The Tucson City Council began the process for increasing residents’ water rates in order to incentivize greater water conservation. The council motioned in a study session on Tuesday to increase rates by reclassifying winter months, which have lower rates, into summer months.
A customer’s water usage over the winter months determines the Average Winter Consumption (AWC), which is charged at a year-round base rate; in the summer months, water usage between 101 to 145 percent of AWC is billed at a higher rate, and over 145 percent at an even higher rate.
The rate increase comes at the behest of the water efficiency and conservation program goals outlined in the city’s Natural Environment Plan. On Tuesday, the city approved Options 1A and 1B to restructure water rates. Those options direct city staff to proceed with the rate adoption process, commence a notice of public intent with a 60-day public outreach and communication hearing prior to a public hearing and rate adoption.
Councilman Kevin Dahl said the water crisis defined by PFAs in the water supply and the Colorado Water River drought necessitated the restructuring of rates. Dahl also claimed that the rate restructure would create equitable change, noting that wealthier entities like homeowners associations and golf courses pay lower water rates while larger families and garden owners pay more.
Rather than allow the traditional policy process, which would take four or five months per proposed change, Dahl moved to expedite both options together rather than separately. The council adopted his motion.
“We need to have a quick start on this,” said Dahl.
The 1A option changes winter months from the current definition of six months to three months. The 1B option then adds on another tier, greater than 145 percent, to the block structure. City staff explained that 1A allows the commercial and industrial class to get used to the three-month winter quarter average for several years, then follow up to determine conservation effectiveness.
Councilman Paul Cunningham said that he appreciated the notice of public intent and hearing, sharing that it alleviated his concerns that residents would experience “sticker shock” over the hike in water rates.
“This is the direction we’re going. We might as well be transparent about it,” said Cunningham.
Cunningham voiced concern over the possibility of specialized rates for different businesses. He also brought up a desire to establish conservation-compliant water parks in the city, noting that they lose residents in the summer to the water parks housed in surrounding cities and states.
“Water, like it or not, is becoming a commodity and is becoming a quantifiable and limited resource,” said Cunningham.
Mayor Regina Romero called the city’s water situation “bleak.” Vice Mayor Steve Kozachik concurred.
“Our goal is to send a strong conservation signal,” said Kozachik.
Tucson hasn’t been the only city to hike its water rates for conservation’s sake. The city of Phoenix proposed increasing water rates over the next year by a minimum of 25 percent.
Watch the city council discussion of the water rates here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Tucson taxpayers are likely to be on the hook for the costs of public transit indefinitely.
The city council voted last Tuesday to make public transit free for good, according to Councilman Steve Kozachik, after three years of not charging for transportation services.
Kozachik clarified to the University of Arizona (UArizona) student newspaper that the council’s actions last week meant that they wouldn’t reinstate transit fares until the council took an affirmative vote to do so.
The council voted to extend free public transit through this December during last Tuesday’s study session at a cost of $4.6 million. According to Kozachik, this motion was within the context of the council’s true intention to keep public transit free indefinitely.
The council also moved to establish a task force of stakeholders to determine how to keep public transit free. Mayor Regina Romero expressed concern that the council was essentially kicking the can down the road.
“To be honest, we’re moving the item every six months, and so I think we really need to figure out what is the long-term solution,” said Romero. “If we don’t have long-term funding options, then we need to start talking about what’s a fair fare. We just need to make sure that we do have the possible stakeholders and investors in the system.”
Councilman Steve Kozachik cautioned that this strategy of holding out to inspire funding from stakeholders was likely to backfire. He added that it was “highly improbable” the council would actually move to reinstate fares after December.
“I don’t agree that us treading water on the decision about fares is necessary to get the other stakeholders to the table. I don’t agree with that as a negotiating strategy,” said Kozachik.
Councilman Paul Cunningham raised the concern that the task force may not actually accomplish its appointed task of sourcing adequate funding or structuring the reinstatement of fares, pointing back to a three-year trend over the COVID-19 pandemic of alleged complacency and falling behind on goals due to virtual meetings.
“As much as I wish I was Obi-Wan Kenobi who could, like, use the Force to see what’s going to unfold, I can’t,” said Cunningham.
The council opted to maintain their position of free public transit, despite not having funding secured beyond December. Current funding sources for the remainder of the year, totaling $4.1 million — a $486,000 deficit, which Tucson will cover through the public Investment Plan funds — come from hotel and motel taxes, the Tucson Medical Center partnership, SunTran efficiency expense reductions, and a Visit Tucson funding formula adjustment.
UArizona also gave about $780,000 gleaned from student fees to fund the public transit. However, the estimated annual cost of public transit reaches around $11 million.
Some council members also mentioned that they’re attempting to tap Raytheon for long-term funding.
Prior to this year, federal COVID-19 relief funds covered the transit costs. Fares were scheduled to resume on January 1 of this year, but the city opted to source funds to cover the cost.
Back in December, the council considered additional parking garage fees or property taxes to cover the transit costs.
Tucson isn’t the first city to attempt totally free transit in the state, let alone in the country. Phoenix’s Valley Metro offers free busing for its neighborhood circulators, and the first year of its streetcar services is free. The city also subsidized a limited number of free public transit passes in 2021 using $1 million of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.
There are dozens of other cities around the country, as well as university campuses, that offer free public transit.
As AZ Free News reported just prior to the Tucson City Council’s most recent decision, community members have criticized the three-year-long trial run of free public transit as more of a burden than a help. Locals have complained to several media outlets that the free transit enables criminal behavior and public nuisances.
Unionized bus drivers have also complained, claiming that free transit has lowered the quality of passengers and required them to become the “transit police.”
Watch the Tucson City Council study session here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Tucson voters delivered a resounding defeat to Mayor Regina Romero and her support of Proposition 412.
On Tuesday, results were released for the special election, showing Prop 412 receiving 28,084 (44.7%) votes in favor versus 34,712 (55.3%) votes in opposition. Voter turnout for the City of Tucson’s contest hovered around 21.69%.
Prop 412 would have granted “a franchise to Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Company for the purpose of providing electric transmission and distribution services within the City of Tucson for which the City of Tucson will receive a franchise fee and other consideration.” The “other consideration” would have come, in part, in the form of a “Community Resilience Fee” to fund Tucson’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which was an effort to achieve “carbon neutrality for City operations by 2030.”
Mayor Romero, who had been one of the strongest proponents of Prop 412, released a statement after the results confirmed the worst: “TEP and the City put together a franchise agreement that tried to be responsive to the different needs our community was asking for, like undergrounding, investing in climate resiliency and creating EV infrastructure in public rights of way. I respect the voters’ decision not to approve.”
STATEMENT FROM TUCSON MAYOR REGINA ROMERO ON PROP 412 ELECTION RESULT:
"TEP and the City put together a franchise agreement that tried to be responsive to the different needs our community was asking for…
Arizona Corporation Commissioner Kevin Thompson, one of Arizona’s few Republican statewide officeholders at the moment, reacted to the news from southern Arizona, telling AZ Free News, “Tucson voters rightfully demonstrated they understood the ramifications of mixing political pet projects under the guise of essential utility contract service requirements. This is a good outcome for ratepayers and a step towards returning these important decisions to the Corporation Commission where they belong.”
Merissa Hamilton, a grassroots leader in Arizona, tweeted her analysis of the Tucson election result, writing, “This vote is significant because it was the Public’s chance to make their voice heard on Romero’s tyrannical climate action agenda.”
This vote is significant because it was the Public's chance to make their voice heard on Romero's tyrannical climate action agendahttps://t.co/o0cpLxODRH
— Merissa Hamilton 🗳 ⛽ 🗽🔥 (@merissahamilton) May 17, 2023
One of the main issues that caused contention over this proposal was the insertion of the community resilience fee of 0.75% of all applicable revenues of TEP – in addition to the 2.25% Franchise Fee. This new fee would have been collected and disbursed for “funding costs associated with the underground installation of new TEP Facilities or conversion to underground of existing TEP facilities currently installed overhead; and projects that support the City’s implementation of the City’s approved Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.” This fee picked up opposition from both sides of the political aisle.
The Pima County Republican Party had fiercely lobbied against Prop 412 and cheered on its defeat. In a Facebook post, the Party stated, “WE DID IT!! Thank you to our LD’s and our incredible volunteers. CONGRATULATIONS to every volunteer and every candidate who helped us fight this Marxist proposal.”
The community resilience charge hasn’t been the only fee that TEP is attempting to pass along to its Southern Arizona consumers. Earlier last year, TEP submitted an application to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), proposing a rate increase of 11.8% to take effect no later than September 1, 2023. TEP informed the Commission that “the new rates are intended to result in an increase in retail revenues of approximately $136 million.” According to reports, TEP customers’ bills would increase more than $14 each month should the ACC sign off on the request.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The city of Tucson is looking into potential funding options to cover the $11 million it would take to keep public transit free every year from here on out.
Prior to this year, the city used federal COVID-19 relief funds to keep public transit fare-free. When the city first announced free busing back in March 2020, the city claimed that the purpose was to avoid crowding at the farebox in addition to providing fiscal relief to riders.
Bus fares were scheduled to resume on January 1 of this year; however, the city managed to source funding for these past six months.
City officials have also sourced enough funding for the next six months. For this upcoming round of subsidies, $2 million came from new hotel and motel taxes, $790,000 came from Tucson Medical Center revenue, and $600,000 came from Visit Tucson revenue. That totals just under $3.4 million.
However, community members are saying the three-year experiment in free public transit has proven much more of a burden than a help. Many have complained that the free transit essentially aids criminal behavior and facilitates public nuisances.
Bus driver union leaders expressed concern about quality control with fully-subsidized bus fare, particularly pointing out the homeless that ride the bus nonstop during the summers to avoid the heat. Teamsters Union 104 Business Manager Kevin Hampton told13 News that free busing threatened passenger and public safety.
“We don’t want our drivers to become the transit police,” said Hampton. “We’re more interested in finding long-term solutions to combat the reasons why people want to ride the bus all day.”
Passengers have complained to local outlets that the free busing allows “too many troublemakers” to board the buses.
Public safety activists like Josh Jacobsen with Tucson Crime Free Coalition allege that free busing has facilitated drug sales, trafficking, and even usage. Jacobsen also toldKVOA that the buses also serve as convenient getaways for robbers and thieves.
“The free buses are contributing to a lot of the movement of narcotics, specifically fentanyl around our community,” said Jacobsen. “There are a lot of reports of individuals using drugs on the free buses. And the free buses also play a large role in the organized retail theft of businesses around our community.”
In December, AZ Free News reported that the council felt they would have to shift the cost burden to taxpayers to cover bus fare. At the time, Mayor Regina Romero suggested additional parking garage fees, Councilwoman Lane Santa Cruz proposed an additional property tax.
The city also secured a financial partner for bus subsidization: defense manufacturing giant Raytheon. The city council noted that they were attempting to convince the University of Arizona and Tucson Unified School District to also join as funding partners.
Cost estimates for taxpayers to subsidize busing permanently ranged around $1 million a month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) parents and educators say they’d rather have stricter punishments for students who issue verbal threats, not students who fight.
This preference was outlined in a recent survey conducted by TUSD. The district issued the survey to gather parental input on code of conduct revisions.
About 80 percent of parents expressed support for long-term suspensions (11-30 days), longer term suspensions (11-180 days), or expulsions (over 180 days) for students who issue verbal threats. That broke down to 53 percent for long-term suspension, and 27 percent for longer term suspension or expulsion.
However, only 20 percent of parents expressed support for stricter punishments in the case of physical altercations. That broke down to 13 percent for long-term suspension, and five percent for longer term suspension or expulsion.
Likewise, 78 percent of school staff expressed support for long-term suspensions, long-term suspensions, or expulsions for verbal threats. That broke down to 55 percent believing in long term suspension, with 23 percent believing in longer term suspension or expulsion.
Yet, 25 percent of staff said they would issue stricter punishments in the case of physical altercations. 20 percent would award long-term suspension, and only five percent would issue either a longer term suspension or expulsion.
Only 10 percent of parents believed that verbal threats warranted short-term suspension. Six percent of parents believed it warranted in-school suspension; seven percent of parents believed it warranted an in-school contract or plan.
Comparatively, 63 percent of parents believed that physical altercations warranted short-term suspension. 14 percent believed it warranted in-school suspension, and five percent believed it warranted an in-school contract or plan.
Survey respondents, identified as stakeholders, asserted that elementary, middle, and high schools should have separate codes of conduct. There were nearly 6,300 stakeholders: over 800 students, over 2,800 staff, and over 2,600 parents.
Of note, students reported that classes about drug use weren’t actually helping students who used drugs. Students also reported that there shouldn’t be a dress code in the new code of conduct, and if there were to be one, it shouldn’t be “gender-biased.”
According to the survey results, commonalities among student, staff, and parent stakeholders included the determinations that both fights and drug use should incur short-term suspensions, not lengthier suspensions or expulsions. The stakeholders added that students should have the option of an in-school- or out-of-school suspension, or a combination of the two.
The majority of stakeholders also concurred that dress codes should remain at a lower tier for code of conduct violations, and that students shouldn’t be suspended for truancy.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
