PRESCOTT – The Big Chino water pipeline and the financing for it will highlight the discussion of the Prescott City Council this week.
The council will conduct its regular voting session at 3 p.m. Tuesday, at Prescott City Hall, 201 S. Cortez St.
The Big Chino shows up twice on the council agenda - first on the public comment portion of the meeting, and then during presentations.
Kicking off the Big Chino discussion will be Citizens Water Advocacy Group member Howard Mechanic, who will talk to the council on "who will pay for the Big Chino?"
According to information from the citizens' group, Prescott does not need the water that it plans to import from the Paulden-area Big Chino sub-basin to serve growth within its existing boundaries.
Currently, the group maintains, the city has more than twice the amount of water in its portfolio than is necessary to serve the property currently in the city limits.
"Since Big Chino water is not needed to provide for growth within the city, the only potential growth that would need Big Chino water would occur in annexation areas," states a memo for the council from Mechanic.
But considering the current economic downturn, Mechanic's memo questions whether those annexations will provide the anticipated revenues through impact fees to pay their anticipated share of the pipeline.
Without that revenue, the group maintains that Prescott residents may have to pay much more than their fair share of the pipeline cost.
After Mechanic's comments, the Big Chino discussion will move onto a presentation by Jim Holt, the city's project manager for the Big Chino Water Ranch.
City Manager Steve Norwood said Friday that Holt's report would include information on the meetings that took place over the previous week between Prescott and Prescott Valley officials and representatives of financial firms interested in a public-private partnership for the construction of the pipeline.
The possible privatization of the pipeline has been a topic of discussion for months. In October, the councils from Prescott and Prescott Valley met with a financial consultant to discuss the feasibility of a public-private partnership to finance the cost, which local officials estimate at more than $170 million.
During three meetings over the past week, Norwood said he and several other Prescott and Prescott Valley staff-level and elected officials heard presentations from investment firms from around the U.S., Canada, and Australia on how the public/private partnership might operate.
Norwood said local officials opted not to do the presentations in public because they wanted the applicants to be "open and honest, and didn't want it to be a politicized event."
In other action, the council will:
• Consider a $60,340 purchase of 45 new public-use computers for the Prescott Public Library.
• Consider a five-year agreement with the Prescott Community Access Channel.
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
Public Private Partnerships seem like just another tactic in leaving the public in the dark. Once again as in too many issues ongoing and in the past local agencies are choosing to block public input on a subject that impacts every resident in Yavapai County and beyond. Quit spending taxpayer money without giving us a say in the matter. In Paulden many of the resident are very concerned with the tri-city pipeline taking water from our area with little or no concern from these same municipalities as to problems the Paulden Area may encounter as a result of their pipeline.
We keep asking questions and instead of answers we are given frustration.
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
John Sellers
Leslie
Thanks but I've seen those "arguments" previously. What we need is some "analysis".
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
Look at private company's track records
Citizens, local government employees and elected politicians all need to do intense research before embarking on a public/private partnership. There are several books available through the Prescott Public Library on the topic. One is called "Blue Covenant." I quote from page 121: "Atlanta, Georgia signed a $428 million contract with United Water in 1999, but severed it just four years later citing broken promises, faulty infrastructure and dirty water. New Orleans, Lousiana droppped its $1.5 Billion contract with Suez and Veolia in 2004 after five years and almost $6 million worth of study. The companies were balking at new laws giving the voters the right to approve or deny such contracts." The bottom line is, private companies have to answer to their stockholders and make a profit. Local governments must answer to the people. And the people don't want to pay to line a private company's pockets with taxpayer funds that should be used for the good of the community. The privitization of water has turned into a nightmare in other countries. We don't need that here.
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
PAUL F MILLER
The water issues surround the Big Chino deserve to be resolved in an atmosphere where full open disclosure prevails. In the current environment I respectfully note it is quite unlikely the “citizens” have been provided all the evidence to enable them to achieve with discretion an intelligent conclusion…?
Providing the time as well as the environment to achieve full disclosure has not been the policy of those driving either the “pro” or the “con” forces surrounding the Big Chino water issue or any water issue in Arizona.
Decisions we make under duress created by lack of knowledge only serve to return to haunt us with vengeance in the future. Haven’t we fed BS long enough…?
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
Leslie Hoy
Mr. Sellers, Howard Mechanic's complete argument is in the council packet online for tomorrow's council meeting. He will also present his argument at the Jan. 28 panel discussion from 5:30 - 8 p.m. at the Prescott College Crossroads Center and at the Feb. 14 CWAG meeting (See http://www.cwagAZ.org for info on both events). I hope you and others will attend so that your comments will not just be based on assumptions.
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
Remember, even a totally privatized pipeline will require compensation (read here 'profit') to the company that runs it. Guess where that compensation comes from? You got it, the taxpayers of the municipalities. This just gets the muni's off the hook about raising your taxes, and then they can "blame" their private partners for the increases in fees, all the while crying "Oh poor us..."! Be careful, regardless of the source of the $200,000,000 investment it will have to be guaranteed by the citizens of the cities. Public-Private Partnerships do not eliminate that unhappy reality.
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
John Sellers
Howard Mechanic makes two arguments. The first - we don’t need the water. I’ve yet to see any real analysis but I suspect his base line assumption is no growth. True or not, the more fundamental problem is his reliance on the “growth pays for growth” paradigm. The US has monopolized many paradigms for years which the world’s financial markets are telling you no longer apply. Taxing new arrivals, known as Proposition 13 in California, is a goldilocks recipe for bankruptcy - especially if you borrowed money previously and now depend on it. Going forward that option is dead. No one in the infrastructure business will rely on a developers take out based on housing starts. If you’re against growth that’s democracy. But I’m probably the only person who’s added up ALL the infrastructure related debt in the area. Much of this, such as IDA debt, is not even reported to the State anymore. There’s over $1 Billion of it hanging off schools, hospitals, convention centers and quasi government services. But be careful what you wish for. Any country that’s encountered debt before knows, there’s only two ways to deal with excess debt – grow or default.
Finally as one of the few people in Arizona that’s ever done a PPP – assume it will be transparent or it won’t get financed. John Sellers
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2009
Article comment by:
Steve G.
Hmmm, Public/private partnership behind closed doors because Norwood and other elected officials are afraid it will become politicized. I would think here, that they don't want the public knowing what they are going to do with our money, folks. Sounds like more crooks coming to the coffers and Norwood and the other cronies covering up the deal. How many times in the recent past has everyone been saying that this pipeline thing is out of place and perhaps the City and PV should not be moving ahead with it. Now Mr. Mechanic is going to get his token 5 minutes and the council is going to listen or not while looking bored and do whatever they want anyway. Seems to me that now this government is just being blatant about their shenanigans and snuffing their noses at the citizens. I am sure that if and when it comes out in council (during a voting session), the private company that gets this bid will be voted on and the people will not even know who until the last minute, and it will an outrageous amount. I certainly hope you all are paying attention here folks because the bus wheels are rolling and we are under them at the moment.
