3/10/2010 10:58:00 PM Losing ground: Prescott Council broaches change in open space spending
Cindy Barks/The Daily Courier Since the start of the streets/open space sales tax in 2000, the City of Prescott has spent about $16 million on a number of open space purchases, including the Granite Dells-area Ericksson parcel, which offers views of the surrounding land.
Bonding, pay-as-you-go among financing options for city street projects
PRESCOTT - The current competitive construction market, coupled with a glut of necessary street projects, has the City of Prescott considering borrowing money to cover some of the cost.
During a Tuesday workshop, the council broached the possibility of using a combination of the "pay-as-you-go" policy it has adhered to in the past, and long-term bonding to cover the cost of the necessary projects.
Officials have maintained that borrowing now would allow the city to get the projects done sooner, along with taking advantage of a favorable construction market.
"We're probably not going to get any better prices than we're going to get right now," City Manager Steve Norwood said, referring to recent projects that have come in at costs considerably lower than estimates.
At the same time, Engineering Services Director Mark Nietupski pointed out that the city would not have the money on hand for years to complete all of the street projects that are ready to go.
The city has compiled a list of about $19 million in top priorities for street improvements, including the reconstruction of a section of Rosser Street; widening of Williamson Valley Road from Sidewinder Road to Shadow Valley Ranch Road; reconstruction of South Mount Vernon and Senator Highway; reconstruction of Park Avenue; and reconstruction of Robinson Drive.
"The bottom line is there's just not enough money," Norwood said.
Possibly affecting the situation is a potential change in the way the city sets aside money for open space purchases.
The council came to no final decisions this week, but asked city staffers to compile a number of scenarios that would include such factors as using the money the city had set aside for open space purchases for streets, as well as a possible combination of bond issues and "pay-as-you-go."
That debate over the use of open space money for streets centers on the 2000 city initiative that extended the city's 1-percent sales tax for streets, and added in open space acquisitions.
On Tuesday, several council members suggested that the street-improvement program was suffering because of the open space allocations.
Records from the city's finance department, however, indicate that street projects have received millions more than originally anticipated.
Prior to the 2000 vote, the city projected that the 1-percent sales tax would generate $75 million during the 10-year extension period. The city based that on the $7.5 million per year that the 1-percent sales tax was generating at the time.
But Budget and Finance Director Mark Woodfill reported this week that sales tax revenues grew rapidly since then, peaking at about $15 million in 2007. Even with the recent economic downturn, the city is projecting revenues of about $12 million per year for the next several years.
Since 2001, city records show that the 1-percent sales tax has generated a total of about $108.6 million. The bulk of that has gone toward street projects, with about $16 million going toward open space purchases.
PRESCOTT - While the open space versus streets argument has long been "dreaded territory" to city officials, members of the Prescott City Council chose to venture there this week.
In fact, several council members voiced strong support for reversing the council's previous stance of annually appropriating several million dollars to open space out of the city's 1-percent streets-and-open-space sales tax revenue.
"If it were up to me, I would take what's there (now) and for next year and put it on streets, and put open space on hold," Councilman Steve Blair said of the money that the city has earmarked for future open space purchases.
Councilman John Hanna voiced similar sentiments. "It seems to me it would be prudent to use that money for the streets we have, rather than buying another piece of ground right now," he said.
But later, Councilwoman Lora Lopas, a long-time supporter of open space, maintained that many Prescott voters believe the city made a commitment to spend $40.7 million on open space when they approved the 2000 initiative on streets and open space acquisitions.
"I do feel that back in 2000, (the initiative) was sold to the public in one way, and now it's being handled differently," Lopas said.
And in response to other council members' push to put the open space program on hold, she reported that the city's now-defunct Open Space Acquisition Committee had begun negotiations on several open space purchases, and those purchases still were pending.
Lopas suggested that the council conduct a closed-door executive session to discuss the pending purchases before making any decisions about open space money. Other council members appeared to agree.
At issue this year is the $2.9 million that remains in the city's 2009/2010 budget under open space, and the additional $3 million that the city planned to appropriate for the next fiscal year.
Facing growing needs in the street department, city officials have brought up the possibility from time to time of putting some or all of that money toward street projects.
Councilwoman Mary Ann Suttles referred to the recurring conflict. Calling the debate "dreaded territory," Suttles added, "We've always had this continued fight between streets and open space."
Budget and Finance Director Mark Wood stressed that the city has no separate "open space fund." All of the revenue from the 1-percent sales tax goes into a single streets-and-open-space fund, which the City Council has the authority to appropriate, Woodfill said.
Even so, for the past decade, the council consistently has appropriated money to open space, and then has carried over any unspent money into the next fiscal year - creating the appearance of a separate "open space fund."
While council members took no vote at Tuesday's workshop on how to handle open space money in the future, a majority voiced support for some degree of change from the status quo.
Woodfill said the council likely would conduct another workshop on the matter in April.
Under its current schedule, the city would allocate $3 million to open space for the next two years, and $4 million per year for the four years after that.
For years, open space advocates have pushed the city to be more aggressive in spending the $40.7 million that the city set as a cap prior to the 2000 initiative election.
So far, the city has spent about $16 million on open space - amounting to about 40 percent of the targeted $40.7 million.
In 2006, the open space versus streets debate went to the courtroom, when local resident Meredith Marder sued Prescott, claiming that the city should be devoting a greater percentage of its 1-percent roads/open space revenue to open space purchases.
But a Superior Court judge ruled in late 2006 that the city was under no legal obligation "to spend revenue according to a particular formula." The judge agreed with the city's stance that the council has the discretion to decide when to spend money on open space.
Since then, Councilman Jim Lamerson has stressed that ruling, repeatedly asking City Attorney Gary Kidd to state the judge's ruling.
"It is disingenuous for the public to keep saying we have a fund for open space," Lamerson said.
Lopas noted on Wednesday that along with his ruling about the city's legal obligations, the judge referred to the "ethical and moral duty" to follow through with what voters thought they were approving.
Since 2000, the city has bought about 288 acres of land, including a number of parcels in the Granite Dells/Granite Creek/Watson Lake area and several parcels in the Thumb Butte area.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Tired of Prescott Politics
"The city has compiled a list of about $19 million in top priorities for street improvements, including the reconstruction of a section of Rosser Street widening of Williamson Valley Road from Sidewinder Road to Shadow Valley Ranch Road reconstruction of South Mount Vernon and Senator Highway reconstruction of Park Avenue and reconstruction of Robinson Drive."
"The bottom line is there's just not enough money," Norwood said.
Well, Steve, that's because you spent it on an overpass for your poker buddy Mike.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Rid ourselves of them Now
It is time to clean house. The council needs to go and the city manager and his cronies need to go. If the city collected 108 million in taxes for streets and open space, then where did it go? By the conditions of the streets in Prescott, it is apparent that it wasn't to fix the streets.
This city is pathetic in how it is run. The taxpayers should revolt and quit paying for stuff they are not getting. Many are charged .75 per month for street lights and there are none in the neighborhood. We are charged for street maintenance and need I say more.
Fire them all and let's get this place back on its feet.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Sheesh Deluxe
We can not get our open spaces back once they are developed. I am more than willing to let my taxes go to preserve the beauty of this area, because that is why I live here. I certainly didn't move here for street quality, nor do I consider that a long term investment. It is clear to me that Blair and Hanna only value their development investments, and nothing else. Was that ever in question? I'm glad that Lora Lopas at least represents our community's best interests.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Not Yet Thawed Up North
My comments regarding Blair, and Hanna were shot down before, because I said I tossed the ballet. Maybe I didn t mention there was a moving truck sitting in my driveway. I'm smiling now though. Good to see some waking up going on-now keep it up. We seem to have lost our way, letting "others" take care of things. We ALL need to get "We the People" back., An attitude adjustment and some control just might be the boost we need- it could't hurt. Accountability for all has somehow been lost in the haze also, but one step at time.
Prescott has always been an ideal town, it's appeal has been drawing people for years. My family has been there since 1961, so will always consider it my home, but as the politics go, am much too outspoken to stay. Maybe someday, but for now just have to be an observer. Arizona is known to be very unkind to those who don t "Get with the program", and my family is still there.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Another Sucker
Set Sail for Fail said, "Blair and Hanna have turned out to be Prescott's own Beavis & Butthead, and in such a short time, too."
Well, I knew what Blair was from his last term on the council, so I didn't vote for him this time--and could not believe it when he got enough votes to get back on the council. Unfortunately, I misjudged Hanna and voted for him. I guess we voters get what we deserve.
I will not be voting in favor of any further taxes, however, as I no longer trust what anyone tells me about what the taxes are for. From now on, when given a choice, I will always vote NO.
If recalls are started, I certainly will sign the petitions and support the drives as best I can.
I still cannot believe the last lie, wherein the tax extension sold as for street repair now is being used to build the "bridge to nowhere," a blatant sop to developers at taxpayers' expense. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
tired of it all
This is really stupid! Take the money from the repaving of Pioneer Pkwy which doesn't need to be repaved and put that money towards fixing the roads in the area. We do need more open space and what we have is not enough. What do we want? Open space with views for all to enjoy or another Quailwood or Granville with the row housing look?
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Everett Townsend
Those on the Council who have been on radio or historically outspoken against open space could be charged with improper re-allocation of public funds. Since the City Attorney and City Manager report directly to the public elected Council, there is a direct conflict of interest occuring. The City can not protect employees or elected officials from criminal charges in the cases of mis-conduct or illegal activities. Mis-appropriation of funds, such as using Open Space intended funding for Streets or any other purpose is illegal. The Council needs to stay clear compliance in this issue.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
tom 1
we dont need open space cause the developer dont pay impact fees on open space, stop the goverment from spending money on frivilous things like road maintenance.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Set Sail for Fail
First the library use rates gaffe, now this. Blair and Hanna have turned out to be Prescott's own Beavis & Butthead, and in such a short time, too. I shudder to think what sort of idiocy will be on display from these two over the coming months.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
slow learner
Steve Blair was terrible before , he needs to go and lamerson's only claim to fame has been affordable housing- now its all affordable!!!! He needs to go too, and hanna not to bright? I feel as a taxpayer I am getting the old shaft job.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Remember this about that open space
There was a $40 million total for open space but I don't think there was a timeline. And remember that most of the tax money was supposed to be for roads. I think the wording of the thing was vague enough that the amount for open space wasn't even etched in stone. There was no provision for how to pay upkeep for the open space. I say they wait for a parcel that's good enough to benefit lots of people, not say "we have to spend $3 million per year". They then basically waste that money. It was a very amateurly written law.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
A LONG TIME RESIEDENT
There have been many good comments on the immorality, and perhaps illegality, of this appalling attempt to hijack a public referendum in favor of open space for other uses. If the city can justify breaking its promise to its citizens for this purpose, then it can justify anything. How much are the lawsuits, recalls and bad blood going to cost our local government if they pursue this path? It is with a nauseating astonishment that I witness this public attempt to steal appropriated monies and destruction of any semblence of trust in local government by our elected officials. I agree with the comment that if this was done in the private sector, lawsuits would fly, licenses to conduct any sort of fiduciary or regulated business would be revoked and the perpetrators would be jailed. Who do they think they are. Council people Blair, Hanna, Kuykendall and Suttles do not speak for me. They haven't been in office for 6 months and they already are steering us into the ditches. Do they really think they can get away with this? The answer is NO!
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Glenn J. Gooding
All of the street projects identified are not necessary. One of the main problems with street construction is the RFP and bid award process. The current variable bid process allows a contractor to come in with a low bid and then submit amendments for each and everything they did not consider in the bid. A fixed bid process would hold their feet to the fire and ensure that the massive overruns that occurred in the past would not be allowed. If a contractor cannot assess a project and submit a bid that will allow them to complete a job and still make a profit, then they should not be in business.
The taxpayer is tired of the mismanagement of funds for the past projects that have not been completed on time, nor within budget. It is time for a change.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Right Wing Conservative
You people have been had by the good old boy/girls group. They conned you into paying for better streets, but instead built a crossover and other roads to a new development. When are the citizens of Preskitt going to wise up and smell the roses. Quit voting for any and all new taxes and make the government live within its collective means. If they raise taxes, vote them out immediately. Obviously, Lopas needs the next axe vote by the will of the citizens. Read the lips of we the people, no new taxes or unnecessary spending. More importantly, stop spending tax dollars on the special interest land developers and cowboy mafia. Wake up people.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
People who volunteered to pay extra sales tax to preserve open space were generous indeed. There may be no "need" for open space in some people's opinions, so anyone willing to pay out of their own pockets for this was knowingly and willingly saying "hey, I want to keep our area with some beautiful open space," and I'm willing to pay for it.
Many on the Council have expressed in the past, and are expressing more forcefully now, "hey, we want to spend this money in away that those who voted for it did not intend." Ok, fair is fair, how about returning that tax money to the people who have been paying it? Get the open space initiative repealed. Return the money to the taxpayers. Then get a new initiative for more sales tax for the road. That would be the proper way to do this if you insist on doing it.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
A lot of the open space sales job was bogus.
I was here when the 1 cent tax was passed. The Open Space contingent was saying the city should buy P mountain and some other places that actually got preserved without that money. More recently it's getting hard to find good land to buy with it, so they make goofy purchases just to shut up the open space people. They buy land that the regular folks won't ever see let along use. The lake land is over with. So it's become a huge fund that's at the mercy of Council and people who know them and want to sell their parcel at taxpayers expense. Not turning out the way it was advertised to us at all. Sure, the term "open space" is warm and fuzzy and green but when it comes right down to it it becomes an insider's game. I say put a hold on this until someone gets a big park or something to invest in, something everyone can use.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Casey S
This is typical government, spending on what THEY 'want', and what the minority wants....instead of what WE, the majority, need-good streets. Why save/plan for tomorrow when you can just spend it ALL today?
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Money Round Robin
Similar to the millions of dollars bond issue 'sold' to the public to build the Yavapai Performance Hall. "students will use it. Locals will use it ala PFAA etc". Of course, none of that was true...and now PFAA priced out of use.(last show was Oliver years ago)...and forget the students...and it costs the public 30 bucks just to get in the door!!
The only Open Space is between council's ears.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
John Malott
So, it’s alright to spend $19 million on the Side Road interchange to benefit developers, but it’s not okay to spend $16 million on open space that will be there for future generations to enjoy for years to come? And as far as playing word games and Three-card Monte with tax initiatives, I’ll remember that the next time one is placed on the ballot.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Martin Ziebell
In 2000 many of us went along with the tax increase because we were told that much of the funds would go to open space purchases. Then we waited...and waited, while the city used the funds to pave a bunch of streets. Perhaps it is time for us to insist that this tax be re-approved before this pave-happy city council continues to ignore half the mandate for the use of this money. It only seems fair.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
John Smith
Gee, politicians actually lied to us in order to get us to vote for a tax increase. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Hanna and Blair need to go. That would be a good start on repairing what is wrong at City Hall. Only a start, but it would be a good one. Another would be if my fellow Prescott votes STOPPED VOTING FOR TAX INCREASES. Ignore their whining. They need to go through withdrawl.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
birther t. bagur
Here comes the big grab for developers. Closed door "executive session" should just about take care of the whole idea that Prescott should support open space.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
I just knew it was these guys.
There is such a thing as the "spirit of the law". I voted for this measure on the assumption that the City Council would show some semblance of ethics and follow through the intent of the law, allocate some funds to open space. It's interesting that some folks don't understand that more hot dog buns and trinkets could ultimately be sold if Prescott continues to be an attractive city.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
open space for me
Way back when I voted for the bond issue because I wanted to preserve open space. I still want open space. Find another wat to fix the streets than steal from open space. Open space is what makes Prescott Prescott.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Had It
It looks like we, the voters, made a big mistake in the last election. I feel its time to correct that and recall Hanna and Blair before they do more damage.
