Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kozachik is not only a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is guy, he’s also apparently very frugal.

Each City Council member receives the same amount of money to run his or her ward office, and sometimes they have money left over at the end of the fiscal year. This year Kozachik has an extra $75,000 from his own budget, and he proposed a plan to spend the $75,000 to fill potholes in Ward 6. (Yippee!)

According to an interview on the John C. Scott Show, on Thursday, Kozachik said that for the last three fiscal years the City Council has not budgeted any funds to fix potholes on Tucson’s residential streets. Furthermore, Kozachik said that whenever he goes to neighborhood meetings the subjects most discussed are potholes and graffiti. (True that. Ward 6 is littered with potholes, graffiti, and junk furniture left on the curbs by lazy landlords.)

Unfortunately for those of us who reside in Ward 6, Kozachik’s plan was squelched by the other City Council members at Tuesday’s meeting. His proposal to use his extra money to fill potholes on residential streets in his Ward 6 was removed from the consent agenda by Councilwoman Karin Ulich and put up for a vote by the full council.

By a vote of 5-2, Ward 6 lost. Only Councilman Paul Cunningham voted with Kozachik and the residents of Ward 6.

What is ironic about this vote is that both Ulich and Councilwoman Regina Romero (who voted against Kozachik) have used leftover monies from their ward offices to fund projects in their wards.

Hey, Karin and Regina, Ward 6 has a pothole problem, and our Councilman has a solution. It isn’t fair to play politics when a fellow council member is trying to serve his constituents.

There are dozens of large, dangerous potholes in my neighborhood—only one of many midtown neighborhoods in Ward 6. Bicycle-riding and dog-walking are common activities. Now that temperatures are rising, many are traveling the streets at dusk or after dark. This is a dangerous situation that could have been corrected.

Cluttered with so many signs that you can hardly see the street, Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in American by Life Magazine in 1970.

Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. In the 1980s, Tucsonans passed landmark sign code legislation that has gradually whittled away billboards and reduced the number and scale of signs.

Tucson Sign Code works to beautify our city, and that is why it is under attack by the sign industry and local businesses. The question is: Will the Tucson City Council have the backbone to protect it? Judging by recent “business friendly” rulings by the City Council that have weakened the Sign Code, don’t hold your breath. (In December 2010, they voted unanimously to allow more signs and larger signs along Tucson’s scenic corridors. In March 2011, they voted to allow the Jewish Community Center to erect a billboard on the side of their building, which is in Tucson’s scenic corridor.)

The latest Sign Code battle is being fought on two fronts. Business interests are pressuring the City Council to eliminate the Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), the citizens’ review board that hears appeals when businesses want a variance to the sign code, and to pass a historic sign amendment to the Sign Code, which goes far beyond saying the funky neon signs along Miracle Mile.

Businesses are attacking the SCAAB because the SCAAB doesn’t roll over and do everything they want. From Sign Code activist Mark Mayer…

A proposal is now pending before Mayor and Council to eliminate the SCAAB and assign its functions to the Board of Adjustment.  This proposal, which is stealthily labeled “Improvement in Sign Code Administration”, is part of the City Manager’s Strategic Work Plan that you will be asked to vote on July 6.   The proposal is the apparent result of the repeated sign industry failures to stack SCAAB with its members and allies and it is now setting its sights on the Board of Adjustment as an alternative forum (with “recommended” appointments to undoubtedly follow).  Any claims that this move is due to budgetary issues ring hollow, as there are no proposals to eliminate the larger, more expensive, and sign industry-dominated Citizen Sign Code Committee (CSCC) and assign its functions to the Planning Commission.  The SCAAB proposal needs to be rejected, at least until such time sign regulations are appropriately incorporated into the Land Use Code and the CSCC issues noted above are fully addressed.

The proposed historic sign change sounds good on the surface, but it goes too far. Again, from Mayer…

An ordinance to ostensibly protect historic signs is now before the City Council in Study Session on June 14 [that's today!] and in public hearing on June 28. The draft ordinance has mushroomed well beyond what was originally conceived and would now open the door to the largest and tallest of signs being relocated or resurrected on properties where they never existed before and without any notification to surrounding property owners, without any public hearing, and without a legislative decision being made by Mayor and Council. Instead, the decision would be made by a single administrative official, which, if not without statutory authority, is certainly bad public policy. It is no wonder that the sign industry and its proxy, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, are heartily supporting this ordinance. The Mayor and Council need to narrow the scope of the ordinance down to its original focus, which was to determine the relatively limited number of older signs that are widely embraced by the community for their historic value and focus on their preservation. [Emphasis added. ]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. If the Mayor and Council truly want to be business friendly, they should keep the SCAAB and ask that the focus of the historic sign amendment be narrowed to its original intent.

Tell the City Council what you think. Here’s a link to their contact information, or better yet, come to the meetings and speak in favor of keeping Tucson off the worst-dressed list.

In a recent e-mail blast, Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kozachik released a long and varied list of projects that the City Council will be contemplating and potentially voting upon in the coming months. The list is below. In addition, rumor has it that the City Council is considering scrapping or at least knee-capping the Sign Code. If you hate billboards as much as I do, go tell the City Council that you want to see the mountains and sunsets– not the Clear Channel advertising!

There is a City Council Meeting today– May 24, 2011. As always, the meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. and include a call to audience, when you and everyone else can voice their opinions.

In last week’s newsletter I promised to share with you the Strategic Work Plan items that the city is contemplating. These are projects with varying levels of urgency and funding. We will be discussing them over the next several weeks. I’m interested in your thoughts about the items on the list.

1. City/County Courthouse – build a new courthouse to house both City and County operations
2. Expand City Court self-serve kiosks program – to allow remote filing of court documents
3. Graffiti Reduction Pilot Program – has already begun in the downtown area with purpose of identifying taggers and bringing charges
4. Implement PCWIN Project – interconnected communications system for and in between public safety agencies
5. Wireless data communication for Public Safety – new proprietary data communications system
6. Replace Public Safety computer aided dispatch – relates to 911 call center.The intent is to streamline that operation
7. Partner with UA for downtown development – has already begun with Roy Place Building and more plans are being developed
8. Downtown Civic Events coordinator – comprehensive plan for coordinating the planning and staging of community events
9. Management of downtown performing arts centers – consider options for how to manage and co-promote performing arts venues
10. Downtown links overlay zone – optional overlay for zoning of properties located within the downtown links urban overlay district
11. Create downtown entertainment district – meant to designate an Entertainment District primarily to ease restrictions on sale of alcohol
12. Ronstadt Transit Center redesign – consider adding retail/mixed use to the southern border of the RTC
13. Create plan for City owned facilities and land downtown – to create both short and long term returns to the General Fund, HURF and CDBG programs to the community.
14. Westside projects / Mission Garden – seek out funding and continue in conceptual design on the properties.
15. Implement new Clean Renewable Energy Bonds – full debt service is dependent on approval from the Rio Board.
16. Aerospace and Defense corridor – continue working with TREO to create cluster development in this sector.
17. Implement energy efficiency and conservation block grants.
18. Revise Small Business Enterprise programs – create program for giving incentives to local businesses bidding on City work
19. 2012 Bond Election – earmarked at this time to fund projects in police, fire and other core services.
20. Procurement Card program – expand use of PCards in operating departments to save City processing costs and receive rebates for their use
21. Identify economic incentive package for attracting businesses – identify appropriate incentives the City can offer prospects
22. Expenditure limitation – create a permanent expenditure cap, a level beyond our projection capabilities that is fixed, unless changed by a simple majority from the council.
23. Marketing, communication web strategy – put out through social media some positive news stories and other City news worthy items.
24. Extend public pensions TSRS end of service plan – provide an incentive for people to retire if they have met certain criteria.
25. Retiree wellness program – offered to retirees as an option within their health plan coverage
26. Develop Health Insurance RFP – put out on the street provision of health insurance to all City employees
27. Consolidation of Boards, Committees and Commissions – streamline BCC process in order to save volunteers’ time and hopefully expand volunteer pool.
28. Community services dialogues – hear Budget 101 from staff and offer input
29. ERP I.T. Technology – upgrade the software being used by the City and enhance the communication processes.
30. Comply with recent State mandates relating to maintenance of financial data – keeping records per State statute
31. Deferred maintenance plan – put together a comprehensive deferred maintenance plan and begin to perform work under the plan to protect taxpayer assets
32. Comply with recent State and Federal mandates regarding technology and personal data – identity theft protection measures
33. P4 program – allows virtual meeting option through upgrade to City communications system
34. 792-CITY – citizen virtual information center
35. Update building code – more user friendly code system
36. Environmental Services and Tucson Water greenhouse gas inventories – conduct greenhouse gas inventories in ES and TW
37. Plan Tucson – General plan for Tucson, as per State mandate
38. Greater Southlands habitat conservation plan – plan to protect habitat and provide for responsible growth in undeveloped lands south and east of Tucson
39. Modern Streetcar – design has begun and work on the tracks will begin soon
40. City/County water-wastewater study – program to set goals and recommendations related to water supply, integrate planning, demand management and respect for the environment
41. Seawater Foundation – provide alternatives to use of CAP water in Yuma region – crops grown in seawater freeing up CAP for jurisdictions.
42. Complete Land Use Code parking amendments
43. Continue to amend Land Use Code – should have Clarion Study done this year.
44. Sustainable Land Use Code amendments – should have additions to LUC in the area of sustainability later this year
45. Zoning along streetcar route to facilitate development – mixed use, residential, and commercial
46. Houghton Road - change from Scenic Corridor to a Gateway Corridor
47. Expand Houghton Road Area master plan to include areas southeast on State Land
48. Parks and Recreation 10 year growth plan
49. Planning for future events at Hi Corbett field
50. Clean City initiative – multi-departmental program to address pot-holes, graffiti, landscaping, etc.
51. Barrio Viejo drainage project – determine funding sources for this project that was placed on hold when Rio Nuevo pulled funding.
52. West University ”transition area” plan amendment – land use code alterations
53. Transit Fare shift to use of Smart Cards
54. Five year financing plan for Sun Tran/Transit
55. Update Chapter 25 – relates to neighborhood cleanliness – landscaping, removal of unsightly items from private property, etc
56. Riparian Preservation and Restoration – revise the City’s existing riparian preservation ordinances
57. Urban landscape/heat island management – Land Use Code changes to address urban landscape issues
58. Net Zero Energy Program – energy conservation program
59. Planning & Development Services stakeholder group to be formed
60. Developmental Services to adopt “best practices” as found in researching other progressive localities
61. Sign Code program administration improvements
62. Update Tucson Floodplain Ordinance
63. Catalina High School Skate Park fencing project

 

Staff will be making presentation of these proposed Work Plan projects over the next several weeks. Council meetings are always open to the public, so come on down to 255 W. Alameda, Council Chambers, on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for our study session or wait until after 5:30 p.m. to get your time at the microphone during Call to the Audience.

I usually don’t yell, but this is very important.

A few of State Senator Frank Antenori’s mean-spirited anti-Tucson bills may hit Governor Jan Brewer’s desk as early as Wednesday, April 20.

John C. Scott interviewed Councilman Steve Kozachik on the Jolt 1330 AM on Tuesday. Kozachik detailed the bills that comprise Antenori’s vendetta against Tucson and reminded people about his petition against legislation that subverts local control of government. (You can still sign this by clicking the link.)

…I invite you as an individual to join me in standing up for the independent and unquestionable rights of our local governments to decide what is right for our communities. By clicking this link and signing this petition your affirmation will be automatically forwarded onto the State Legislature and to the Governor’s office. Please take the time to give your opinion a voice.

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-hurting-our-local-government

Soooooo…. my Liberal Readers… the time to act is now.

Go ahead and click on Koz’s petition. (There are 678 right now– almost double from yesterday’s count.)

But also, call or e-mail Brewer separately from the petition. Seriously, we need to flood her office to the point where she can’t ignore us.

Tell Brewer to veto these anti-Tucson bills– mostly proposed by Antenori. The bills that are nearing passage in the Arizona Legislature (which may come tonight, according to Koz) are: SB1345 and 1347 cutting city staff to a percentage of the population (which means 1/2 of the city’s workers would be immediately unemployed) and regulating city employee’s salaries; the SB1322 forcing the city to bid every contract over $75,000 (thus adding a ton of bureaucracy to a shrinking city payroll); SB1201 allowing guns in public buildings; and SCR1025 eliminating Tucson’s clean elections law.

Here is the link to send an e-mail to the Governor.

Here are the mailing address, telephone and FAX numbers.

The Honorable Jan Brewer
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
In State Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)
Fax (602) 542-1381

Don’t let them destroy our City.

Recall Antenori!

Pass this on!

P. S. Where is the rest of our city government? Koz already put his neck on the chopping block for Tucson, what about the other 6 of you? I’d suggest hopping into a city van and going to the Governor’s office on Wednesday.

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Late April in Baja Arizona… ahhh… the weather is gorgeous, the skies are blue, plants are springing back to life, and community events pack the weekends. If Baja Arizona has such an luscious environment and close-knit, eclectic community, why is it that the natives are often weary and depressed this time of year?

Why? Because by late April we have been pummeled by the Arizona Legislature for nearly four months.

With Russell Pearce as president of the Arizona Senate, 2011 has been a particularly rough year: corporate tax cuts, birther bills, guns-for-everyone-everywhere bills, anchor baby bills, everyone-should-be-a-border-patrol-agent bills, and a who-needs-education-or-healthcare-or-parks-when-you-got-prisons budget. Heavy sigh… (Wait a minute… did I miss something? Was there a jobs bill proposed this session?)

Down here in Baja Arizona, we have been repeatedly and unfairly targeted by the Arizona Legislature. I’ve lost track of all of the specifically anti-Tucson or anti-Pima County legislation that is winding its way through the rented halls of the Arizona Legislature. Some of the most egregious bills were sponsored by or promoted by one of our one Baja Arizona Senators– Frank “let’s-shoot-varmints-in-the-night” Antenori.

Now that Governor Jan Brewer has stood up to the Arizona Legislature and actually VETOED two of the crazier bills– guns near campuses and the birther bill– I’m hoping she’ll keep going. Governor, there are many more bills worthy of your veto pen!

Let’s make this easy and not confuse the situation with lots of numbers … Jan, honey, pretty please veto anything in these categories…trust me… you can do it!

1. Anything proposed by Antenori. This includes his bills to give Pima County infrastructure to the town of Marana and his plans to become king of Tucson by regulating how many employees the city can hire and which contracts go out for bid. (Last time I checked, Antenori didn’t hold any elected offices in our city or county government.)
2. Anything that is discriminatory against a group or individual. In addition to all of the anti-children, anti-sick people, and anti-immigrant legislation, this category would include all of the anti-Tucson and anti-Pima County legislation not proposed by our so-called Senator (see #1). It also would include Pearce’s obvious political ploy to give millions of dollars to Maricopa and Pinal Counties for border security but leaves out Pima County (which actually borders Mexico) because he doesn’t like our sheriff.
3. Anything that is none of the Legislature’s business.
   3a. The Legislature has no business sticking its nose into the management of University Medical Center, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, or the newly formed UA Healthcare (HB2067). Would you want Pearce or Antenori deciding who should get medical care and what care should be given? Oops… that’s right. Arizona’s Death Panels have been hard at work destroying healthcare in our state. Don’t let them take over one of out best hospitals! Doctors and professional healthcare administrators should run healthcare institutions– not wacky ideologues.
   3b. The Legislature has no business dictating the types of housing that can be built in Tucson. HB 2005 (AKA the Mini-Dorm Proliferation Act of 2011) states that when a municipality has issued a building permit for construction of a residential structure located within two miles of either a military base or a state-owned educational facility (such as the University of Arizona), then any use of the structure for residential purposes under one lease agreement by members of the U.S. Military or by faculty, employees or students of the educational facility is deemed to be in accordance with zoning regulations (regardless of how the area is really zoned). To make matters worse, the amendment is retroactive to Jan 1, 2010 OR the issuance of the permit, whichever came first. In other words, it would allow MINI-DORMS to be legal in R-1 and R-2 zoned areas! This bill is to be voted on soon by the Senate.
4. Anything that would cut jobs instead of creating jobs. OK… sorry, Jan, I tried to trick you on this one because NONE of the Legislation suggested by the majority party this session creates a single job but several pieces of legislation will actually increase unemployment– particularly the cuts to healthcare and education– or hurt workers.
5. Anything that is the responsibility of another branch of government. The Arizona Legislature has a particularly “all knowing” aura about it this year. Not only are they taking on tasks that belong to the federal government (like immigration and border security), they are taking on tasks that belong to the cities and counties (as mentioned above).

You’re the decider, Jan. Please?

Dear Readers, there are several things you can do to maybe influence the final votes of this legislative session. Here are links to contact information for Senate members and House members. Bug them!

You also can sign Councilman Steve Kozachik’s keep-your-stinkin’-hands-off Tucson petition. Go, Koz, thanks for standing up to your own party to protect the rights of Baja Arizona!

Cold beer on a hot day. (Photo Credit: Green Living Network)

Tucson’s weather has been absolutely gorgeous lately, but we all know what’s coming in a few short months… summer!

One of the hallmarks of springtime in Tucson is the 4th Avenue Street Fair. Life is good when you can take a lazy stroll down 4th Ave. with a cold brewski in your hand.

Now a group of whiny bar-owners on 4th Ave. want to take that cold brewski from your sweaty hand, and they have solicited the help of “business friendly” Councilman Steve Kozachik to do it.

According an article in this week’s Tucson Weekly, some 4th Ave. bar owners– led by Scott Cummings who owns O’Malley’s on Fourth– want the Fourth Avenue Merchants’ Association (FAMA) to restrict or stop beer sales at the Street Fair.

As a small businessman, Cummings is a capitalist. Capitalists believe in the free market– right? Wrong. They only believe in competition on the free market when they’re making money. When there is a threat to their profits, they want government intervention or laws that restrict others from making profits.

Cummings, Jill Brammer (from Che’s), and the other whiny bar owners should man up like real capitalists and see the beer booths as a marketing opportunity– rather than competition that should be squashed by regulations.

What marketing advantages do the bars have over the beer booths? Here are some hints…

1. The beer booths generally sell crappy beer and have no variety. Most of the 4th Ave. bars go way beyond Budweiser and offer dozens of beers.
2. The beer booths sell only beer– leaving the wine and alcohol drinkers high and dry– or not high but definitely dry. (Of course, not all 4th Ave. bars have discovered wine yet; some have seriously poor wine selections.)
3. When you’re walking around the spring Street Fair, you can get hot, tired, and hungry. The bars have seats and air conditioning, and a few of them actually sell real food.
4. The music at the Street Fair can be spotty at best. Bars can hire some of Tucson’s best bands to attract customers inside. (A few years ago, Che’s had legendary Tucson bluesman Tom Whalbank playing there during the Street Fair. The place was packed.)

So, 4th Ave. bar owners, rather than look to government intervention or ask FAMA to change a Street Fair model that has been working for years– use a little marketing know-how to set your product apart. The question for Koz is: Which group of businesses are you going to be friendly to? Or what about if everyone involved decided to be consumer friendly? Consumers want choice, quality products, and a good price.

Driving near Gates Pass (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson is surrounded by the natural beauty of the desert and the majesty of the sky islands. Less than 15 minutes, from little abode in midtown is the scenic route along River Road and access to the Rillito River Park trail. Maybe there is something primal about being surrounded by the natural world, but all I know is that it cleanses the soul and calms the mind.

In an attempt to preserve Tucson’s beauty, the local sign code includes a section that limits business signage and billboards along the designated scenic routes. The roads highlighted in red on this city map mark designated scenic routes. When the sign code was written several years ago, these routes were on the outskirts of town. Thanks to sprawl, the city has encroached upon some of these areas.

Now the Citizen’s Sign Code Committee, a business-oriented advisory committee to the Tucson Mayor and Council, wants to weaken the sign code along Tucson’s scenic routes and allow for larger signage. Obviously, this would increase blight and lead to the destruction of scenic views like the one above.

In her ward newsletter, Councilwoman Karin Ulich alluded to finding a balance between preserving the natural beauty of the surrounding desert and mountains and promoting commerce.

Councilman Steve Kozachik took this idea a step further in his ward newsletter and tried to tie bigger signs to jobs:

More on jobs? We are looking at restructuring some of the provisions to the sign code. While everybody on the council recognizes the need to protect the natural beauty of our scenic areas, we must find the balance between jobs creation/ preservation and protecting that public good. There is general consensus that the sign code needs an overhaul. What we will vote on next week is a step in that direction that I am confident will reflect our mutual concern for the environmental sensitivity of our surrounding areas and the need to allow businesses to operate in ways that give them a fighting chance at survival during this economic downturn.

Sorry, Koz, but I don’t buy this. Primarily, the jobs you will create with larger signs along the scenic corridor are short-term, sign-building jobs. In this era of social networking and Internet marketing, having a big-ass sign is not essential to business survival. In fact, I would argue that having a facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, an e-mail marketing list, and/or a well-organized website with good search engine optimization are far more important to business success than a giant roadside sign. (Also, Internet marketing provides ongoing jobs– not short-term jobs.)

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Having a tasteful sign with your business name and street number (please!) that is designed with a type style and color scheme that drivers can read at 40mph is important– yes– but that sign doesn’t have to be giant. After all, eventually drivers who see those big-ass signs every day just ignore them; in contrast, you can update your customers and their friends on facebook or Twitter continuously.

Businesses that are stuck in the big-sign-equals-success mindset need to wake up to the 21st century marketing techniques. Who is motivated to buy something from a roadside sign? Friend referrals (in person or through social networking) and an easy-to-find website are far more important. Seriously, I always “let my fingers do the walking” around the Internet before I get in the car, and I don’t know anyone under 60 who doesn’t.

At the December 14  City Council meeting, changes to the sign code for Scenic Corridor Zone District will be discussed. If you have an opinion, come to the meeting and voice it during the call to the audience. The meeting begins at 5:30 in the Council Chambers, 255 W. Alameda.

Well, one thing you can say about Humberto Lopez is the guy is persistent.

But, Lordy, how many times is he going to offer his fleebag hotel to the city? And… how many times is the Arizona Daily Star going to cover it as if it were front page news????

According to the Star, Lopez wants the city to sell bonds to renovate his hotel, lease it for 99 years, and build a new parking garage. How stupid does he think the City Council is? (Don’t answer that.) At least Councilman Steve Kozachik said the deal doesn’t make sense.

Humberto, buddy, if the Gem Show thought your hotel was adequate, there would be no push for a new hotel downtown. Duh…

Here is the Star story…

The demise of the $190 million downtown convention center hotel has resurrected a proposal for taxpayer backing by Humberto Lopez, owner of Hotel Arizona.

Lopez needs the city to sell bonds and enter into a complicated transaction that would allow him to lease the Hotel Arizona to the city for 99 years so it could be converted into a Doubletree and so that an Embassy Suites could be built next door, according to the plan he’s presenting to the city and Rio Nuevo.

Like the recently rejected proposal, Tucson taxpayers would be on the hook for the losses if the hotel plan did not meet projections.

The proposal is being resubmitted because Lopez wants to use Build America Bonds, a type of bond that carries a lower interest rate because a portion of the interest is rebated by the federal government, said Roger Karber, a consultant involved with Hotel Arizona. The federal rebate would drop after Dec. 31, so the transaction should occur this year, Karber said.

“It’s the right time for the city of Tucson and Rio Nuevo to look at a hotel project,” Karber said.

Lopez needs the city to sell $17 million in bonds to upgrade his hotel into a 274-room Doubletree. In addition, a new 428-space parking garage needs to be built by the city, or Tucson needs to lease property to him so he can build the garage.

The city would then lease the Hotel Arizona from Lopez for $1.6 million a year for 99 years. The annual lease payments would allow Lopez to pay down the more than $20 million in debt he has on the Hotel Arizona property without having to pay taxes on the sale of the property.

Lopez has said he wouldn’t simply sell the hotel to the city rather than lease it, because the sale would trigger a large tax bill, even though all the proceeds of the sale would go to pay his debt on the hotel.

He said the cash flow from the Doubletree would pay back the city’s bond money and, even with the lease payments, the city still would make a profit of $1.4 million annually.

Karber said Lopez wants the additional sales taxes and the Rio Nuevo tax-increment-financing money from the site to be used to help backstop the bonds.

There seems to be little immediate interest from either the Rio Nuevo Board or the city to jump in feet-first.

Lopez would have to meet the same standards that hotel developer Garfield Traub was required to meet, Councilman Steve Kozachik said. The 99-year lease made no sense to him, Kozachik added.

“Any proposal no matter who it comes from is going to have to meet same standards we were holding Garfield Traub to,” Kozachik said. “He is no different than anyone else.”

The Rio Nuevo Board can’t consider Lopez’s proposal until it terminates the contract with Garfield Traub, board member Rick Grinnell said.

The contract is still in effect because there are still a few outstanding issues, mainly involving the new east entrance to the Tucson Convention Center, Grinnell said.

Earlier today, I posted a story about Mayor Bob Walkup using a procedural maneuver to delay a vote on the Convention Center Hotel project. Councilman Steve Kozachik, who has been trying to kill the ultra-expensive hotel project since he took office, said on a local radio show that he has the votes to do this.

In a subsequent e-mail from Kozachik today, he stated that the powers that be were  ”calling for the discussion of both the hotel and the Gadsden project to take place in executive session.” (I told him that my readers would not be happy with that, but I used somewhat different language.)

The Gadsden project was covered by the Arizona Daily Star last Sunday.  Check the link for the complete story, but basically, the city sold land for cheap and may get screwed again. (Again, as I have asked many times before: Who negotiates these deals and writes the contracts? The Mayor and Council only sign off.)

Kozachik has now throw down the gauntlet and asked that the hotel vote and the Gadsden project discussion be held in the sunshine– not behind closed doors. Here is his media advisory.

Today, City Councilman Steve Kozachik has formally requested that a vote to decide the future of the Tucson Convention Center Hotel be set for Tuesday October 19 during the City Council meeting.  Similarly, he has requested that both the Rio Nuevo Notice to Proceed and the Gadsden agenda items be conducted in open session and not in executive session as the City Manager presently has them scheduled.

At the Council meeting on Wednesday, Councilpersons Kozachik and [Regina] Romero both expressed deep concerns about the hotel project and the risk to taxpayer’s money. “Unfortunately, even though the City Manager had received my request to agendize a vote, the City Attorney took the position that it was not worded in a way that allowed for a vote to occur.  It is a shame that decisions are being held up by attitudes and protocol.”  Councilperson Kozachik believed that the vote had been reset for the next meeting.  “But then I was informed that again due to protocol, the only way that we could vote on October 19^th is if the Mayor officially grants my request.”

Similarly, during the discussion at last week’s study session on the Gadsden Project, it was made clear that, as has been the case up until now, the answers to the questions raised by the Arizona Daily Star article on the project must be provided through an open and transparent process. The Council conducted a comprehensive open dialogue, and raised numerous questions related to the project. To conduct a discussion of those questions in closed, executive session after having raised them in an open forum sends the wrong message to the public about how this governing body is conducting the people’s business.

Today, a request to Mayor Bob Walkup was officially made. (attached is a copy of the request)  In light of the coming elections that deal both with taxpayers’ trust of a sales tax for core services and an increase in Mayoral power, I feel the time is now to demonstrate to the voters that we mean what we say.  If the Council is not allowed to discuss these items openly and to vote on the Rio Nuevo Hotel proposal, it will send a clear message to both the early voter and those who go to the polls.

Councilperson Kozachik joins other Councilmembers in the firm stance that this Convention Center Hotel Project is too risky and should be voted down immediately.  “We had consensus at the meeting so why are we wasting more time, energy and taxpayer money to allow out of town developers to lobby us.  They need to take their show to another city and let us get on with projects that we can afford.”