans to pitch to CCIM’s executive committee and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.
Meanwhile, he didn’t have kind things to say about our elected leadership, particularly the City Council.
“Perhaps in this dull period, a period where we have a little more time, we can straighten out our local politics. … We have terrible people representing us,” he said during his speech.
He didn’t back down over the phone Friday.
“You get in representation and politics what you deserve,” he said. “It doesn’t say much for us.”
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008