A Message from Steve K...12/18/2023

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. |

Date: 12/18/2023

Topics in This Issue:

I’ll open my shameless plug for upcoming ‘play dates’ at Corbett’s. This is to support one of our local businesses that has invested in historic preservation, and activating what was a sad and dreary empty lot down in the entertainment district. Come and enjoy music, pickleball/cornhole, drinks, food and being around nice people. On Thursday of this week my set runs from 6pm until 9pm. Somewhere in that 3-hour set I’m going to sneak in some Christmas tunes. Be ready to sing along. Then on Sunday, January 28^th it’ll be another 6pm set. And on Saturday, February 3^rd the set runs from noon until 3pm. It’s always great to see neighbors at these events. Last time we had people from West University, Rincon Heights, Pie Allen, Colonia Solana, Catalina Vista, Broadway/Broadmoor, and some east siders who made the trip in. Corbett’s is located at 340 N. 6^th Ave. Parking is free. Come early and spend some time supporting our locally owned businesses along 4^th Avenue. They rely on this time of year for a large portion of their annual sales.

And I want to take this space to thank Dylan Smith from the Tucson Sentinel for bringing a large group of reporters and media-types together last Thursday at the Shanty. Kevin Dahl showed up to support the event as well. It was fun providing about an hours’ worth of music at the front end of that event. You can find the Sentinel at https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/ It’s an excellent news source.

Nightmare Before Christmas

The Loft was sold out for Sunday’s Nightmare costume party screening of Nightmare Before Christmas. This is Jeff (Jack Skellington) leading the voting on the costume contest before the show began. Everyone on the stage left with some Nightmare goodies. There were glow sticks to be waved when Christmastown came on the screen, people were singing to the tunes, and we had poppers to shoot off when Jack and Sally kissed at the end.

The event was a benefit for Friends of Aphasia. That’s the condition that took my brother’s life earlier this year. He was nominated for an Oscar for his work as Director of Photography and special effects on Nightmare. One added bit of cool is that just this week the Library of Congress named Nightmare to the National Film Registry – films selected are chosen for their cultural, historic, or aesthetic importance to preserving the nation’s film heritage. I’m grateful to the Loft for putting on the event and to Fabi Hirsch and her team at Friends of Aphasia for their work in support of people throughout our community who are struggling through the effects of the condition. You can find them at https://friendsofaphasia.com/.  If you’d like to get a behind the scenes look at how Nightmare was made, go onto Amazon and buy Pete’s book – Tales from the Pumpkin King’s Cameraman. It’d make a nice stocking stuffer.

Holidays and DUI

The holidays are upon us – and so is party season. The letters DUI stand for ‘Driving Under the Influence.’ With the passage of recreational marijuana that offense can be equally applied to driving drunk, or to driving buzzed. If arrested you can lose your license, pay significant fines and most importantly – you could kill someone who’s on the road with you.

There are plenty of options for you to get home without getting behind the wheel if you’re drunk or high. Please be responsible and exercise one of those options. Enjoy your celebration like an adult.

Migrant/Homeless Donations

In the past week there has been some media coverage surrounding the impact closing the Lukeville border station has had on commerce. What it has not done is reduce the amount of border contact we’re seeing with migrants. Lots of single men, many from Africa, and lots of families. If they don’t come across Lukeville, they’re finding other places to cross. It’s the continuation of failed policies at the federal level. We at the ward 6 office can’t fix that, but we can do our part getting some of the migrant needs taken care of.

If you follow this newsletter, you know that because of multiple factors the backlog of ‘processing’ asylum cases is years long. Syracuse University has estimated there over 2 million cases in the U.S. waiting for adjudication. There are well over 20,000 in Arizona alone. We see between 1,000 and 2,000 new guests at Casa Alitas every day. The donations you bring to us at ward 6 are transferred out to the Alitas welcome center. The needs continue to be warm weather clothing (most of the people who arrive at Alitas are headed out to cooler weather locations within a couple of days after arriving,) basic hygiene products, new unused underwear and socks, and this time of year a small toy for the kids is always a nice touch.

There are legitimate arguments happening regarding deployment of federal agents, use of the Arizona National Guard, funding needs for Pima County, bussing, and the rest. The people who receive your donations aren’t hearing any of that – they're just grateful for your generosity. So are we at the ward office.

Vaccinations and Infection Trends

Each of the opening 2 sections is a good feed into this one. If you’re out and about in stores doing holiday shopping or gathered with friends at outdoor events or restaurants/bars, this time of year there’s a likelihood you’ll come into contact with some respiratory germs. And even though there are medical protocols exercised both at the border and at Casa Alitas some illnesses are getting through. Now is the time to check your own vaccination status.

In Pima County there were 134 cases of the flu reported in the week following Thanksgiving. That’s a 14% increase as compared to the 5-year average. The vast majority of it is Type A – which is a target of this years’ vaccinations.  This is a useful graph showing this year (blue) vs the 5-year averages (shaded in grey.) Sadly, we’re ahead of schedule.

A friend told me last week that she had a bad reaction to her RSV vaccine. Another person said Pfizer has fewer side effects. That’s not an endorsement, but a tidbit that may be worth you chasing down with your doctor. Right now, RSV is well ahead of the 5-year average in Pima County. During the week after Thanksgiving the trend was a 70% increase over that average. Here’s the graph – consider your health risk situation and talk to your doctor or pharmacist about an RSV vaccine.

The COVID trend is a bit of a mixed bag. In that post-Thanksgiving week in Pima County the percentage of people hospitalized was down by 9% compared to the 3-year average, but the number who were treated in emergency rooms was up by about 4%. Remember though, the number of cases reported was 621. That’s much lower than compared to the pandemic levels, but still a troubling number. Here’s the trend graph showing that we’re out of the pandemic, but COVID is not a ‘thing of the past.’ Vaccines will not prevent catching COVID, but they do impact the severity of the illness.

I’m grateful to the Pima County health folks for continuing to track this data and making it available to the public.

And while I’m on the topic of protecting yourself from potentially severe illnesses I want to share an op/ed that Bill Buckmaster wrote that appeared in the Tucson Sentinel. Bill lost his wife Ann earlier this year. They had been married for 51 years. One of the lessons confirmed for Bill through the process is to be sure to have your end-of-life decisions and paperwork in order. I’ve hosted several events here at the ward office where people were invited to come and get living wills, DNR’s, powers of attorney and other documents filled out. Those all involve tough choices and decisions. Please read Bill’s piece and think through how it should impact your current readiness.

 https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/121123_buckmaster_death_op/buckmaster-life-can-change-instant-get-your-affairs-order/

Planning and Development Services (PDSD) Permits

Just in the past couple of weeks I’ve had several occasions to interact with our PDSD staff on questions some of you have had related to permits and our code interpretations. The staff at PDSD recently launched its own Permit Dashboard that you can access. The dashboard serves a couple of different purposes. One is that it’s a kind of public PDSD report card. You’ll see graphics like this -

One of the complaints we hear is that getting a permit takes too long. This public-facing report card shows how the planning folks are doing in churning out permits. It’s a good self-check.

Another function of the dashboard is to provide users with the guidelines PDSD will follow when reviewing the various kinds of permit applications. On the dashboard they’re called ‘lanes.’ Like on a road – you'll be in one or another of their permit lanes. There are 4 of them – increasing in complexity of the project and with that the length of time the review should be anticipated to take. This graphic breaks them all down for you:

The dashboard is updated daily at 5am so by the time you log in the current day’s data will be accurate. Please continue to feel free to call us if you’ve got concerns about a permit of yours getting tied up in the system. But this dashboard is a good tool for you to consider when anticipating wait times. And there’s this – if you provide construction documents that are incomplete or simply inaccurate, the permitting time will be longer. You can’t expect our planning folks to decipher bad docs.

UA Financials

I penned an op/ed that the Star ran last week. It speaks to just some of the ways UA president Robbins and Athletics Director Heeke have worked together to create this financial waterfall. Spending close to $2M on renovations to Robbins’ skybox suite, $2M on upgrades to the football coaches offices/meeting rooms/barber shop, nearly $3M at Hi Corbett, $13M buy-outs for failed football coaches. There’s more. Here’s that op/ed:

https://tucson.com/opinion/column/local-opinion-u-of-a-cuts-should-start-at-the-top/article_1b49a0c2-9873-11ee-b878-37221ec2fb6f.html

Since writing the guest piece for the Star I’ve heard from numerous others who validate the concerns over bloated intercollegiate athletics budgets and excessive spending authorized by AD’s and university presidents. One guy who had worked for over 17 years at another collegiate institution went through 5 presidents, 7 provosts and 6 deans, each of whom spent their way to more lucrative jobs, even though 2 different economic messes such as what the UA is now facing. With respect to claims that there would be “no impact on academic units”, the writer simply said, “that was all bullshit.” The deficits were “taken out of our hides in the form of loss of positions, cuts in travel, reductions in supply budgets, etc.” We’re starting to hear the same claims from the UA.

If the Board of Regents (ABOR) wanted to do a deep dive into athletics spending authorized by the president and AD they’d find much more than what I shared in the op/ed. Within the athletics department itself, while staff employees are working out of ‘offices’ carved out from under the arena seating so the ‘ceiling’ of the office is sloped such that you can only walk on the ‘top’ side of the office, Heeke chose to knock down walls and double the size of his own suite located inside of McKale. None of the ‘dungeons’ (as the sloped offices are affectionately called by McKale staffers) is sprinkled for fire suppression or meets fire codes for life/safety issues – and each has been ignored by campus risk management.  The conference room he demolished in order to expand his office had worked well in support of Cedric Dempsey, Jim Livengood and Greg Byrne. That remodel was conducted at the same time donors were being solicited to fund capital projects listed above, and to pay buyouts for football coaches.

That remodel was also paid for at the same time Heeke and Robbins were aware that the stadium had nearly 200 unfinished structural issues that needed attention. A structural analysis had been paid for that identified things such as (pardon the structural engineer-speak) “Section 19, Row 69, Seats 4 and 9: Threaded rods have been inserted and connected to the vertical leg of the step seating to support the seating brackets. Rod only provides alignment and protrudes approximately 6" beyond the bracket. Could be a hazard. See Photo #70,” “South Upper-level ramp: Re: Supporting cantilevered beam adjacent to the Mirror Casting Facility; cast not level, thus grout packed for full bearing.  Grout now coming loose and falling debris potential may be present,” “Middle Tier: Typically noted as observed from the ramp; where two sections of precast seating intersect with vertical leg of upper section bearing on horizontal leg of lower section, it appears that vertical anchors are causing blow-outs of the concrete due to installation of anchors or horizontal reinforcing steel cast too close to the concrete surface,” “ At some locations the concrete has spalled leaving the vertical anchors exposed, and some are spalled conditions with concrete ready to fall,”  and “General note regarding north ramp: Three days after a rainfall, water was still standing on the upper most north exterior ramp. Bat droppings were extensive, apparently coming from the top of the stadium (Row 40 to the precast concrete slab). The joint appears to be a nesting spot for bats. Water standing on the ramp at the northeast corner of the ramp walls has no means to dissipate and may be a health issue with the standing water and bat droppings combined. The odor was extreme.”  There was no bat dropping odor in Heeke’s newly remodeled office.

Just ahead of the 2019 softball season the UA completed an $8M upgrade to Hillenbrand Softball Stadium. The process for doing capital projects on the UA campus requires ABOR approval of the project budget. That’s their oversight. In the case of the softball upgrades the project scope included new sun shading, loge and standing areas, restrooms and concessions, the press box was renovated, the dugouts were upgraded, and the backstop netting system was replaced. You can find the scope on the Planning, Design and Construction website. What’s missing? No upgrades to the seating area? In fact, that wasn’t allowed for under the ABOR approved budget, so a side-project was approved at a level below the amount that needed ABOR approval. Same contractor. Same architect. Same time as the other upgrades and same stadium. Some might be inclined to call that pyramiding – whatever it’s called, the Regents never saw the added scope because it happened under a different project number. On the positive side, the seating is nice and comfortable.

While I was working for athletics Heeke’s #2 guy and his HR person called me one day and announced that I had what he called a “conflict of loyalty” between city work and the UA. His ‘solution’ was that he’d draw up a list of things I’d be allowed to speak about in public and those I was not allowed to address. I suggested there might be some issues with the constitution but waited to see what he produced. The document never arrived. What did happen was the week after I wrote an op/ed in the Star supporting the notion that the UA requires COVID testing of all students attending, Robbins/Heeke ‘eliminated’ my position. I reminded the UA general counsel of the comment made by Heeke’s #2 guy. When confronted with that he didn’t deny having said it. His excuse was that they were ‘afraid that when someone heard me speaking on camera wearing a UA shirt, they’d confuse my position with that of the UA.’ If that had ever even remotely been suggested the solution would have been simple – I don’t go on camera with a UA logo on my shirt. The claim was a lie – and when I called the HR person on it the reply was, and to this day has been crickets.

Since I wrote the op/ed I’ve heard a lot from others on campus; things such as people losing a job because they refused to draw down reserves, Robbins/Heeke taking private jet trips to out of state athletics events, other faculty and staff being told to keep their mouths shut or risk losing their job, advice about financial issues is ignored. If ABOR is on board with this then their response to the current mismanagement is predictable. If they aren’t we’ll see change. So far this is all they’re prepared to do:

1) require centralized tri-university wide budget practice, controls, budgetary controls of units, controls on non-residential govt aid, approval before cash reserves can be spent.

2) financial reporting - forecasts for the year, an October and January update and close out process in the spring - recommending monthly cash reports to keep track of trends, and mid-year financial updates showing current data vs historic data to track trends

3) enhance quality assurance of all practices to track data - including a peer review process where the other 2 university financial teams would review the processes for the third one – and rotating like that so all 3 get a peer review.

4) Some as yet undefined UA reporting structure over the next 2 years specific to the UA as they resolve their current issues.

Even these modest changes won’t be fully in effect for a year. One of the Regents rhetorically asked, “have we gone far enough in the accountability area?” He said, “when things fall short there should be accountability.” We’ll see if he meant it. Robbins said he had “dug in and I don’t like what I’ve discovered.” No kidding? He’s just discovering that they’re spending more than they’re taking in. Scroll back up to the projects they’ve allowed solely within athletics – while at the same time Robbins was gifting that department $87M.

ABOR chair Duval said, ‘the problem didn’t develop overnight and won’t be fixed overnight.’ Agreed. But if accountability is really something they’re committed to, that can be demonstrated as easily as ‘eliminating a position’ was handled.

Randolph Golf Renovations

Last week on a 6-1 vote the M&C chose to continue down the path of investing in the concept that splits Randolph North and Randolph South (Del Urich) golf courses. I’ve shared this graphic before – here's that concept:

I voted against the motion. The process of identifying the motion was a bit of a sideshow in itself. Under our charter the mayor cannot make a motion. But she can ask for one to be made by someone else. That has become increasingly common recently. Here’s the Legal Action Report from that part of our meeting on this item:

Mayor Romero proposed a motion for consideration to direct the City Manager to come back with a more detailed plan about this concept, including continued engagement with the community and users, and a timeline and schedule that includes options for potential financing.

Discussion ensued, comments were made by Mayor Romero, Council Member Cunningham, and Mr. Ortega regarding the implementation of Phase 1, the delta between the projected costs and funding available, and the overall design of the golf course such to ensure the preservation of the third hole, which is a par five.

It was moved by Council Member Cunningham, duly seconded, and CARRIED by a voice vote of 6 to 1, (Council Member Kozachik dissenting) to direct the City Manager to move forward with Phase 1 and come back to Mayor and Council with more details about the concept, including continued engagement of the community and a timeline and schedule that includes options for potential financing.

This is a story that ran on KOLD about that vote. I like JD Wallace and he usually gets it right. In this case my objections to this concept were not accurately reported. And Cunningham’s notion that ‘phase 1’ will be ready in a year and a half – clearly wrong – was not refuted.

https://www.kold.com/2023/12/15/tucson-golfers-tee-off-over-future-randolph-complex/

I appreciate it when people tell me that even when they don’t agree with my vote, they understand my rationale. In this case it’s important to look back at the concept and understand a few things. First, the %’s of ‘golf’ vs ‘park’ shown in the graphic is only for the golf complex space. It does not consider that the entire western half of Reid Park is public space. So that’s intentionally deceptive. Also what you don’t see beneath that part of the graphic showing the percentages is a well-established historic neighborhood. Colonia Solana is absolutely a player in this conversation. So is every neighborhood to the north and west of Reid Park over to downtown. The reason is that the ‘golf complex’ is a significant water detention basin. It was designed and paid for through the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) – the original sponsors – and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any redesign of the eastern portion of Randolph (the golf complex) must have the approval of both of those agencies. Why? Because prior to the basin being designed through an extensive civil engineering process, Colonia Solana, downtown, 4^th Avenue and neighborhoods throughout midtown were being flooded. The project was done back in the mid ‘90’s. It involved excavating over 400,000 cubic yards of fill from what is now the Del Urich golf course. The cost at that time was more than $12M. Now we’re going to come back and make changes to the topography – and in Cunningham’s world the most important feature is to save a par 5 hole on Urich. What was done was intended to remedy what was an historic problem for thousands of residents and businesses. This photo is from 1935. It shows the flooding of the Stone Avenue underpass – let's not return to this just to create a walking path.

Even the multi-million dollar work left downstream residents vulnerable to flooding – although at a much-reduced level than existed before the work. A large water conveyance culvert installed as a part of Downtown Links has helped more. But any changes to the golf complex will require extensive civil engineering and approvals by the sponsor agencies before we move a step forward.

According to the motion we’re to begin design on what’s being called ‘phase 1’ and do a deeper dive into the larger concept, public engagement, and financing. That’s flawed. Here’s why. Here’s the phasing description:

First, for the reasons I shared above related to making ‘adjustments’ to Del Urich, anything designed will require approval by both the Pima County folks, and the U.S. Army Corps. That review cannot start until they have 100% stamped construction documents. Changes being proposed will have to include a civil engineering design of the topography impacts being proposed even before those agencies begin their review. The Corps alone can take 18 months to do a review. We won’t have proposed stamped documents to them before 18 months. The project hasn’t even begun design, bidding, and award. The money shown for the project is Prop 407 money promised to the voters to be for irrigation upgrades. That’s all it can be used for. Not redoing the golf course. And to begin redoing the irrigation before we have the full ‘concept’ design completed is a waste of taxpayer money. Why invest in changing irrigation until you know where all the changes are going to happen at the full Golf Complex? To suggest we’ll have ‘phase 1’ done in a year and a half is, well, ill-informed.

Beyond that though the ‘concept’ is to slice the pathway between the two golf courses. Overlaying what’s being shown on the concept with the existing courses shows that it will include eliminating or significantly altering 8 of the existing holes. Redesigning two golf courses to that extent cannot happen without impacting the topography. And very likely impacting some old growth trees. We’re back to the flooding issues and approvals from the PCFCD and US Corps. The idea is also to result in a new ‘championship’ course on Randolph North. Currently that course is 6,900 yards long. That is at the very ‘short’ end of what is now considered for major tournaments. The concept is to shorten it even more. Anybody who has been to or managed a golf championship knows a tournament course will need circulation space for spectators, concessions, grandstands, restrooms, tents – space for all of that. Making North smaller will simply not result in it becoming an attractive championship course. The UA just moved to Tucson National. They’re at about 7,900 yards – and that’s a collegiate course.

The concept also includes creating a road diet out of Randolph Way. Following a baseball game or a large zoo event cars are already backed up on that street. The idea of shrinking it shows an ignorance of how the existing conditions affect neighbors and clients of the baseball/zoo events.

The concept includes putting fencing and netting up to protect walkers who make their way the less than ½ mile from Alvernon to the west side of the park. Aside from suggesting that spending $20M is a good investment for that ½ mile path, the open space that’s there now is an urban wildlife corridor. Nobody is there during the night to disturb the critters. Putting up nets will necessarily affect that part of the park experience. Better to simply set aside a couple of mornings where birders are given free rein on the courses to do their thing.

The concept also includes spending $8.5M to renovate the existing restaurant. Even if we had a design ready to bid, spending that amount of money to renovate a restaurant cannot be considered a wise public investment. We don’t have the design, so that cost estimate is based on nothing but numbers on a piece of paper. The mayor asked if Rio Nuevo can help with the funding. The Randolph Golf Complex is outside of the Rio Nuevo district. They’re not a player in this. We owe the public a more informed process than this.

We have 5 golf courses in our golf enterprise. The only two that make money are Randolph North and Del Urich.  Making them less attractive to the golfing public will only send the golf enterprise back into the red. We have several golf courses that could serve as added public open space. These aren’t two of them. This whole conversation is about far more than preserving Cunningham’s favorite golf hole. Phase 1 won’t happen in 18 months, the money allocated for irrigation cannot be used for redesign of Urich, the Army Corps and Pima County haven’t seen anything suggesting that the civil engineering for the changes has been contemplated, much less studied.  Two years ago when the M&C flipped on its prior support for the zoo expansion Barnum Hill was characterized as a gem worth preserving. Today it’s still not ADA accessible, the pond nearby is a smelly mess and none of the comments that were made by M&C regaling it as an important asset have resulted in a penny being invested into make it an attractive place to go.

That’s why I voted no. KOLD had all of that on tape – the story they ran didn’t do it justice.

Capstone

Quick update on the Capstone development project I wrote about last week. This is the student housing/workforce housing development planned for the SE corner of Speedway and Euclid.  It was scheduled to be on our agenda last Tuesday evening. It was – but at 10pm on the night before Capstone sent over some changes. While none of them were particularly deal-breakers, there were enough of them that I chose to pull their item from the agenda and give us all a chance to review and consider what they were after in a more leisurely manner than a scramble on council day. I expect the plan to be back on the agenda for our January 9^th meeting.

Neighborhood Development

Based on the vote to move forward with the Randolph Golf renovations it’s clear M&C don’t have a clear understanding of some of the dynamics decisions like that can have on midtown, and entertainment district residents and businesses. That’s just one of the reasons I’m insisting on getting every T crossed before Capstone comes back to us.

The Drachman Institute has done studies over the past 20 years tracking what kind of residential development has been evolving in midtown. About 10 years ago we adopted our Group Dwelling ordinance as a way to try to slow the amount of student housing (mini dorms) that were popping up inside of midtown neighborhoods. Last week Drachman finished their most current update on what kind of housing we’re seeing in neighborhoods surrounding the UA campus. In most cases the percentage of owner-occupied is sadly low in comparison to rentals.

Thank you to Blenman Elm neighbor Marilyn for tracking this project and sharing the information with me. The concern is as rentals increase the level of commitment to and care for the surrounding neighborhood decreases. We’ve had 2 red tagged houses this semester in my own neighborhood. Neither happened at a home that’s owner occupied.

Here are the data. Ironhorse – 75% rental; North University – 71% rental; Feldman’s - 67% rental; Northwest – 61% rentals, Pie Allen – 72% rental; West University – 76% rental; Rincon Heights – 76% rental. You can see the rest. The city as a whole is about 50/50 owner to rental.

Also of concern in those tables is the number of vacant houses in the UA area. Citywide we have about 8% of vacant property. In the university area the numbers are north of 10% in every neighborhood. Most are around 15%. Why are developments such as Capstone so important to get right? Because the impacts the UA has on surrounding neighborhoods is significant.

Sincerely,

Steve Kozachik
Council Member, Ward 6
ward6@tucsonaz.gov

City of Tucson Resources

• COVID-19 Updates: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/covid-19/covid-19-updates
• I Want To... : https://www.tucsonaz.gov/i-want-to