Remember when there was a crisis on the border? You know, all the way back in 2007 when all anyone talked about was how to stop the invading horde and expel from the country the millions of pernicious illegal immigrant freeloaders?

Few public officials, other than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state Sen. Russell Pearce, even bother to bring it up any more, or hold town halls or issue shrill campaign press releases clamoring about all of the “illegals” destroying the country.

In President Obama’s recently released federal budget proposal, funding for border security stays roughly the same, the first time in years that it hasn’t significantly increased over the previous year.

He also will reduce the number of Border Patrol agents, albeit only by 180, or about 0.8 percent. But that’s the first time since 1993 that there won’t be more Border Patrol agents than the previous year.

And no further border fencing will be erected, the first time in at least three years the miles of border fencing won’t increase.

His budget might lead one to think the border crisis is over.

Hardly.

In the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, which includes every Arizona county except Yuma, La Paz and Mohave, agents apprehended nearly 250,000 illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30. That was about half the total apprehensions made in all of the Mexican border sectors last year.

That’s a far cry from the peak of the crisis in 2006 when 1.1 million illegal immigrants were apprehended along the border, nearly 500,000 of them in Arizona.

But a quarter-million souls caught trying to get into the country through Arizona does not represent a solved problem; it’s still an enormous economic, environmental and humanitarian crisis, especially for Arizona.

The desert south of Tucson has been destroyed. Millions of pounds of trash litter the desert, most concentrated in a few dozen arroyos where immigrants hunker down to hide from the Border Patrol or wait for vehicles to smuggle them to other parts of the country.

In federal fiscal year 2008 the Bureau of Land Management picked up 184,000 pounds of trash and hauled away 70 abandoned vehicles. It barely made a dent in the amount of debris strewn across our public lands.

The BLM estimates that each entrant leaves behind about eight pounds of trash. Since 2006, more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended in the Tucson Sector. There is no way to know how many more got through, but using the conservative estimate of one getting away for every one caught, that means that in just the past three years an estimated 8 million to 16 million tons of trash has been left by immigrants to foul our desert. That’s the equivalent of driving 350 to 700 trash trucks into the desert and dumping them.

Camping, hiking or biking in the desert surrounding Tucson remains a dangerous affair as coyotes have become increasingly violent in the increasingly lucrative human-smuggling trade.

And the humanitarian toll has only worsened. Despite the recent drop in apprehensions, the number of bodies found in the desert by the Border Patrol hit a record high last year: 208.

The rotten economy, the banking crisis, the housing crisis, two wars and the health care reform political fiasco have obviously consumed the majority of Obama’s attention during his first year in office.

But that’s why we have a Congress. We hope that Arizona’s two senators and eight representatives have not turned their back on the terrible toll illegal immigration is taking on this state and that they set about amending Obama’s ill-considered border security budget.

The crisis continues. Either do more to seal the border or pass comprehensive immigration reform, or both. Doing the same or less than last year is not the answer.

A CNN blog post today, picked up by Jim Romenesko’s blog at Poynter Online, talks about Sports Illustrated considering giving readers new iPads with their subscriptions.

The CNN writer pooh-poohs the economics of it all, but he’s wrong. Newspapers and magazines must regain control of the distribution of their product. Wishing the internet would just go away is not a successful business model.

What is a successful model is embracing technology and getting out in front of the technology curve and stop reacting to what other companies are doing.

I wrote the following column in July 2007 when the iPhone came out. You can change iPhone to iPad and it’s just as relevant, if not more so today.

I love being prescient (and no, the irony of the Citizen as a newspaper being dead and instead just an online blog site is not lost on me, I just choose to skip over that so I can crow about my column from two years ago).

To survive, print media must regain control of distribution channels

by MARK B. EVANS

Published: 07.14.2007

Lost in the hype and hoopla over the iPhone the past two weeks was what the device means for newspapers.

The brilliant color screen displays full Web pages.

Underwhelmed? That’s an advance on the way Web content is displayed on competing phones such as BlackBerrys and Smartphones, with their squished text and long scrolls needed to read even the shortest stories.

Delivery of news to hand-held devices is the future for all content providers. BlackBerrys and the like were version 1.0, essentially computers built around a phone.

Apple built a phone around a Wi-Fi computer. Call it version 1.1.

With the iPhone’s vastly improved display, it’s now possible to read the Tucson Citizen’s Web site as we intended, full text, graphics, links and so forth.

In terms of readability, though, the iPhone and its 3.5-inch screen seems puny compared with the 22-by-12-inch full-color newspaper broadsheet. It’s a cool screen, but the type is still teeny-weeny and hard to read, especially for anyone born before The Beatles broke up.

But a newspaper doesn’t play video or animated graphics. It’s not connected to the Internet and doesn’t provide access to news from around the world. And it doesn’t make phone calls.

The screen may be small, but its reach is infinite. The iPhone is a great leap forward. Such devices will only get bigger, slimmer and better screens. And a bigger screen means more readable text.

Then news on paper is dead.

In Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report,” a rogue cop gets on a commuter train to avoid capture. Sitting across from him is a man reading USA TODAY.

Suddenly, the newspaper’s headline is replaced by a bright red graphic with 5-inch type declaring “BREAKING NEWS.” The red graphic is replaced by a video of the wanted cop and a new headline about the manhunt.

These future newspapers – the film is set in 2054 – are large, slim slices of plastic. They look like good ol’ newspapers.

This future is not as far away as 2054. E Ink has developed a system for text presentation on thin sheets of plastic. A black and white version can roll up like a scroll. A color sheet half as big as a newspaper page can bend without distorting the text.

The company is working on displaying photos, getting the sheets to fold or roll up (presumably to fit into pockets) and wireless Internet connections.

The USA TODAY of “Minority Report” is perhaps only a decade or so away. Call it version 3.0 (or maybe 4.0).

Newspapers always have controlled distribution. If you wanted it, we printed it and gave it to you at your front door.

But newspaper companies are surrendering that control in the digital age. Now we’re at the mercy of technology companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Dell.

A newspaper Web site is like printing one copy of the paper and then hoping intended readers find it or even have the technology needed to read it.

We must regain control of distribution to survive. Gannett, which owns the Citizen, shouldn’t just invest in E Ink (Gannett, McClatchy and Hearst news corporations are all minor investors in E Ink); we should buy it.

You want the Citizen? Buy a two-year airtime subscription, and we’ll give you the cool, portable, foldable, normally expensive big-screen device needed to read it for free.

Plus, you’ll get the wonderful World Wide Web and all that it beholds after you’ve read our paper or watched a couple of commercials. It’ll even make phone calls.

That’s a distribution model that makes sense. That’s what we’ve always done: Give people the news, not make them come find it.

The iPhone is the true beginning of readable, portable digital news. In 2054, I hope historians will look back and see the iPhone as the newspaper industry’s wakeup call and not just another nail in its coffin.

In a blog post last week, which also ran in the Arizona Daily Star today, I said the Tucson Gem & Mineral Society was unhappy with the city and the progress (or lack of it) in renovations to the Tucson Convention Center, but I got my shows wrong.

It’s the American Gem Trade Association, which has a huge wholesale show at the TCC the week before the TGMS main show at the TCC, that’s unhappy and talking about moving.

Big mistake, but it doesn’t necessarily change the premise of my argument, which is that politicians and others have been saying Tucson “could lose the gem show” if improvements aren’t made to the TCC. That leads people to think the whole shebang, all 40 some shows including the TGMS main show, might leave. And that’s just not going to happen.

But I should have correctly stated who’s unhappy. Mea Culpa.

It’s a further example at just how complicated this amalgamation of shows has become. Perhaps we should train ourselves to call it the Tucson Gem Shows, with emphasis on the plural. (Others have tried to create a name to offset “Tucson Gem Show” and demonstrate how big it is, but  “Tucson Gem, Mineral & Fossil Showcase” has never really caught on, it’s too long).

Below is the text of an e-mail I got from the MTCVB, correcting my post.

Hi Mark,

I just read your blog post on the Gem Show.  I am especially impressed with the accuracy and discussion of the number of shows in Tucson.  Unfortunately, many Tucsonans still think that the “Gem Show” is one single show at the TCC when the Gem, Fossil & Mineral Showcase is, as you’ve pointed out, 44 shows in 42 locations around the city. We at the MTCVB certainly agree with you and support the idea that Tucson must be supportive of this event in every way to make attendees feel welcome and appreciated in our city.

I do believe that there is a misunderstanding on which show organizers are voicing concerns about Tucson’s Convention Center space and downtown offerings.  You state that the TGMS show (Tucson Gem & Mineral Society show Feb 11-14) organizers are unhappy with the TCC. To our knowledge, the AGTA Gem fair, the wholesale show (Feb 2-7) owners/representatives have been most vocal about issues with the TCC.

I have personally spoken with members of the Tucson Gem & Mineral Society, the group that began the Gem Shows 52 years ago, and they have stated that they don’t plan on ever moving the TGMS show from Tucson.

The TGMS and AGTA shows are the two largest shows of the showcase and both at the Convention Center.  Perhaps this fact has caused some confusion.

I hope to help clear up any misunderstandings that may have existed about the gem shows.  Please also know that if your readers need one place to go for information on the entire showcase, they can visit www.visittcson.org/gemshow <http://www.visittcson.org/gemshow> or call our Information line at 800-638-8350.

Thank you for taking the time to make corrections and clarifications.

Kimberly Schmitz
Director of Communications & PR
Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau
100 S. Church Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701
Visit us at www.visitTucson.org <http://www.visitTucson.org>
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/KSinTucson <http://twitter.com/KSinTucson>
Find us on FB. Become a fan of Tucson Will Surprise You <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tucson-Will-Surprise-You/84160305904> .

[CORRECTED VERSION]

This weekend more than three-dozen gem shows will get underway around town. The thousands of rock, gem, mineral and fossil dealers who flock to Tucson for the first two weeks of every February comprise the largest annual gathering of such dealers in the world.

In this undated Tucson Citizen file photo, Phil Scalisi from Boston looking over the Kristalle Minerals & Gold Specimens display at the gem show inside the TCC. Phil said that he has been coming to the gem show in Tucson for the past 30 years.

Colloquially known as the Tucson Gem Show, it has been an economic boon to Tucson for more than 50 years with some analyses claiming it generates more than $100 million annually for the metropolitan area.

But for the past couple of years there has been a lot of speculation and hand wringing about the future of the gem show in Tucson. The American Gem Trade Association, which hosts one of the largest wholesale shows, is unhappy.

The AGTA has been hosting its wholesale show at the Tucson Convention Center since the early 1990s but it has outgrown the space. The AGTA and others have been promised a renovated and expanded convention center for more than a decade but improvements to TCC became embroiled in the Rio Nuevo debacle. It’s unlikely improvements to the TCC will be completed within the next five years.

Frustrated, the AGTA show organizer has suggested the show might leave Tucson for a more accommodating city and better facilities.

That suggestion has caused some local politicians to whip the community into a panicky lather in an attempt to force action on the TCC. They have claimed that the TCC must be improved now or we risk losing the gem show.

But there is no monolithic show. There are more than 40 shows spread around town. While the TGMS main show used to be the sun in which all the other satellite shows revolved, it is now just one of many and the only one that’s affected by the TCC.

It is the biggest and most important, to be sure, but it is unlikely if not improbable that if the AGTA were to leave for Phoenix or Las Vegas, or wherever, that the 40 or so other show producers and the more than 5,000 dealers they represent would pack up and follow.

What is likely is that an attempt to move the gem show as it is now composed would result in killing the expo as competing show producers and dealers bicker over where to go or even whether to go. You could end up with some shows in one or more other cities and some shows still here.

Expanding and improving the TCC is in this community’s best interest, not just to make the gem show people happy, but also to attract larger and more frequent convention business to town.

What’s more, we should be just as concerned with the happiness of the 40 or more other show producers and the quality of their venues.

So as the shows get underway this week, lets dial back the “We could lose the gem show” rhetoric and instead work together to solve our common problem without making threats that no one wants, nor probably intends to keep.

A federal bench trial got under way this week that could end up as one of the two or three most significant civil rights cases in American history.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a civil rights lawsuit that seeks to overturn California Proposition 8, is expected to last three weeks but if you want to know what’s going on from day to day you’ll have to read about it online or in a newspaper or watch or listen to a news broadcast.

You could have listened to or watched it yourself but the United States Supreme Court doesn’t want you to. It thinks live broadcasts, or even taped ones, are bad for justice. In a 5-4 ruling Wednesday, the court rejected an attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the Internet or post recordings of them there.

California voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008, establishing a state constitutional provision that marriage is between a man and a woman, which more than two dozen states have also done. Seven other states allow for gay marriage.

Consequently, there are few Americans who don’t have an interest in the outcome of this case. With that in mind, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker allowed for the proceedings to appear on the Internet in some fashion, which the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.

The suit argues that Prop. 8 violates the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law established by the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution.

It is likely that no matter Walker’s decision, the case will be eventually appealed to the Supreme Court.

And there, depending on the ruling, it will go down in history either as repugnant as Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 ruling that upheld racial segregation, or as triumphant as Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which rejected Plessy and ended racial segregation (or at least provided the legal basis for ending it). Or perhaps as destructively divisive as Roe v. Wade.

It is inconceivable that a trial of this magnitude being heard in an age of such technological wonder could be so shrouded from public view.

The case is public, to be sure. If you wanted to attend in person, you could. Of course, you’d have to travel to San Francisco and be willing to stand in line outside the courtroom for hours each morning in hopes you can be one of the few to get a seat through the court’s first-come, first-seated rules.

More than likely you’ll end up one of the hundreds left standing outside in the cold wondering what’s going on.

It needn’t be this way.

The Supreme Court’s arguments that justice will be harmed if there is a camera in a federal courtroom are specious. Conservative SCOTUS justices have long argued that lawyers, witnesses and even judges will grandstand for the camera or in some other way alter their behavior or testimony.

But cameras have been in state courts for decades and no such deleterious behavior has occurred, studies have shown.

This case is too important to keep millions of Americans from being able to see and hear for themselves history in the making.

It is ridiculous that the federal court system is stuck in the 19th century when it comes to public access. It’s time for it to join the rest of us in the 21st.

Once you extract all of Gov. Jan Brewer’s cliches, rah rahisms and life-is-tough-but-we’re-tougher malarkey, here’s what her State of the State speech she gave today really says:

This is your fault, Legislature (and you, too, Napolitano):

She says she wasn’t here the past five years when state spending nearly doubled. So it’s the Legislature’s fault that the state is in this fiscal pickle, but, by golly, if we all do what’s right, we’ll get it fixed. And it will take more than saying “the system worked,” which is obviously Brewer’s way of taking a shot at former Gov. Janet Napolitano without actually mentioning her name.

We owe it to all Arizonans who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan (and all past American wars) to solve the fiscal crisis

Um, OK.

We can’t cut our way out of this, we need a tax increase

She’s sticking to her proposal from last March, which the Legislature rejected at least three times, for a 1 percent increase to the state sales tax.

And to make sure it won’t happen again, we need a constitutional cap on state spending

Good luck with this, because it has disaster written all over it. The best way for states not to get into fiscal pickles is for Legislatures to have maximum freedom to cut spending or raise taxes as circumstances dictate. But that offends losing constituencies over the decades who have either gotten the voters to mandate spending for specific causes or to make increasing taxes nearly impossible. As a result, as our state’s economy spiraled into the toilet, the Legislature was mostly powerless to do anything about it. Creating a spending cap is a knee-jerk reaction to an economic crisis that occurs, oh, maybe every 70 years or so. A spending cap will only make it impossible for future Legislatures to meet the needs of a growing population. We need the Legislature to be nimble and flexible so that it can quickly adjust spending and taxation in economic storms, not more rigidity handicapping its responses.

If you don’t like my ideas, then come up with your own

This is her way of sticking it to Sen. NO, more commonly known as Sen. Ron Gould, who is credited (or discredited?) with being the lone holdout vote (other than all of the Democrats) last year on the tax increase and budget reform voter referral bill. Essentially, if the state continues to do nothing and the fiscal crisis gets worse, she’s laying the blame at the feet of the Legislature.

Federal health care reform will hurt Arizona

She’s making the claim that the current healthcare reform bills will cost Arizona billions it doesn’t have and urges the state’s federal congressional delegation to vote against it. In other words, Arizona can’t afford to give the poor and the uninsured health insurance, so no one else in the country should get it either. She also said she intends to join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care reform and that she’ll file it herself if Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is running against her for governor, refuses to.

Secure the border and the feds need to pay for incarcerated illegal immigrants

Nothing new here. Napolitano said the same thing two years ago.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

New businesses and industries adding jobs to the state will help solve the fiscal problem and a more diverse economy will help make Arizona more economically bullet proof. She’s creating a Jobs Cabinet (more bureaucracy when the state is cutting jobs and state workers’ pay?) to study how to create more jobs and using $10 million in stimulus funds for a jobs training program. More than a quarter million Arizonans -  257,000 – lost their jobs in the past 18 months. If all of them applied for jobs training, that $10 million would work out to about $38 per trainee. This $10 million is a drop in the bucket and is being done so that she can claim when out on the stump for governor this year that she tried to do something to help the poor jobless blighters without actually doing anything to help them. She also said she wants to make sure the F-35 training base is established at Luke Air Force Base, and related units in Tucson and Yuma. The plane won’t be fully deployed until 2014. Not sure how jobs created four years from now help us this year, but on behalf of all those who may still be living in Arizona in four years: Amen, sister.

Education is important

Who knew? She wants to let experts teach what they know without going through the rigamarole of getting a teaching degree or actually learning how to teach children and other liberalisms. She also wants better parents (don’t we all? Not sure how to make better parents but wishing for them never hurts) and to give them the right to send their children to any school of their choice, including private schools. Which is another way of saying she wants parents to be able to use public money to give their children religious educations. She thinks the state’s school labels, such as performing and under performing, are too complicated so she wants to change them to A, B, C D or F. OK, not sure how that makes bad schools better but, whatever. And finally, education in the state will get better if we tell failing kids they’re failing and hold them back until they’re able to pass to the next level (That aughta solve the drop out problem). All of these are feel-good measures that will do little or nothing to improve education in Arizona. Sounds good on the stump, though, especially when you’ve got a tough Republican primary to get through.

Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem

She wants to create a commission that will determine which government services can be privatized (how about the new jobs cabinet?) and which can be made more efficient. If we just get rid of the waste in government, everything will be fine. Haven’t state Republicans been looking for the waste in government for decades? Find any yet?

There is no such thing as free health care, poor people must be made to pay for the health care they can’t afford

She wants voters to repeal Prop. 204, which increased AHCCCS eligibility and was supposed to be paid for through a tobacco tax. But not enough smokers are doing their part to pay for it, so the rest of us are through the general fund. It’s costing the state $1 billion a year. She wants the $1 billion back. One of the reasons that AHCCCS enrollment is through the roof is because hundreds of thousands of Arizonans are out of work and qualifying for AHCCCS.

Government can’t afford to help poor people, so we need some volunteers who will

This proposal speaks for itself.

All in all, it’s perhaps the worst State of the State address I’ve ever heard. But then, I’ve only heard the past 15. Napolitano’s vanity speech last year was my all-time stinker but Jan’s clueless rambling today supplants that one.

Is it November yet?

Gov. Jan Brewer is giving her State of the State address at the state capitol.

Here’s the text of her speech:

Speaker Adams, President Burns, Honorable Senators and Representatives, Chief Justice Berch and Justices of the Supreme Court, Secretary of State Bennett, and all other constitutional officers, tribal leaders, honored guests, and my fellow Arizonans:
I’ve worked hard all my life, in many ways and places. For 27 years I’ve had the chance to serve Arizona, to help this wonderful place grow. I serve beside you, and I’m proud to serve the same master each of you serves, the people of Arizona. Like you, I know Arizonans to be a tough-minded bunch. Strong; iron-willed; and equal to every challenge.
That’s a good thing.
Because as we gather today, our still-young state is challenged as never before. Let me be abundantly clear. I know we will meet this challenge. I believe in Arizona’s future. I believe in our strength. I believe in our goodness. And, I believe in our Grace.
I believe Arizona’s Second century will far-surpass its first.
Let me be clear about something else as well: Meeting this challenge will not be easy. I know this for a fact, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my years of public service, it’s that doing the right thing — almost always means doing the hard thing.
That’s what it will come down to in the days ahead. Choosing what’s tough over what’s tempting. Choosing commitment over ignorance. Choosing government that is necessary — over government that is merely desired. Choosing the truthful over the false.
Honesty, versus lies.
Right, versus wrong.
Those are the choices Arizona faces.
The essence of the challenge laid at our feet.
What’s wrong you ask?
Wrong, is the five high-rolling years before I took office when the system was designed and operated to grow government as large as possible.
Wrong, is a state budget deficit of nearly $5 billion across 2 fiscal years.
Wrong, is a federal government whose unfunded mandates and sweetheart deals steal Arizona’s freedom and threaten to bankrupt our state.
Wrong, is arguing “the system worked” — when evidence to the contrary is everywhere and obvious.
What’s right, you ask?
Right, is telling hard truth even when it exacts a political cost.
Right, is acting not in self-interest but on behalf of others.
Right, is self-sacrifice … commitment to the greater good … valor.
Valor — like that found in a man from Litchfield Park a fellow West-sider named Thomas Rabjohn.
A 39-year-old husband to Nikki and father to their three daughters, Tom put aside his work as a Phoenix police officer last year to join his National Guard unit in deployment to Afghanistan. Officer Tom Rabjohn resumed his job as Staff- Sergeant Tom Rabjohn, team leader to the 363rd Explosives Ordinance Detection Company.
Last fall Staff-Sergeant Rabjohn and his fellow soldiers went to a combat area and successfully disabled a number of deadly explosive devices.
He was a long way from Litchfield. They carried out their perilous work with consummate skill and calm. And then before disengaging — came upon yet another device. The discovery came too late.
With his last breath on this earth, this courageous man shouted a warning to his two fellow guardsmen. He saved their lives. He gave his own.
Let’s remember Staff-Sergeant Thomas Rabjohn. Let’s remember his beautiful family. His dear wife Nikki is with us today.
Nikki — please stand and receive the thanks of a grateful people.
Let’s also remember the 153 Arizonans who gave their lives in this war against terrorism, and the many who have been injured and awarded the Purple Heart.
Let’s remember every service man and woman, every police officer and firefighter, every Arizonan and every American who has ever stood watch; every man and woman across the years who has fought and suffered and died in desperate love of the freedom we still know.
Let’s remember the very best of us, and try — in their honor — to find the best within ourselves.
And then, my friends, let’s continue our work. We certainly have a lot of work to do.
Last spring, you will recall that I offered you a five-point approach to resolving this fiscal crisis and restoring our economic vitality.
In my year on the job I have grown wiser — and time has grown shorter.
And I know times are tough.
So today, let me open these proceedings by offering you a deal — a 40% cutback…I’m going to boil my 5 points — down to 3.
First, we must make further, substantial cuts in spending. The economy has still not recovered, our revenues are still depressed and there is no avoiding this hardship.
More state jobs are going to be shed and services are going to be further curtailed or lost.
Let me be clear, in the history of this state no other Governor has cut state government more than I have.
Working with you we have reduced government spending more than $1 billion and decreased state jobs more than 10%.
But — as I have stated from the beginning, the depth of the problem is so severe that we cannot solve it through cuts alone.
The damage done to education, and public safety would be far too great. And, fiscally counter-productive.
So second, in the short run — we must raise some additional revenue. Just as with the reductions in spending, the longer we put this off, the less effective it will be in stabilizing our financial position. Over the long run I support a responsible pro-growth tax reform package that includes tax cuts.
However — we must ensure a revenue base that supports vital functions through this downturn. And we can no longer consider debt as a source of state revenue.
Third — we must make certain that the state never again spends itself into this kind of fiscal crisis. So, after we have reduced spending, shored up revenue, and, moved away from the brink of financial failure, we must enact a limitation on the future growth of government, and save more, for a rainy day.
Government must live within its means.
I did not create this situation — but I intend to resolve it — and continue telling the people the truth about it.
I understand that some in this Chamber, and some who hope to try their own hand at this job — differ with one or more of these steps.
That’s fine.
But I have a straight-forward message for you. If you have a better plan, produce it. And, soon!
As for me, I will publish my plan on Friday. And let me make one point very clear. I have great respect for everyone in this chamber, and your contributions to our state.
But there is no one here, and no one elsewhere, who has fought any longer or harder than I have for lower taxes, job growth and economic freedom in Arizona.
So, spare us the profiles in courage; it’s time for a little less profile and a little more courage. Tell us clearly how you would solve a $5 billion problem over the next 17 months. The suggestion box is wide open.
While you’re preparing your plans, do bear in mind that even with the new revenues I have proposed … the cuts to government will be deep and unprecedented.
Some people say that with revenues back to 2004 levels — we should just adopt the 2004 budget. Unfortunately, we don’t get to roll back the odometer on state government. At least, not without some help from the voters.

Since 2004, we have 140,000 new students, 11,000 new prisoners — and 475,000 new Medicaid enrollees. And all of the mandated expenses they bring. Making the best of the situation requires hard choices with tough consequences. But if we keep our priorities straight we will make it through.

My friends, there is still time.
But if we do not act decisively, we will look to the west to California and see our future — government over-grown — people over-taxed — borders over-run — employers over a barrel — and freedom … simply over.
And looking east we can see it on a far grander scale. Our federal government has reached new levels of arrogance, foolishness and disregard for the Constitution.
The biggest external threat to our budget comes from the federal government — oppressive health care mandates, job-killing environmental restrictions, and continual refusal to pay for costs associated with illegal immigration. And they’re just getting warmed up!
I met recently with members of Arizona’s federal delegation and asked them to defeat a costly expansion of federal health care mandates on our state. Already, federal mandates on health care cost nearly $ 2 billion a year. Folks, that’s money we simply don’t have.
On top of that, Washington’s alleged solution will cost Arizona another half billion dollars every year. Only in Washington can they look upon massive federal entitlement programs bleeding red ink – and propose an even bigger new entitlement program.
This is how it goes in Washington. When you begin by spreading the wealth around — you end up destroying it. The President and the Congress tell us they are going to help by reducing costs.
In reality, what they are doing is eliminating freedom for our citizens, dictating the policies they must buy for their families, and forcing our employers and the state to pick up the tab. We don’t need that kind of help.
At last count, 14 Attorneys General, Republican and Democrat are investigating this legislation for violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As you know, in the past, I successfully joined the Legislature and Superintendent Tom Horne to represent the State of Arizona against the Arizona Attorney General at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Flores case.
Today, if our Attorney General will not join this effort to defend the State of Arizona against this infringement on States rights — I will.
Until then — I have a simple message to every member of our delegation, for the good of our state — just vote “NO”.
The federal government is also failing to control our southern border and refusing to pay for its failure. As you know, I have ordered the Arizona Department of Corrections to return to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — – as soon as possible — all non-violent criminal aliens for immediate deportation as allowed under existing law.
The cost of incarcerating these criminal aliens is not Arizona’s responsibility. It is Washington’s legal and moral obligation. This is both insult and injury to Arizona taxpayers. In this process, we must ensure public safety – my highest priority as Governor. I will be working with Senator Russell Pearce and others to enhance the
existing penalties for any criminal alien who returns to our state. Enough is enough. Secure our border.
Washington also likes to pretend that Government creates jobs. But, we know better. No government ever created a dollar of wealth or a dime of capital. Only the free market can do that. Meeting our economic challenges means working with the private sector to jump-start Arizona’s economy.
As long as I am your Governor, the sign out front will always read ARIZONA IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
And the word is already getting out. Today, we celebrate significant progress in establishing our foothold in the solar industry, and in advancing our competitive position in the national and global economy.
Our goal is to land the top solar manufacturers in the world and we are well on our way.
Recently, I was proud to announce the arrival of Suntech Power Holdings. It’s the first solar company to come to Arizona because of the renewable energy tax incentive program I signed into law in June. And, hats off to Senator Barbara Leff and Representative Michele Reagan for their leadership in working with GPEC — and my Department of Commerce last session to pass this critical legislation.
Trust me. Suntech is just the beginning. I have been meeting with other large-scale manufacturers who want to come to Arizona.
Today, I want to introduce Jim Bernard. He is a Vice President of Tower Automotive, a leading auto supplier that has diversified its business into the production of solar equipment. How’s that for American creativity?
Just a few days ago, I helped secure an agreement from Tower Automotive to come to Arizona and invest more than $50 million, and create nearly 200 quality jobs.
Jobs that will put Arizonans back to work and help Arizona families get back on their feet. The components made by Jim’s company are used by another Arizona company — Stirling Energy Systems to help generate grid-quality solar electric power.
Joining us to help celebrate the co-location of their key supplier in Arizona is Jeff Collins – a Vice President at Stirling Energy Systems. Thank you, for choosing Arizona, and we welcome Tower to our great State. Jim and Jeff, please stand and be recognized.
Suntech, and Tower Automotive are strategic wins for our state, proof that we can leverage our natural assets like our plentiful sunshine and land, as well as our employee base and educational community, to attract new and better jobs Just as we see here today, material suppliers want to locate near-by such large manufacturers. That is sure to draw additional companies — and jobs — to Arizona.
While we welcome our new leaders to Arizona, we must not forget those who are already here, fighting every day to create new opportunities. Industries and small businesses who have been hit hard but who are choosing to stick it out with us. I say, “thank you.” We need to do more to un-shackle our job creators.
During the last year, I have met with hundreds of business leaders about job creation.
From these discussions, I am taking the following specific actions to make Arizona even more competitive in creating jobs.
First, I am announcing the formation of a Governor’s Jobs Cabinet. This team of key state agency directors will cut through the red tape and — the green tape — to speed job creation.
Second, I will be allocating a significant portion of remaining federal stimulus funds directly to bring new jobs to Arizona. Specifically, I am devoting $10 million in one-time federal stimulus funds for job training.
That way our employees will be ready to work for new companies choosing to locate in Arizona.
Third, under the leadership of Jerry Colangelo and Commerce Director Don Cardon … I have created the Governor’s Commerce Advisory Council. Working with other Arizona business leaders, they will transform the Department of Commerce into an engine for job creation.
Finally, I will convene a summit of leading CEOs of national and international companies in the near future to discuss job creation opportunities in Arizona. And — while I’m talking about jobs let me say we should do everything we can to see that Arizona is named a training site for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
At Luke Air Force Base; at the Air National Guard’s 162nd Fighter Wing in Tucson; and at the Marine Air Corps Station in Yuma. As a child raised on a military base –I have a special affection for those who serve in the armed forces.
Every one of Arizona’s military bases is critical to our national defense –and to our state and local economies. Let’s recognize that even with a favorable tax and regulatory climate…the jobs of the future will demand an increasingly skilled workforce. And that starts with our schools and universities. I’d like to recognize the work to-date by the regents and Presidents of our universities and community colleges…in response to my call for a new highereducation model that promotes greater access, quality and affordability.
Let me also say thank-you –to the dedicated teachers who give so much to our students. Without them, no challenge could be met –no future assured. We must never give up attracting top talent to teach our children. And as we search for that talent — let’s not limit ourselves to the traditional colleges of education.
Isn’t it astonishing that in Arizona today, Bill Gates or Craig Barrett would not be considered qualified to teach students about computer science? We must stop our gate keeping and open the doors to all qualified and skilled citizens who want to teach our children.
That said — teachers are only one part of the education equation. Engaged parents must balance educators’ contributions and play an active role in their children’s learning. No teacher can ever substitute for an involved parent. But we must give parents the ability to make the best choices for their children. Starting with where they go to school.
We lead the nation in school choice. In Arizona –a parent’s right to choose the best school must endure — whether that’s a district, private, charter or home school. We must also arm parents with the information they need to help monitor their children’s academic progress.
We will make sure they have up-to-date data that is available on-line –at any time. Sorry, kids, no more losing your report card!
We must also tell parents the truth about how their kids’ schools are doing. To that end, I’m urging the Legislature and the state Department of Education to immediately replace our school labeling system. Our current system rates schools as “excelling”, “highly performing”, “performing plus”, “performing”, “under performing” and “failing”. Who understands that?
How about this? We assign simple letter grades –”A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “F”. Our kids live by those grades every day –so should our schools.
And finally –we must have the courage to tell parents the truth when their children are not doing well. Frederick Douglas said, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free”. Sadly, too many of our children are still unable to read as they should by the end of third grade.
Yet, we continue to promote them to more advanced classes, knowing that at every step we dim the light of their promise. We must stop promoting children who cannot read by the end of third grade. And we should know well before third grade those students who are falling behind and get them the help they need.
I look forward to working with Senator John Huppenthal and Representative Rich Crandall and other members to enact these reforms.
Starting today –we must give the future back to our students. The reforms should not stop at education. Our state Government today –is not suited for Arizona’s Second Century.
So I’m implementing the following reforms to give Arizonans the state government they deserve:
First, I’m establishing the Commission on Privatization and Efficiency or “COPE”. COPE will identify state services and agencies whose functions can be eliminated, consolidated, streamlined or outsourced to achieve greater operational efficiency in meeting the needs of our citizens.
I am proud to announce today that Mark Brnovich, my Director of the Department of Gaming, and former Director of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, will serve as chairman. I will consult with President Bob Burns and Speaker Kirk Adams so they can join me in this important effort.
Second, I am also proposing reforms to our existing Medicaid program, AHCCCS — beginning with one that’s quite fundamental.
In these times voters must be asked to re-consider the Prop 204 expansion. Contrary to what voters were told, there is no such thing as free health care. Supporters assured us that it would be covered by tobacco revenue. But in reality — almost $1 billion of our General Fund deficit can be directly attributed to this enormous expansion. We must ask the voters to, roll it back.
While we agree we must provide essential services for those with no place else to turn…we must only offer those benefits necessary and ensure that we have a program free of abuse or waste. To that end, I’m instructing AHCCCS to pursue changes to require a photograph on every adult enrollee’s card so only the right person is getting the treatment.
I’m also instructing AHCCCS to explore options to reward those health care providers who help us drive down costs –while maintaining the high quality care our program is known for. We must decrease visits to high cost settings like emergency rooms — and encourage those receiving state service to take personal responsibility for their own health, as all Arizonans should. The federal government may be failing in its role, but we will continue to do better in ours.
Third, budget cuts within state government have resulted in reduced or limited funding for services for our most vulnerable — the elderly, disabled and lowincome residents. Therefore, I’m establishing Arizona Serves. With the assistance of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Arizona Serves will connect faith-based and non-profit organizations to help meet those needs.
And lastly –I will work with the Legislature to enact common-sense reforms to deter illegal immigration in our state. We are a nation of immigrants. However, we cannot tolerate those who break the law to gain the right to live in America.
My fellow Arizonans, we are living amid hard times. These are difficult days that providence has set before us. I do not shrink from them. I do not cower. And, neither should you.
The moments before us are profound and in many ways — painful. But they are filled with hope and opportunity. We are a young state. Arizona’s best days are still to come if we make the right decisions. They are what the future requires.
Around here, we deal in shades of gray. But, in our motives there can be no gray, only black and white. Those of us who hold a public trust must choose: Serve others, or serve yourself.
Make politics an end in itself, a thing for your pleasure and your ego, or make it an honest work for the good of free people. Some Arizonans look at their political leaders and see countless actors on a stage, but precious few workers in the field.
My friends let us gather in the field. Our state is still waiting for us to conduct some very difficult business. It isn’t going to be easy, but we must close ranks and get it done. When our public service is over, we will be judged less by what we achieved, than what we overcame. And we will be remembered less for what we gained, than what we gave.
So, let us do what we need to do. Let us be truth-tellers. Let us be honest with each other and worthy of the trust that we have been given. Let us commit to an Arizona revival equal to her spirit — equal to the promise of her second century, a government that is limited in scope but unrestrained in its goodness.
That is what is expected of us. And, that is exactly what we will do.
Thank you, may God bless you and your families — and may God bless Arizona.

Monday is the first day of perhaps the most important legislative session in state history.

The state’s budget has been out of balance for more than two years. The bag of one-time budget balancing tricks is empty. Mandated spending increases have mitigated or made moot billions of dollars of budget cuts and funding sweeps enacted in the last two legislative sessions.

Arizona is broke, living on credit and facing financial collapse.

It is up to the 90 people – 54 Republicans and 36 Democrats – who convene the second session of the state’s 49^th Legislature Monday to solve the state’s fiscal crisis.

It is more than likely that they will fail. They will fail because this same group had the chance to solve the problem last year and failed. And the year before that, most of these same legislators had the opportunity to prevent it and failed at that, too.

They’ve tinkered, they’ve dithered, they’ve blamed the former governor, the economy, the federal government, illegal immigrants, ideological holdouts and entrenched political partisanship. Too bad blame isn’t a solution, then everything would be fine.

In March, Jan Brewer, our accidental governor, in an address to a joint session of the Legislature, told the 90 that the state’s budgeting process was systemically broken and that the only way to fix it was the urgent passing of a tax increase and numerous budget reforms, most of which required a public vote.

One Republican senator walked on the address and the remaining members politely applauded and then did nothing.

Sure, they talked about reform and balancing the budget. They had special session after special session to try to balance the budget and pass a reform package. But they failed.

Now a year later, the same spending mandates reset. The Legislature convenes Monday facing more than $10 billion in spending requirements for fiscal year 2011, which begins July 1, and an expectation that only about $6.7 billion in revenue will be collected. And this year’s budget still has about $8 billion of spending in it even though revenue is expected to top out at about $6.4 billion.

There is no way to close either gap. The amount of protected spending equals or nearly equals the expected amount of revenue for both years.

It is up to the state’s voters to release the Legislature from the spending ties that have bound up this state. But it is up to the Legislature to put the ballot measures before them.

The Legislature has about two weeks to pass the reforms in order to get them before voters in May. That would provide more flexibility for spending cuts for next year.

And cuts are the only option left. There is no tax increase that could raise enough money to balance the books in one year.

If January turns to February and no reform package has been referred to the May ballot, the Legislature will have failed again.

The only option left to stave off fiscal calamity will come in November when voters will have the opportunity replace the failures with new legislators committed to solving problems, not blaming others for them.

At yesterday’s City Council meeting Councilman Steve Kozachik handed out a four-page memo loaded with questions about city programs, services and budget line items that he wants more information about so the council can consider whether they’re cutable (to coin a word).

While most everyone in the media and the city high mucky mucks all had copies, few in the audience had the list and the city hasn’t posted it online (at least not where I can find it).

So I got Kozachik’s office to send over an electronic copy to post for everyone to read what’s on the councilman’s mind.

Here you go:

January 6, 2010

CITY OF TUCSON

STEVE KOZACHIK

COUNCILMEMBER

Tucson stands at a crossroads.  City government faces unprecedented financial challenges while the community we serve endures severe economic distress.  Those who have entrusted us with guiding our city government expect us to do more with less and treat every dollar taken in by government as precious, while protecting the core services that make Tucson safe and livable.  We know that it is not enough to deal only with the immediate budget deficit, but we must set the stage for sustained economic growth and opportunity.

Before we tax those who can least afford to pay, or lay off employees who perform the most critical functions in city government, we should seek first to streamline government, seek recovery of the full cost of service delivery for the optional public services that we provide, and set in motion public policy that creates an environment where businesspeople and entrepreneurs can create wealth for our city on an ongoing and sustainable basis.

Today I will be presenting the Council and the City Manager with suggestions for ways that we can address the immediate budget crisis that finds us in a current-year deficit of $32 million, and then will lay out some ideas for how we can address the structural budget problems that must be fixed as we move forward on preparing the FY2011 budget.  We will have exhausted one-time fixes, and must make significant, structural changes that maintain and enhance the City’s financial strength as we move ahead through an uncertain economic environment.

I will ask the City Manager and City Attorney to return to the Council on January 12 with the answers to several questions that relate to making city government more efficient and its services more cost-effective, and I will ask the City Attorney to prepare draft ordinances for the Council to consider for adoption on January 12.

At the end of my presentation I will welcome the discussion and input of my colleagues.  We as a Council must reject the proposals to enact a renter’s tax and to lay off uniformed public safety personnel.  In addition to requesting information, as described below, that is needed to set the stage for important decisions on January 12, we must act today where we can to begin the difficult process of reducing our present deficit and building long-term prosperity.

Questions / Requests for Information from City Manager Mike Letcher, to be answered by Friday, 1/8/09:

a) Develop a means test with processes for verification of eligibility for low-income fee reductions associated with all City programs and services, including but not limited to, Transit, Environmental Services, Water, Parks and Recreation classes, housing, etc.

b) What would be the net Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and FY2011 financial impact of the following:

Unallocated budget capacity – $4.4 million (sweep remaining back to General Fund and zero it out for FY11)

Parking and shuttle service – $35,000 (eliminate it entirely)

Memberships and subscriptions – $422,000 (eliminate it entirely)

Travel – $467,000 (cut by 50%)

Training – $522,000 (cut by 50%)

Office Supplies – $1,000,810 (cut by 25%)

Downtown employment allowance $250,000 (eliminate it entirely)

Second language pay – $372,710 (eliminate it entirely)

Cell phones – $309,000 (eliminate it entirely)

(NOTE: These amounts are the result of my perusal of the budget detail sheets through all departments and are subject to adjustment of the totals.)

c) In the 2/09 report to Mayor & Council on Revenue Sources, it was indicated that City Court was going to implement a new scheduling process that would mitigate police OT for attending court. Was it implemented, and if so, what has been the savings in OT, and how have you factored that savings into your budget forecast for police premium pay?

d) Currently, the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) is receiving a subsidy from COT of greater than the City’s 33% obligation. How do we take that overage (Bed Tax receipts in particular) and apply it to General Fund (GF) for deficit mitigation, leaving the City’s subsidy to MTCVB at the 33% to which we are obligated?

e) Parks and Recreation (P & R) budget detail shows approximately $9.2 million in Miscellaneous Professional Services and Non-Permanent Salaries. Those have been described to me as being for game officials, instructors, etc., which should be considered as part of the full cost of delivering those services. What will be the new P&R activity fee schedule if we sweep those monies into the GF for deficit mitigation and add that amount back into costs for P&R activities?

f) Channel 12 now has a budget line item of $900,000. Access Tucson is considered an outside agency and receives over $750,000 from COT. What are the budgetary and operational implications of eliminating the Channel 12 subsidy, moving their operation out of the Pioneer Building and merging their operation with Access Tucson, allowing them to then jointly compete for outside agency funding?

g) Citigraphics has a line item of $264,000. What is the process for eliminating that function and contracting out those services, billable to the individual departments as they access the service?

h) In the City Manager’s (CM) proposal, court fees for Defensive Driving School and Criminal Traffic and Criminal Charges were increased. What percent of full cost recovery do the proposed increases represent, and what increases would constitute full cost recovery?

i) In the CM proposal, numerous increases in fees for Development Services have been suggested. How do these new fees compare to those charged in surrounding jurisdictions?

j) In the CM proposal, the Clerk’s office is called on to stop producing written minutes for several commissions. What other commissions and committees does the Clerk’s office currently provide this service for, and what is the savings if all of them were eliminated?

k) In the CM proposal, the Finance Department is called upon to eliminate several cashier stations. Are there alternate schedules that can be adopted to cut hours of operation and keep all outlets in operation at the same net savings as in the original CM proposal?

l) In the CM proposal, a Finance Dept. Customer Service Rep. position has been vacant due to an unpaid leave. Comment in the proposal is that this position has been partially vacant; no impact is expected from leaving it vacant for another year. If no impact is expected from the vacancy, why not eliminate the position entirely?

m) In the CM proposal, some of the work of the Finance Dept. Investment Program is to be outsourced to a money manager. If the net fiscal impact to the City is positive by doing this, why not outsource the entire program to a money manager? If the net fiscal impact to the City is negative, leave the program in-house and don’t pay the fee.

n) In the CM proposal, the Development Services Department (DSD) is to eliminate extra time wages for inspectors. Proposal indicates this will inconvenience the building community by not “being able to perform inspections outside of normal work hours”. As time is money to contractors, propose to M&C a method of flex-time scheduling for DSD inspectors so they can properly service contractors and not hold up their construction schedules.

o) In the CM proposal, the Transportation Department is saving $168,400 by not doing 1 mile of underground cable for Tucson Electric Power lines. Are there other areas where we can forego doing the underground work and save money? If so, how many miles and what are the locations?

p) In the current budget there is a $28,000,000 line-item for fleet service. Report back to M&C how we initiate the process of outsourcing that function through Requests for Qualification/Proposals or other means. Indicate operational upsides and downsides of such a proposal along with potential fiscal impact to the City, including in the consideration increased employment and sales tax revenue by using private sector suppliers.

q) What would be the financial impact of going to a work schedule of four 10-hour days for non-public safety City workers and shutting down City buildings for 1 day per week? Prepare cost/benefit analysis that includes operational impact.

r) Presently in the budget detail sheets, nearly $10,000,000 is allocated to outside consultants and Miscellaneous Professional Services. What would be the operational implications of eliminating the use of those consultants?

s) Why are we paying $188,000/year in lease payments to Rio Nuevo? The Tucson Convention Center (TCC) is being subsidized by the GF $1.3 million annually, and Rio Nuevo owes the city over $3 million. Should we not be taking lease payments from those sources?

t) Is there any GF subsidy currently going to fund golf courses? Per the 2/09 Analysis of Revenue Sources, Golf ran a $1.1 million deficit in FY08. From where were those funds paid, and from where will future Golf deficits be funded?

u) Develop an automatic fee adjustment mechanism for Council to review that ties fees for all City programs and services to MCI or a similar cost of living measure.

v) The Medical Insurance Premium Adjustments using fixed-rate increases as has been proposed by the CM yields a regressive outcome. CM to develop a graduated scale along the lines IRS uses for income taxes to flatten out and make less regressive the impact of rate increases.

w) How much would a 5% across-the-board cut to wages only from employees earning over $90,000 yield?

x) What would be the cost savings to the City if all comp cars, car allowances and take-home vehicles were eliminated?

y) What is the process and anticipated revenue from sale of advertising on City garbage trucks (per P.7 of the 09 Analysis of Potential Revenue Sources).

z) What are the savings anticipated by the 09 Revenue Sources suggestion to use Corrections detainees for maintenance of City property? The City of Douglas has realized a $1.5 million savings through such a program.

aa) What is the anticipated revenue gained from adoption of a Flood Control District Property Tax as suggested in the 09 Revenue Sources proposal?

bb) From the budget detail sheets, GExp #1884 Starr Pass Environmental Enhancements:  I have been advised by the City Attorney (CA) that this obligation is from an annexation agreement. It is for trailhead improvements, Mountain Lion research, etc. Is the City obligated for the $1.1 million annual fee for 20 years regardless of necessity? Is there a review process to ensure the funds are being spent as intended and to remit back to the City any funds no longer necessary for intended purposes?

cc) From budget detail sheets, GExp #1886 Library Fund @ $100,000: This is for Repair & Maintenance of the Main Library exterior marble veneer and maintenance of plaza brick pavers. It is to continue through the life of the lease (2056.) Is there a process in place to review use of the funds and to remit back to the City any not needed for intended purposes?

dd) What are the implications of adopting a 25% fee increase for license, kennel and adoption fees at PACC and a 25% fee increase for animal fines. Include how this can be implemented with a built-in annual 25% increase in each until full cost recovery is reached.

ee) What would be the fees associated with transit fare increases as follows:

25% on all fare categories including Economy

50% on Day Pass fares

75% on Express fares  ?

Prepare a proposal for M&C that incorporates these fee increases and stipulates all fare box receipts be used for deficit mitigation.

ff) What are the implications and revenue anticipated from Reid Park Zoo entry increases as follows:

Average daily entry of $8.50 p/person

Annual Family Pass available for $65?

gg) What would be the revenue generated from charging $150 per call for non-emergency (“aspirin calls”) for TFD emergency vehicles. How would such a program be implemented?

hh) The CM Proposal suggests we eliminate the Rio Nuevo Intern position in FY11. Why not eliminate it now and save the extra $20,000?

ii) The Tucson Convention Center is currently receiving a GF subsidy of $1.3 million. Can we not sweep that into the GF for deficit mitigation and charge TCC with operating on a more efficient cost recovery basis?

jj) Please confirm that KIDCO is in negotiations with YMCA for merging their operation with the Y and retaining approximately the same registration fees as now exist with KIDCO’s present program.

Questions /Requests for Information from City Attorney Mike Rankin for 1/8/09:

a) What system is in place to review compliance of TREO with respect to their meeting contractual obligations to show substantial progress towards meeting deliverables as defined in their contract with COT, and can COT withhold payment until such compliance has been demonstrated?

b) Please prepare language for an amended resolution 20473 (10/06) that calls for all proceeds from sale of GF properties to be allocated to GF for deficit mitigation.

c) Please instruct Real Estate Division to refrain from issuing RFPs #2981 and 3111 related to sale of properties on Toole and the Steinfield Warehouse and prepare language for our review and discussion that eliminates the requirement that bidders must conform with the requirements of the Tucson Historic Warehouse Arts District master plan.

d) The CM proposal includes a comment that the result of cutting back on court appearances by police officers will be a reduction in the number of respondents found responsible for traffic offenses. Can the City use as evidence Incident Reports taken contemporaneously with the alleged offense, and if the respondent is found innocent, appeal the case, bring in the officer involved;   if the respondent is found guilty, hold him/her responsible for all court costs?

e) Garfield Traub is currently in final design of the convention hotel. There is still pending a feasibility study related to that hotel. Rio Nuevo does not have the fiscal capacity to fund the Certificates of Participation that were issued recently to fund the $11 million in design fees. Can the City stop any further work on the final design pending our conclusion as to whether or not we are actually going forward with the hotel, hold the money not spent from that $11 million until that time, and if we are not moving ahead with the hotel, use those dollars for deficit mitigation?

f) Report back to M&C with a draft ordinance by which we can facilitate Neighborhood Associations’ purchase of liability insurance riders that would allow citizens to work on City property on a volunteer basis.

g) Prepare a draft ordinance to address fraudulent accessing of low income assistance benefits with respect to all city offered programs and services, including but not limited to housing, transit, environmental services, activity classes, water, etc.

h) The developer of The Post property on Congress St. is demonstrably in default of contractual commitments related to progress in developing the property he purchased for $100. He has failed to meet all timelines and various other deliverables listed in his contract with the City. How can M&C either take back that property and remarket it, or compel compliance of the developer with respect to the terms and conditions of the existing contract? Please confer with the Rio Nuevo attorney and report to M&C what our options are in this regard.

i) There are numerous lease agreements in place that are in violation of Administrative Directive from 10/94 which stipulates minimum lease rates for both commercial and non-profit entities. Please look into these $1 leases and advise how we can reopen those that are in violation of that Administrative Directive and renegotiate terms that comply with that City policy.

j) Currently there is a line item for Office of EEO/Police Review Board for $900,000. Is there any legal prohibition against eliminating that operating unit, transferring the EEO work to H.R. and using FMCS for police reviews as needed?

k) In advance of any cuts to graffiti abatement funding, please prepare a draft ordinance that holds parents of minors caught tagging responsible for all costs associated with remediation of the offense.

l) Because we are furthering a discussion of the budget, do we need to notice a continuation of the public hearing in order for us to vote next week?

Download the document:

Budget Deficit Reduction Memo_1-5-10

The City Council doused the fires of opposition to the proposed rental tax and police and fire layoffs earlier this afternoon but the public hearing this evening on the city budget was still full of fireworks.

Well, firecrackers, anyway.

The most interesting take away from the two dozen or so people who addressed the council tonight is the resentment non public safety employees feel toward city police and firefighters.

Cops and firefighters love to tear up and play the “We could die doing our jobs” card whenever it comes to preserving their jobs or cutting their pay. And they also play the “You could die or your house could burn down” card whenever faced with job or pay cuts and they need to rally public support to oppose them. They also have have two very powerful unions with long memories come election time.

So it takes a brave soul to take on cops and firefighters during a budget crisis.

No bravery was to be found today. The council rejected laying off public safety employees as one of the means to balance the city budget.

That means the bulk of city staff and service cuts will have to come from the 1/3 of city employees who don’t work in the police or fire departments.

Their union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was at the meeting to stand up for city staff who will face layoffs. Unfortunately for the AFSCME members, their union’s not quite as scary as the public safety unions.

Given the Hobson’s choice of having a cop show up within minutes when a prowler is outside the window, or a streets worker to show up within hours to fix the pothole in front of their house, most people, if not everyone, will pick the cop.

Sorry streets guy, it’s the unemployment line for you.

But in a society that suffers from pathological egalitarianism, that kind of employment Darwinism doesn’t sit well. Whether AFSCME can develop any political power out of the anger created by this inequality of job worth the council has sanctioned remains to be seen.

Some of the other employee resentment expressed at the meeting came from blue collar employees peeved at their white collar bosses and all the perks they get for being a boss. As Tucson eats its young during this budget morass, I’d hate to be a city department head. It’s going to be chilly around the ol’ office water cooler the next few months.

The council still has to balance this year’s budget and find about $40 million to cut from next fiscal year’s budget. That effort continues next week. Will the council continue to pit classes of employees against each other? Or will they realize we’re all in this together and make sure everyone takes an equal and fair bite out of this turd sandwich?

The show’s just getting started.