Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Jim Nintzel teases a story at the Tucson Weekly New Cost Estimates for Public Safety First Initiative:
The city of Tucson's Independent Audit and Performance Commission will be reviewing a report on the potential costs of the Public Safety First Initiative, aka Prop 200, which voters will decide Nov. 3. The prop would require the city to hire more police officers and firefighters. City officials had earlier estimated the costs to be $51 million a year.
We hear the report will show even higher projected annual costs, in the neighborhood of $64 million a year, although the start-up costs over the next five years may come out lower than originally estimated.
Details to follow…
Brandon Patrick, chair of Don't Handcuff Tucson, has issued the following press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Cost projections for Prop 200 this week have risen by 20 percent, turning a $250 million unfunded mandate Tucson can't afford into a $298 million spending spree Tucson really can't afford.
A city independent audit sub-commission created to determine the cost for Prop 200 indicated that original cost estimates by the city were too low. According to their final report, Tucson faces a five year implementation cost of $158 million and a recurring cost of $67 million every year thereafter. This number is up from $51 million in the city's previous estimates.
Earlier this week, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry revised his projected cost to $28 million a year, or $140 million over five years. That's up from the $113 million price tag forecast earlier this summer.
These new estimates come as both city and county revenues are collapsing. To protect police and fire from the kind of budget cuts experienced by other departments, the City Council has been forced to raise fees on low-income Sun Tran riders, cut money to Meals on Wheels and help for the disabled and economic development efforts by 15 percent.
Should this proposition pass, 43 cents out of every dollar spent on non-public safety services would have to be eliminated. That includes parks, recreation, after-school programs, job training services and neighborhood street repair already halted during the current economic crisis. It's that or higher taxes on Tucson families, at a time when they cannot afford it.
Opposing proposition 200 is simply acknowledging we can't always afford everything we want, said Marian Lupu, co-chair of No on 200/Don't Handcuff Tucson. Public safety is already Tucson’s top priority, we spend two thirds of available money on it already. Tucson can afford more than one priority.
These skyrocketing costs associated with Prop 200, coupled with no identified funding source to pay for it are among the reasons a growing number of Tucson leaders, from the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to the Casa Maria Soup Kitchen, from the Primavera Foundation to Cox Communications now oppose this ballot question.
I am in possession of a copy of the Independent Audit Commission draft report. It is my understanding that the report will be presented to the Council at its next regular meeting. I will try to find time to analyze this lengthy draft report and post more about it before the next Council meeting.
Note: Mike has linked the draft Independent Audit Commission report under "MIKE'S DEL.ICIO.US LINKS" in the right column tools on this page so you can review the report for yourself.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is why reactionaries with simple solutions to complex problems are not suited to serve in government, like the GOP city council candidates.
Even if the City of Tucson were to freeze spending at current fiscal year levels, city sales tax revenue is projected to continue to decline into next year AND the Arizona Legislature is still trying to steal the revenue sharing portion of state sales tax revenue (also still declining) from the cities, for which the cities have taken the state to court. The City of Tucson projects a deficit for next year, which means another round of budget cuts – a freeze won’t do it. Police and fire budgets were spared this year, but may not be next year.
And then you want to add an unfunded mandate for an arbitrary staffing level for police and fire on top of this existing budget crisis? Unless you can identify a source of revenue to pay for the $67 million annually that the Independent Audit Commission projects Prop. 200 will cost the city (this does not even include the additional Pima County projected costs)there is no way to pay for it other than to raise taxes.
And reactionaries always just stomp their feet and shout “no new taxes!”
Every crime scene in Tucson seems to have an abundance of cops stumbling over each other. Most of the devices designed to squeeze revenue out of it’s citizens are running full tilt. Parking two feet outside a designated parking area for 6 hours will guarantee a $300.00 ticket. A thorough study by the Federal Department of Transportation concluded that excessive speeds account for 5% of traffic fatalities. Despite this relatively small contribution to traffic fatalities, traffic schools are bursting at the seems with citizens chucking revenue for excessive speeds in areas containing ridiculous speed limits. People are being pulled over for making left-hand turns and simultaneously changing lanes with no traffic in sight. Many sleepless nights are caused by choppers flying overhead in the university areas to bust keg parties. Advertised teen hip-hop parties have been known to draw as many as 25 cop cars to one scene – with no laws broken. Police failing to make their case for pulling someone over will find things like cracked windshields and, if you can’t afford to repair them, the city yanks your license. Bicycle cops, with nothing better to do, drift past houses with stereo’s playing to bust people for possession of marijuana. For those not living inside of the gated communities or “the Foothills”, cops are everywhere and, except for the rare occasions when they are actually needed, create more hazardous, stressful conditions for those who live in the city. Do “Prop 200” advocates think they can fund their proposal by squeezing more revenue out of the already gutted, less affluent population?