Posts Tagged ‘Rio Nuevo’

Is he serious?

 
Hucker told the council he is pleased with the progress he’s seen downtown. The progress has been the result of Democratic Council Member Nina Trasoff’s leadership and hard work and the results are increasingly evident.

Kozachik proposes a step backward into the Republican miasma, when Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar bungled Rio Nuevo’s early days. Worse, Kozachik would actively send $100 million packing to another city, like Phoenix.

“The Republican challenger doesn’t understand how to save jobs or improve the local economy,” said Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers. “He should spend less time at Tea Parties, ranting against health care for all Americans and more time studying the issues facing Tucson. Then maybe he’d realize the kind of leadership we need. He could start by watching Nina Trasoff.”

From Pima County Democratic Party press release.

Here’s another Player Report. The Player Reports are supporting stories detailing how a select few individuals or groups that know how to ‘play the game’ benefit above and beyond our standard business owners. The Players ultimately ruin the system for the rest of us. The Players thrive in our dysfunctional leaderless community. Read The Player opinion in the Inside Tucson Business.

Museum Politics: Red-headed Stepchild Tucson Museum of Art Might Leave Downtown, while Mayor’s Wife Delivers The Bacon for Tucson Children’s Museum

The way the City of Tucson has handled the Tucson Museum of Art during the “Rio Nuevo Era” is a great example of what happens when you pay undue attention to going after what you DON’T have, rather than paying enough attention to save or retain what you DO have.

Once the Rio Nuevo funds started rolling in-the first check arrived on Halloween of 2003, according to the Rio Nuevo website-it soon became apparent that the growth in retail activity at El Con and Park Place would yield two times or more what the city had projected.   Good thing, because the Rio Nuevo master plan had already expanded the original vision of the project, and it was clearly going to take much more than $60 million to realize it.

By the time the State of Arizona had granted a 12-year extension of the TIF funding to the City of Tucson in 2006, the vision and its associated costs had already spiraled out-of-control.

With Assistant City Manager Karen Thoreson at the helm, idea after expensive idea emerged:

1. The Sonoran Sea Aquarium lost its place in the plan, replaced by a much more expensive new arena.
2. The “Civic Plaza” west of the Tucson Convention Center was over-designed to the tune of several tens of millions of dollars, with a proposed 1,000-space garage underneath a grand plaza, between the arena and the TCC complex.
3. And of course, the science center had gone from a $100 million project to something like $350 million, with the concept design of a rainbow bridge that would be a quarter-mile long and 350 feet tall.

Whatever extra money was expected to come in from the extension of Rio Nuevo was surely going to be eaten up by these new projects.

The allocation to the Tucson Museum of Art both before and after the TIF extension was still $2 million.  With projections of $600 million or more from the extension, that $2 million was now just 0.33% of the TIF, compared to 3.5% of the original pool.

The Presidio Terrace Factor

New, modern, hip housing is a necessary component of a revitalized downtown; without an active population to live and thrive the entire project would be a tough sell.  By this time, Thoreson had embarked on an ambitious plan to build new housing in downtown, but the goal of 1,200 new units by 2006 that she talked the council into projecting was clearly beyond the city’s grasp. By about 1,000 units, as it turned out.

One of the sites that was identified for housing development was Lot 7, adjacent to the Tucson Water building and across Main Avenue from the Tucson Museum of Art.  Definitely a no-brainer as an attractive site for a mid-rise, upscale residential development.

This project became known as “Presidio Terrace” and it could be the topic of its own post, but it’s important here because the parking lot at the Presidio Terrace site was leased to the museum for its employees and visitors.  In order to build Presidio Terrace, the city and the developer would have to satisfy the museum’s need for parking.  During the planning for PT, it was decided that the promised $2 million Rio Nuevo contribution to TMA would be for a public parking garage underneath the housing development, with some number of spaces allocated for the museum’s use.

TMA was always adamant about maintaining parking there, but you have to wonder why that $2 million replacement of parking was all TMA would ever get out of Rio Nuevo.

Meanwhile, Other Museums Felt the Rio Nuevo Love

Why were TMA’s own ambitious plans for expansion met with a deaf ear, when the Arizona Historical Society’s new museum, the UA’s new museums, and the Tucson Children’s Museum’s new building, all got huge allocations in the revised, post-TIF extension Rio Nuevo plan?

The revised Rio Nuevo plan that unfolded in the year after the TIF extension now called for the proposed new museums, including the science center, to be located around a new “Cultural Plaza” on the west side of the Santa Cruz, north of the Convento reconstruction.

• Joining the Arizona State Museum, Arizona History Museum, and UA Science Center would be a new home for the Tucson Children’s Museum.
• In a May 22, 2007 memo to the City Council. city manager Mike Hein outlined a plan for allocating the half-billion or so in projected Rio Nuevo funds, and, in addition to $130 million for the science center and Arizona State Museum, it had $60 million for “Other Museums”, which included $10 million for a new Tucson Children’s Museum building.

Co-locating the Children’s Museum on a museum campus certainly has the potential to create synergies, particularly with the science center.  However, the original allocation of funds for the Children’s Museum from Rio Nuevo was intended to renovate the museum in its Carnegie Library location, not to relocate it out of downtown to a new building.

How did the Children’s Museum get added to the plan, and get promised a hefty allocation of TIF money?  Could Mayor Walkup’s wife Beth’s long-time involvement with the TCM have played a role?

Tucson Museum of Art - Rio Nuevo’s Red Headed Step-Child

City officials and their emissaries have reportedly told museum staff that:

• There is another available parcel of land near the Cultural Plaza that could be held for the TMA, but TMA would have to pay all the costs of a new building there itself.
• If the museum leaves for a better arrangement in Marana, Oro Valley, or the Foothills, “we’ll just get someone else in there” (in the TMA’s existing building). (Who, exactly? The fledgling Museum of Contemporary Art?)

Council Member Nina Trasoff, whose Ward 6 does not include the museum and Historic Block, but whose council subcommittee oversees arts, culture, and history in addition to Rio Nuevo and downtown, has done little to combat the perception that she’s not a fan of the museum, or of the western art that it exhibits (along with many other genres).   Cowboy art is not everyone’s bag, but in a place like Tucson, it obviously has to be part of the mix.

Pima County obviously doesn’t care much for the museum or its growth, or at least for its vision of expanding TMA into an iconic downtown landmark owned by the county.  When the museum revived a decades-old vision of using portions of the Old Pima County Courthouse for additional exhibit space, Chuck and the Chuckettes underwhelmed TMA board and staff with their response.

The City pays the museum something like $80,000 a year to maintain the historic properties on the museum campus, the “Historic Block”.  This likely does not cover the costs of maintaining the Casa Cordova, the Romero House, the J. Knox Corbett House, and the rest.  This is hardly a grand gesture of support.

Sometime in 2007, it apparently dawned on the Tucson Museum of Art that it really wasn’t part of anyone’s plan for downtown.  The Presidio Terrace deal had fallen apart;  the expansion to the courthouse wasn’t going to happen; and Rio Nuevo had increased its funding for all of the other museums, while allocating nothing for TMA. Without feeling the love, TMA went looking for greener pastures.

So when developer Mike Hansen came a-courtin’, TMA listened.  Hansen dangled the prospect of several acres of prime Foothills real estate near La Encantada for a new TMA campus.  Later, there were overtures, or rumors of overtures, from Oro Valley and Marana.

The Tucson Museum of Art is one project that won’t lose much if Rio Nuevo falls apart-it wasn’t getting much anyway.  Still, with the air let out of the Rio Nuevo bubble, it’s hard to imagine that those overtures from Tucson’s neighbors to the north are going to do anything but gain strength and momentum, bad economy or not.

‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’

If Rio Nuevo’s bubble does, in fact, collapse, there won’t be new museums on the west side of the downtown area.  But you can’t really lose what you never had.  If Tucson Museum of Art leaves downtown of its own accord, because another Pima County town wanted it more than Tucson wanted it, downtown WOULD lose something that it already had.

Does it even need to be said what a pitiful shame that would be? Is Tucson prepared to lose the TMA, just like it is losing Triple A baseball, spring training, Rio Nuevo, and god forbid, the Gem Shows?  At some point, you have to stop the bleeding and decide what is important to protect.

Maybe the Tucson Museum of Art just needs some better-connected board members - that might be one way to get things going.

The City is proposing to borrow almost $200 million to build a Convention Center Hotel.  Let me show you the $130 million subsidy from the general fund that is needed to build the hotel.

Private investors

The City has been asking private investors for years to consider building a convention center hotel.  Private investors have said NO!  Their message is that the hotel does not make financial sense. (1)

That doesn’t work - so now what?

Public-owned hotel

If the hotel is owned by the Rio Nuevo, the hotel won’t have to pay property taxes and many other taxes.  Plus, Rio Nuevo can borrow money at lower rates than private business because they can issue tax-exempt bonds; this is very helpful because we have to borrow almost $200 million to build the hotel.  This should make the hotel profitable…but NO, the hotel would not be able to make the debt service payments of $16 million/year. (2)

That doesn’t work - so now what?

Special site-specific taxes

How can we make the debt service payments?  Here’s an idea, let’s impose a bunch of special taxes if you stay at the hotel or hold an event at the convention center.  Over the life of the bonds, these taxes will be over $100 million.  This money could go to the general fund to help pay for core services.  Instead, the money is needed to pay for debt service.  You would think that a $100 million subsidy, no property taxes, and lower interest rates would be work… but NO, the debt service coverage is still not sufficient. (3) (4)

That doesn’t work - so now what?

Direct cash subsidy from the City

 What if we have the City make a direct cash subsidy of $1.1 million/year for the life of the bonds?  This will provide over $30 million.  So now we have over $130 million of cash subsidies and you would think we should be able to finance the hotel…but NO!  (5) 

That doesn’t work - so now what?

City guarantee

What if the City of Tucson (i.e. Taxpayers) guarantees the loan if the hotel turns out to be a bust?  This has to work because the city is in such great financial shape that investors should be chomping at the bit to loan $200 million for the hotel.  Well guess what…we now learn that investors still are not interested. (6)

That doesn’t work - so now what?

Hoping and praying

Several City officials have stated that the new plan is to:  Let’s wait until next spring and hope investors change their mind. 

No property taxes, lower interest rates, $130 million subsidy, City guarantee - at some point you have to come to the conclusion that the hotel is not a good idea.  Let me ask you: is owning a hotel a ‘core service’ for the City?

Footnotes:

(1)    Page 45:  “…the Public/Private model is not available…”

(2)   Page 45:  “…bonds secured solely by project revenues cannot be issues…”  Pages 57-61 show debt service of $11.5 to $16.2 million/year.

(3)   Page 45:  “…even if project revenues are used, there would be a financing gap… site-specific transient rental tax (6%), site-specific city sales tax (2%), new convention center surcharge (2%)…” 

(4)   Page 58:  $3.12 million in 2019;  $3.72 million in 2025

(5)   Page 45:  “…to create an acceptable risk profile…, it is recommended that additional revenue be pledged…”

(6)   Page 45: “…government credit support is required…”

 Read the report HERE.

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.

4) The City needs to provide their credit support because Rio Nuevo has no money left and the TIF is already pledged to pay the other bond issue. More background HERE HERE HERE - HERE -

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:

Tucson’s new quality of life: murder, burglary, violent crime

Published on Friday, July 10, 2009

Roger Yohem

Think about it: The Tucson City Council’s inability to make tough decisions on big issues actually results in better solutions — by someone else. 

Take Rio Nuevo downtown redevelopment. Slow action by the city forced state lawmakers to come up with new controls over the city. It was part of the budget package that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed but legislators are still hopeful of getting something approved. But the bottom line, is that after all these years, downtown may finally get its much-needed convention hotel.  More HERE.

Our fellow blogger over at Blog For Arizona took aim at the Republican legislators for using end around to take control of Rio Nuevo from the City of Tucson and to institute non-partisan elections. Safier even goes as far as to rally the democrats in Southern Arizona over these issues in the 2010 elections;

Target every Republican who votes to allow Maricopa to dictate to Southern Arizona about local matters. Let them defend turning us into a colony of our imperial Maricopa overlords, or a wholly owned subsidiary of Maricopa, Inc.

News flash, Maricopa doesn’t care. We aren’t taken serious. We are tolerated and thrown a bone once in a while to keep us happy. Just like cousin Eddy from Vacation. We show up, drink all the beer, empty the sewer tanks on the RV and act like we own the place.

How about taking aim at the complete incompetence surrounding Rio Nuevo from the ruling city council (all Democrats - I did say ALL because we aren’t claiming the Mayor anymore). The miss steps, inside deals, starts and stops and choice in people to run the various programs are absolutely, unequivocally a direct sign of TERRIBLE leadership. Blame Maricopa, blame Republicans, blame their mothers for not cuddling them enough but don’t ever take personal responsibility.

As for non-partisan elections; Tucson has been Democratically controlled for decades - take a look around……how’s that working out for us? Take the politics out of the equation (we all know it’s not possible but maybe, just maybe this is a step in the positive direction) and focus on the basics of local government.

Thanks for doing what you do Blog For Arizona. The different views are always appreciated.

Rio Nuevo - Convention Center Hotel

Capital Plan 

I have reviewed the Capital Plan options as prepared by Garfield Traub (April 2009).  Here are the major points.

Four options are reviewed and 2 are immediately dismissed as not feasible at this point in time. 

It is important to note that Garfield Traub indicates that private investors are not interested at this point in time.

Here is a review of the 2 most likely financing options:

The hotel would be owned by a “Public Entity”; for all practical purposes the owner would be the City of Tucson.

The City would be required to contribute $17.7 million; $12.7 million cash would be needed during the design phase (June ‘09 - Dec ‘09 according to Development Schedule) with $5 million from sales tax, building permits and impact fees.

“Substantial City financial participation” would be required. This would include:

1)      Site specific transient rental tax (6%) + site specific city sales tax (2%) + a new convention center surcharge (2%)

2)      Additional pledged revenue: $1 to $4.5 million/year

3)      Credit support from City

 The City of Tucson would sell $189 million of Certificate of Participation (COP) bonds backed by the credit profile of the City.  Under different scenarios the City might need to make annual contributions to ensure there are sufficient funds to pay debt service: this could be zero or it could be $1 million or more if the projections end up being optimistic.

The financial projections are based on various assumptions that could turn out to be optimistic or pessimistic.  Also, please realize that the negative cash flows are quite large during the first few years.  It costs $200 million to build and loses money for several years before it breaks even.

Potential benefits to City:

City receives net profits when hotel begins to produce profits

City may realize residual value of hotel

Ancillary benefits of visitors on lodging, retail, entertainment…

My analysis:

I want to be optimistic where possible as the rebirth of downtown would enhance my family’s quality of life and indirectly enhance the business interest of my family.  However, the financial hurdles are many and high.  To build the hotel, the City needs to invest $12 million cash in the next few months, commit to fill any cash flow gap for several years, and sell almost $200 million of bonds in the next 7 months.

This is on top of many existing cash flow needs: balance the ‘structurally imbalanced budget’ (Standard and Poor’s); AND build the unreserved general fund balance by an additional $20 - $50 million ‘promptly’ or face a downgrade from Fitch and Moody’s.

The financial feasibility of the hotel is very sensitive to Tucson’s credit rating.  If the rating were to deteriorate, the annual cash contribution from the City increases.  In fact, the financial scenarios from Garfield Traub are based on Tucson’s credit rating before the recent downgrade from Standard and Poor’s (dated 5/18/2009).

The City’s ‘debt burden’ is already higher than other cities with the current credit rating (Moody’s).  Issuing another $200 million of new bonds would seem to aggravate this factor.

It is possible that the City could accomplish all this.  However, it would require rather significant spending cuts &/or revenue increases - significantly larger than currently being considered.

Please note that this is an analysis of the options presented by Garfield Traub.  There may be other options not discussed.  The figures presented by Garfield Traub are assumed to be accurate. 

Capital Plan begins on page 45:

http://www.tucsonaz.gov/rionuevo/docs/HotelReport_final_4.17.09.pdf

Garfield Traub Proposal Not In Tucson’s Best Interest

In another apparent attempt to show the Legislature in Phoenix that there is some positive movement in Rio Nuevo, the Tucson City Council has voted to approve the development agreement presented by Garfield Traub.  The Counsel has a history of taking precipitous steps which unnecessarily cost taxpayers money. The bond sale last year that took an extra $18 million in interest debt from citizens’ pocketbooks is a prime example. Now they have voted to guarantee a $240 million debt without a final guaranteed maximum price (GMP) or a funding model that will be in effect once that GMP has been determined. Fiscal prudence, especially while wrestling with a significant budget shortfall, would indicate the wisdom in deferring this decision until Garfield Traub was in a position to better identify the true cost of the project, identify a specific funding model and allow the City to assess whether gambling on the proposal with taxpayer guaranteed debt made sense.

In April 2007 the City Council received completed studies and endorsed a redevelopment plan as a new energy for a new place. Greg Shelko (downtown development director) described the committment. “The mayor and council have bought into building these buildings (the arena, hotel and TCC expansion). The issue now is not revisiting the projects, but how to finance them.” (May 2008)

That plan involved a process that included prestigious consultants, local business input and neighborhood involvement.  It clearly laid out a concrete vision and method to achieve the “Big Three” - hotel, arena and convention center.   Years (and millions of taxpayer dollars) later that plan has been pushed aside in favor of a new idea.   No new energy and no new place.

What makes this vote even more curious is that it is taken while there is a “shovel ready” project sitting, ready to go, that would put the taxpayers at no financial risk. That is the remodeling of the Hotel Arizona.  It is anticipated that that project would be profitable to the City nearly immediately, would not force the City to guarantee long term debt on behalf of the taxpayers, would provide remodeled rooms under a major hotel name brand at approximately 1/2 the room rate the Garfield Traub project is requiring, and would have those rooms remodeled in time for next spring’s Gem & Mineral show.

The Garfield Traub proposal admits to the need for “additional revenues” in order to make their own projected debt service (the comfort of a 1 1/2x debt service level of support). Those additional revenues will come from a 6% transient tax and a 2% surcharge on guests at the Sheraton. That money would otherwise be available to the City to fund core priorities such as public safety, road maintenance and transit needs. In a time of tight fiscal constraints, giving away general fund money on a real estate deal that is based on uncertain final costs is unsound financial management. This proposal may make sense in the future but with current market conditions it is doomed to failure.

Unlike the plan presented three years ago, the Council is now relying on quick, one-shot successes. To revitalize downtown the leadership of Tucson needs the entire downtown region needs to be viewed in a holistic plan going forward. We sit atop ancient water and sewer lines. We have no plan upon which to base the eventual capacity requirements. We have no plan upon which to determine where and to what extent we will need power, telephone service, fiber optic, water, sewer - where will there exist aesthetic water elements that will call upon more capacity, where will we build the wide, well-lit walkways with drought resistant foliage to provide shade and to support artisans, and families who will visit such a well thought out entertainment district? Will we install the modern street car tracks on top of our present infrastructure and later be required to tear out those tracks in order to upgrade the systems now in place?

If presented with such an holistic plan, the Legislature in Phoenix would see that the City is finally moving forward with a plan, phased appropriately, has taken the mid-stream step of remodeling a moderately sized hotel to anchor further business development in the downtown area, and on that basis provide sales tax revenue to fund the cultural elements of Rio Nuevo going forward.

It is not too late to rebuild downtown Tucson.  Now more than ever Tucson needs Leadership.  The Council vote to embrace a risky, poorly-financed hotel deal is a step in the wrong direction.

Steve Kozachik, Ward 6 City Council candidate.

Op-Eds are published in their entirety here on Tucson Choices at the request of the author.

Candidates (from both parties), elected officials and news makers:

 If you have an op-ed that you may find of interest to our readers email them over.

Don’t Rock the Leaking Boat

By Donovan Durband

Two days after State Representative Frank Antenori warned the Rio Nuevo District Board not to rock Rio Nuevo’s boat by obligating Rio Nuevo or its TIF revenue stream to any contracts or projects prior to the Legislature’s passage of the State budget—which would include an amendment pertaining to the disposition of Rio Nuevo—an article in the Arizona Daily Star demonstrated the precariousness of Rio Nuevo’s position in the State Legislature.

The Star article told of a proposal in the House Appropriations Committee to redraw the TIF district’s boundaries to exclude the area containing its two cash cows—Park Place Mall and El Con “Mall”.  The proposal was roundly criticized by Southern Arizona legislators from both parties and from both houses of the Legislature.

Rep. Antenori vowed that the proposal was an error that would be fixed with an amendment to be offered by Senator Jonathan Paton of Tucson.  It would need to be fixed if there is any chance to capture substantial revenues to repay the bonds that Rio Nuevo has already sold or to build the infrastructure that is needed in Downtown or, more remotely, to build the museums and cultural facilities that were part of the 1999 Rio Nuevo ballot measure, the Master Plan adopted in 2001, and a Funding Allocation Guide approved by Mayor and Council in May 2007.

The Appropriations Committee scare amply demonstrates the wisdom of following Antenori’s advice to sit tight, be quiet, and do nothing that would provoke the rest of the Legislature—whose extreme disappointment with Rio Nuevo is now well-documented—into killing the whole thing.  Antenori, Paton, and Tucson-area members of both parties in the Legislature are trying to fend off those from other parts of the state that would just sacrifice the TIF (except for the future revenues needed to repay the December 2008 bonds) to the State’s ginormous budget deficit.

I was involved in the effort to secure the extension of the TIF in 2006, and I saw first-hand what a hard sell it was.  The district boundaries were a sore point then, and they continue to be today.  The Legislature did not trust Tucson city government to make the project happen then, and trusts it even less today.  Justified or not, that’s the way it is.

After the TIF extension was signed into law, I proposed that the TIF be prioritized to leverage private commercial investment through expenditures on infrastructure, so that we could grow our TIF in downtown, creating much more funding than just what the malls produce, so that we could build ALL of the projects that were in the master plan. 

Our Tucson Downtown Alliance board approved the proposal unanimously, and it was met by nods of agreement among the business community, other organizations, and members of the newspapers’ editorial boards.  The idea was not to pit one project against another, but do them in such a sequence as to make it possible to do all of the projects eventually.

While some good things are definitely happening in Downtown, and have been for years, very little of the progress to-date is directly attributable to wise investments of the TIF itself, so it is not surprising that the State would be questioning the efficacy of this investment in State sales tax dollars.  Millions have been spent teeing up projects on the West Side that were halted by the city manager in 2008.  Only the renovation of the Fox and Rialto Theatres, the construction of the TCC box office, the Presidio Heritage Park, Avenida del Convento, and a roundabout outside the TIF district boundaries on Grande Avenue are completed TIF-funded projects.  Soon the Depot Plaza garage will join that list.  See for yourself at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/rionuevo/.

I hope that by the time this magazine is printed, the Legislature has passed a budget with a Rio Nuevo amendment that leaves the TIF funding stream fully intact through its sunset date in 2025.  Almost certainly, though, for that to have happened, the Legislature didn’t get spooked again by news of Tucson leaders trying to redirect control of the project or to redirect funding to anything but a convention complex.  We have to stop denying that there have been problems, take our medicine, and hope for the best.

And, equally certain is the likelihood that the amendment required the creation of a new oversight board for the TIF that answers not to the City of Tucson, but to the State of Arizona.  Hopefully, this board will be made up entirely of Tucsonans who will demand transparency and accountability, who understand how to invest the funding strategically, and who want the best for Downtown.

Op-Eds are published in their entirety here on Tucson Choices at the request of the author.

Candidates (from both parties), elected officials and news makers:

 If you have an op-ed that you may find of interest to our readers email them over.