Timeline: County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry

Chuck Huckelberry, the civil engineer from Flowing Wells who has left his mark on nearly every Pima County project for the past 19 years, resigned yesterday.

Huckelberry, 43, designed and implemented diverse proposals ranging from roads and bridges to nationally recognized open space and environmental protection programs.

"For God's sake," said Reg Morrison, Republican chairman of the Board of Supervisors from 1990 through 1992. "They are going to miss him, and they don't even know it."

Wanda Shattuck, the veteran neighborhood activist, said Huckelberry "was the most talented and skilled public servant in the Southwest. What a loss for all of us."

Huckelberry grew up with Pima County. He joined the old Highway Department at age 24 and became the youngest department head in county history five years later when he was promoted to director of Transportation and Flood Control.

But Huckelberry was at work long before that as an undergraduate, then as a graduate student in mining and civil engineering at the University of Arizona. He worked while going to school and gave up a lucrative position with Shell Oil in California to return to Tucson and enter public service.

"I think he was born in the county building," former Republican Supervisor Greg Lunn said.

The departure, Lunn said, "really symbolizes what is happening at the county."

Promoted to assistant county manager in charge of public works in 1987, Huckelberry was demoted in January by new County Administrator Manoj Vyas when Vyas issued his sweeping reorganization.

Huckelberry was spared initially as Vyas fired six executives. But Vyas, who once worked for Huckelberry at transportation, demoted Huckelberry to director of capital planning. Vyas also cut Huckelberry's pay from $101,000 a year to $85,000.

Vyas first let Huckelberry remain in charge of selection of a new regional landfill, the biggest county and city project of record.

Vyas and the Republican majority of the Board of Supervisors then undercut Huckelberry by moving forward with options for property before the full board or the City Council could vote on the issues.

Republican Supervisor Mike Boyd told City Councilman Bruce Wheeler on Tuesday that Huckelberry would be leaving soon.

Wheeler, a Democrat, said Boyd told him that Huckelberry and ousted Deputy County Manager Bruce Postil were running the show under former county Manager Enrique Serna and "had to go."

Boyd said he told Wheeler that Huckelberry was likely to resign and that he "felt Huckelberry and Postil were running the show." But Boyd denied saying the two "had to go."

Huckelberry left for a vacation on Thursday and was unavailable for comment. His letter of resignation was given to Vyas yesterday and is effective, discounting accrued vacation time, April 24.

"I have very much enjoyed the last 19 years working with past and present Boards of Supervisors, manager and staff of Pima County," Huckelberry said in his letter. "I firmly believe that Pima County has one of the most competent, dedicated and loyal governmental staffs in Arizona."

Lunn, Morrison and others, including some who had been at odds with Huckelberry, credited him with guiding the county through a major period of modernization of all infrastructure.

Dave Dolgen, head of Forest City Southwest, developer of Tucson Mall, serves on numerous county committees and said Huckelberry balanced "the needs of the community."

Dolgen said Huckelberry was "vigilant in protecting the environment and character of Tucson," while also promoting the interests of business.

Chuck Huckelberry, the longtime Pima County executive who resigned in April after losing much of his authority during reorganization, was hired yesterday to manage the Metropolitan Domestic Water District.

The surprise move ends Huckelberry's two-month hiatus from the public sector. He resigned as director of capital planning on April 9 and joined the consulting firm of David Evans & Associates on April 12.

Huckelberry will be paid $80,000 a year at Metropolitan Water, which serves 38,500 customers on the northwest side and Oro Valley.

Huckelberry, who was with the county 19 years, was paid $101,000 a year as assistant county manager until he was demoted by County Administrator Manoj Vyas, who also cut his salary to $85,000.

"We are extremely pleased to have him. He has the ability to work with diverse groups," said Alex Jacome, a member of the Metropolitan Water District board.

The appointment is politically odd. Huckelberry fell out of favor with Ed Moore, the Republican chairman of the Board of Supervisors and a key figure last year in the creation of the Metropolitan Water District.

And Kate O'Rielly, Moore's former executive aide and now head of county Community Resources, is a founding director of Metropolitan Water.

Chuck Huckelberry agreed in principle yesterday to terms for his interim assignment as Pima County administrator.

Meanwhile, Huckelberry's ex-boss, former Pima County Manager Enrique Serna, was considered for the job as Nogales assistant city manager last night at the Nogales City Council meeting. But Mayor Jose Canchola requested, after a lengthy executive session, that the item to consider Serna's appointment be tabled.

However, sources say Serna's nomination is likely to be withdrawn because of council resistance.

Both Serna and Huckelberry were victims of Pima County's January purge.

Serna was Pima County manager from late 1989 until Jan. 4, when the Ed Moore-led Republican majority on the Board of Supervisors fired him.

Huckelberry, a 19-year veteran of Pima County, was an assistant county manager for six years - three of them under Serna.

Four months after being demoted by Serna's replacement, Manoj Vyas, Huckelberry quit the county to become director of Metro Water.

Republican board Chairman Mike Boyd said he wants Huckelberry to begin by Tuesday and that his acceptance of the interim position does not eliminate his opportunity to seek the permanent appointment. Boyd voted with Democratic Supervisors Dan Eckstrom and Raul Grijalva on Tuesday to name Huckelberry as interim manager.

The board voted unanimously last week to fire Vyas, but Boyd, Moore and Republican Paul Marsh insisted that Vyas be reassigned. Marsh said in interviews this week that the county should retain Vyas because Vyas has a total of 10 years' county experience even though three of the six executives Vyas fired on his second day in office had a combined total of more than 36 years of service to the county.

Huckelberry declined to talk about provisions in the contract, which the board must approve Tuesday.

Sources said Huckelberry will be paid $110,000 annually - or $55,000 if he stays the six months Boyd stipulated - while the county conducts a national search for a permanent administrator. Vyas was paid $105,000 a year.

Huckelberry also will bring his longtime executive assistant Julie Johnson, who followed him to Metro Water. The year-old water district also is likely to get an interim manager when its board meets Monday.

Huckelberry, 44, said he wants to "take stock in the county situation and stabilize the system."

"The key is to communicate openly with all members of the board and to disclose everything to each member," Huckelberry said.Among the complaints against Vyas was that he answered only to the GOP majority and refused to provide Democrats with public information.

Serna, who was paid $113,000 at Pima County, has been interim manager to the Maricopa County town of Guadalupe.

Serna, 46, won praise for pushing through measures to strengthen the powers of the county manager and to shield the administration from interference and meddling from supervisors.

The former South Tucson city manager was a finalist for Tucson city manager earlier this year. But even the members of the all-Democratic City Council who asked Serna to apply, abandoned him and selected Michael Brown of Berkeley, Calif.

Canchola said after Serna was fired that he wanted the Texas native to serve Nogales at least as a consultant.

Serna would have replaced Fernando Castro, who announced in November that he would resign.

Castro, formerly economic development coordinator for Pima County, did not mask his frustration at not being able to get things accomplished. He has not announced his job plans.

Serna would have received $71,000 a year in Nogales for a position that is roughly similar to that of city manager positions in other communities.

Castro was the second Nogales city official to resign recently. Deputy Administrator Lou Jeong said on Nov. 2 that she was leaving. Finance Director Chris Byroad said Nov. 10 that he was moving to another job, but later decided to stay.

Chuck Huckelberry has held several jobs in his 20 years with Pima County, ranging from engineer to interim county administrator.

The Board of Supervisors will vote tomorrow to give Huckelberry permanent status as county administrator.

The move officially scraps the national search Republican Chairman Mike Boyd insisted on having when Huckelberry was brought in three months ago to replace Manoj Vyas.

"I advocated a national search then because I did not think there was a local candidate not beholden to one supervisor," Boyd said. "However, it's obvious that Mr. Huckelberry is able to get along with all supervisors. He's not carrying anyone's water or, rather, he's carrying all our water."

Boyd credits Huckelberry with stabilizing the bureaucracy that he said was badly shaken by Vyas and his many reorganizations.

For Supervisors Raul Grijalva and Dan Eckstrom, Democrats who worked with Huckelberry in their previous term, Huckelberry has been a welcome change if only because he has restored the access to his office and staff that Vyas had cut off.

"He's been treating our office and Dan's office with a degree of equality and respect that's a real change," Grijalva said.

The Democrats consistently criticized Vyas for answering only the Republican majority -- Boyd, Ed Moore and Paul Marsh - that put him in office 14 months ago.

And Grijalva and Eckstrom said they never believed the county would start a national search - the second since 1989 - to get a top administrative officer.

"I really don't think there was ever any intent to have that process," Eckstrom said.

"The idea of a national search - it didn't have a lot of feeling behind it," Grijalva said. " I was more concerned with removing Manoj from authority."

Vyas remains. He took a $50,000-a-year pay cut to $55,000 and now works on special projects.

Huckelberry will likely get at least $121,000 a year, under a contract to be presented to supervisors today. The contract also will force full payoff of his salary if supervisors fire him before the end of 1996.

Only Moore is opposed to giving Huckelberry a contract.

Few are surprised that Huckelberry's three-month performance won him support for the permanent assignment.

His three-month list of credits includes:

* Resolving several disputes with Democratic Assessor Alan Lang. Huckelberry has boosted administrative control over the Assessor's Office. While the Republicans and Grijalva conducted controversial hearings on Lang, Huckelberry minimized the circus atmosphere by keeping the assessor and county employees from sitting in purely for entertainment.

Huckelberry restricted attendance to only those people subpoenaed or involved. At one point, Huckelberry announced those who had testified must return to work.

* Mediating a pay raise battle with Sheriff's Department deputies and offering a compromise package that was approved last week.

* Preparing a plan to end the fight over the county's Municipal Property Corp. bond projects.

Huckelberry found ways to save the projects, including the Kino Recreation Center, while satisfying Moore's demand that they not be built with bonds voters had not approved.

* Alerting supervisors with a seven-month financial report that a one-time $20 million surplus had been drained and that spending could no longer outpace revenues if future deficits were to be avoided.

Huckelberry said last week that his budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year that begins July 1 is based on zero growth. Record construction will not appear on tax rolls for a year or two, he said.

* Devising a plan to evaluate the county Department of Environmental Quality's new air quality laws.

Huckelberry, 44, joined the old county highway department 20 years ago and at 29 became the youngest department head in county history. He has left his mark on nearly every county project, from roads and bridges to buildings and parks.

Along the way, he has earned praise from neighborhood activists and environmentalists, business leaders and developers.

He has been down this road before.

In 1989, he was in line to be interim manager and likely the new county manager when Jim Riley was eased out. Huckelberry had a majority sewn up through the weekend preceding the board meeting.

But by the time roll was called, Huckelberry's votes had evaporated and a fellow assistant county manager, Jane Verner, got the interim job.

Last year, Huckelberry was passed over by the Republican majority when it fired County Manager Enrique Serna and appointed Vyas to marshal a sweeping reorganization plan.

Vyas demoted Huckelberry and cut his pay from $101,000 a year to $85,000. Huckelberry lasted less than four months as head of capital projects in the Vyas regime before resigning to join a private engineering consulting company.

He was bitterly disappointed with Vyas' administration but praised the county work force as "one of the most competent, dedicated and loyal government staffs in Arizona."

Huckelberry is a career public service employee who gave up a lucrative job with Shell Oil after graduating with bachelor's and master's degrees in mining and civil engineering from the University of Arizona. He quickly abandoned the engineering firm last year to head Metro Water.

Even while away from county government, Huckelberry continued to respond to questions from all supervisors.

The Board of Supervisors appointed Chuck Huckelberry as Pima County manager yesterday but delayed action on his $121,000-a-year contract for one week.

It was a case of two supervisors, Republicans Ed Moore and Paul Marsh, defeating three, Democrats Dan Eckstrom and Raul Grijalva and Republican Board Chairman Mike Boyd.

Moore and Marsh wanted to hold off approval of Huckelberry's contract, which calls for immediate payoff if he is fired before the end of 1996. And although Moore and Marsh would have lost by a 3-2 vote, Boyd acceded to their demand and postponed approval of the contract.

Boyd, a strong Huckelberry backer, complained that 24 hours was not enough time to review Huckelberry's contract. Supervisors had one day to read the contract, which consists of two pages and one paragraph.

Moore said he read it and objected because it didn't contain performance standards. And Moore said he and Marsh discussed the contract privately and that Marsh had concerns about the provision that allows Huckelberry to tap into the vacation and sick time accumulated during his earlier employment. Huckelberry is a 20-year-county official who returned in December as interim county administrator after an eight-month hiatus.

Marsh said the annual salary was too high, noting that former County Administrator Manoj Vyas made $105,000 and pointed out that supervisors last week ratified Huckelberry's spending freeze.

Grijalva said Huckelberry's contract is "reasonable given the tenor of the times."

The Democrats said they were concerned about what Moore would extract from Huckelberry this week in exchange for his support.

"With regard to performance criteria, I have no problem putting in the motion that one of the performance criteria (be) that Mr. Huckelberry assures us that he will on a daily basis suck up to Mr. Moore," Eckstrom said.

With Huckelberry in a sort of limbo, Moore attacked the county's Department of Environmental Quality, forcing an unadvertised hearing on the agency that is under attack at the Legislature and from some local businesses. They allege unfair and uneven enforcement of rules that exceed state and federal standards.

County laws prohibit supervisors from interfering in management decisions that are the domain of the manager or administrator, as in the organizational structure of the DEQ.

But when Marsh left the meeting without explanation, Moore lost any support to move the department under control of the Health Department and Board of Health.

Moore also was alone in his attempt to have the board support legislation that would limit the county's ability to regulate industry and monitor compliance of environmental laws.

Moore forced another lengthy, unadvertised public hearing on local enforcement of the Brady gun bill.

Supervisors allowed Moore to use about three hours yesterday for his two issues.

The Board of Supervisors yesterday accepted a $250,000 bond posted by Assessor Alan Lang, the Democrat several supervisors wanted to force from office.

Supervisors also voted 3-2 to approve a $121,000-a-year contract with Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry. Republicans Ed Moore and Paul Marsh voted against the contract.

While there was no dissent on the Lang vote, Democratic Supervisor Dan Eckstrom abstained and also did not participate in the secret discussion the board had with special counsel S.L. Schorr before voting.

Eckstrom refused to join the board's unprecedented hearings into Lang's operation of the Assessor's Office.

Those hearings concluded Feb. 10, when the board's Republican majority demanded that Lang post an additional $150,000 bond that Republican supervisors said was needed to cover potential costs of claims arising from Lang's personnel management.

Supervisor Raul Grijalva, the Democrat who participated in the hearings but voted against the higher bond, joined the Republicans yesterday.

Moore prodded the board's probe of Lang. He used a territorial law that gives supervisors the right to force the county's other elected officials to make a report. But that report was blown into six days of hearings.

Critics said it was a waste of money. Taxpayers will pay Schorr's firm, Lewis and Roca, about $100,000 and Lang's lawyer, Stanton Bloom, about $35,000.

Taxpayers also pay the $1,500 premium for Lang's new bond, which was meant to supplement the $100,000 bond he had since taking office last year.

Moore said repeatedly that he was "trying to protect taxpayers" with the investigation of Lang and the order for an additional bond. But he also was seeking to use the maneuver to oust Lang if Lang failed to come up with the bond. And Republican board Chairman Mike Boyd also said the investigation was intended to force Lang out of office.

Both Moore and Lang are targets of a recall drive that has less than a month to produce the required petitions.

"I guess they think that it was worth it," Bloom said after the vote. "After all that, they put their tail between their legs and voted 4-0."

Huckelberry, a 20-year county executive, waited a week to have his contract approved, but became the highest-paid chief administrative officer for Pima County. Marsh and Moore wanted to limit Huckelberry to $105,000 a year, which is what Manoj Vyas was paid until he was removed in December. Former County Manager Enrique Serna, ousted by the Republican majority in January 1993, received $113,000 a year.

Huckelberry oversees 6,000 workers and a $606 million budget. City Manager Mike Brown, who is paid $120,000 annually, oversees 4,800 employees and a $530 million budget.

Moore and Marsh complained yesterday that Huckelberry's contract was one-sided.

Moore's proposal would have given Huckelberry a bonus if he devised budget cuts or a property tax cut. But the proposal was so vague that Huckelberry could get a bonus if his tax cut left the county with a deficit.

In other matters during the seven-hour meeting, supervisors:

* Voted 3-2, with Boyd and Grijalva dissenting, to preserve three buildings at Agua Caliente Regional Park. The vote saves the main house, workers' cottage and bunkhouse.

* Approved a law aimed at reducing false alarms. Sheriff's Capt. Martha Cramer said that false alarms account for one in 10 calls to the Sheriff's Department. False alarms cost the county more than $170,000 last year, and of 10,251 alarm calls in 1992, 10,027 were false. Causes, Cramer said, include pets, wind, relatives or workers and mechanical problems.

Fines can be imposed on those who have at least five false alarms in a year.

* Rejected on a 4-1 vote two sets of animal control laws that were proposed to reduce dog and cat overpopulation and to tighten regulations on at-large dogs and cleanup of dog waste. Only Grijalva supported the laws, which Republicans derided as government overkill.

* Sent back a proposed law that would allow importation of waste from other counties. Although county landfills receive garbage from communities in Pinal and Cochise counties, supervisors last year voted to ban any imported waste.

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, exiled in a reorganization last year by then-Administrator Manoj Vyas, yesterday fired Vyas and abolished seven other positions.

Amos Moses, head of management review and organizational development and a key architect of last year's more sweeping reorganization, will lose his job along with three members of his eight-person staff in a cost-cutting prelude to Huckelberry's recommended budget.

In all, Huckelberry's moves will save the county $500,000.

"I can say that it is consistent with my approach to government," said Mike Boyd, the Republican chairman of the Board of Supervisors. "If you find functions that aren't needed, you get rid of them. He's making moves that are in the best interest of the taxpayers."

Democratic Supervisor Raul Grijalva said the cuts were done "humanely," but that more are needed.

"This is a start," Grijalva said.

After he was fired from the top post by the Board of Supervisors in December, Vyas was moved to a job heading special projects at $55,000 a year - $50,000 less than he made previously.

Moses was paid $76,499 a year. Five people from Moses' department, which started in 1990 with an annual budget of $100,000 and rose to more than $564,000 this year, will be moved to jobs in accounting and finance.

The five - Christopher Bradley, Richard Fappiano, William Foy, Cecilia Monroe and Andrew Vishner - have civil service protection. Moses and the workers who lost their posts - Elsa Hamblin, Ann Hamilton and William Kaehler - were in non-civil service jobs.

Other positions cut yesterday were public relations director, a $56,100-a-year post held by Theresa Garcia-Crews; economic development director, a $51,000-a-year job held by Pat L. Watson; and an unfilled position under Watson.

Garcia-Crews, former marketing director at Sun Tran, was one of the few people Vyas hired or promoted through a competitive process. Boyd, a former television reporter, pushed hard last year to create the public relations position, the first in county history.

Under Vyas' reorganization, which was set in motion during secret meetings by Boyd and fellow Republican Supervisors Ed Moore and Paul Marsh before they were sworn in, Huckelberry was stripped of most of the duties he had for 19 years.

He lasted four months under Vyas, then resigned to take a job with an engineering firm. He later directed the Metro Water District before returning to the county government.

Boyd praised Huckelberry yesterday for making the first of needed cuts in his own office before moving to other departments.

Boyd said the personnel cuts, as well as Huckelberry's move earlier this week to withdraw take-home cars from at least 82 bureaucrats, should set an example for elected officials as hearings begin June 20 on Huckelberry's recommended budget.

Huckelberry will release his budget, expected to be about $20 million less than the current $606 million, early next week. More shuffling and possible layoffs are expected to be included.

Although the personnel cuts come under "abolishment of position" - the same category Vyas used last year - they were done quietly and came without any of the instant controversy.

Vyas fired six longtime executives and demoted four others in the glare of television and newspaper cameras on Jan. 5, 1993, only his second day in office. Each of those people also had to look at festive balloons one of Vyas' supporters had sent him as congratulations for his promotion.

Huckelberry gave those dismissed yesterday more than 60 days to find other jobs. Terminations are effective 30 days after the July 6 tentative adoption of the budget.

Vyas demanded that those he fired clear out their offices within four hours after he notified them.

In a memo to supervisors, Huckelberry tied the reorganization to his upcoming budget, something Vyas could not do because his occurred in the middle of the fiscal year.

And although Vyas and the Republican board majority pushed the 1993 cuts as necessary to save money, Vyas added about 200 jobs last year while also depleting the 1992-93 $20 million surplus to about $6 million.

Seven of the fired and demoted executives have sued the county, Republican supervisors and numerous others in U.S. District Court, alleging wrongful termination.

Huckelberry told supervisors yesterday that "it is difficult to recommend budget reductions that affect existing personnel. These reductions should not be viewed as performance-related, but in response to fiscal and budget reality."

The only potential dispute could arise from Moses' status, which shifted last year from a board employee under contract to a regular county employee under administration.

Moses, an Oklahoma lawyer who joined the county as bond administrator six years ago, was a close Moore ally. He was named a special board auditor in 1990 on a 3-2 board vote and was given a contract that guaranteed his return to another job if his position were abolished.

But on Jan. 19, 1993, Vyas won board approval to transfer Moses to the new management review and organizational development department.

Responding to questions from Grijalva, Vyas told supervisors during that meeting that "under the new structured relationship" Moses would be the same as any other non-civil service employee without a contract.

County sources said earlier this week that the County Attorney's Office tried to block Huckelberry's dismissal of Moses by saying he had a contract.

The argument wilted when it was pointed out that the Board of Supervisors and the County Attorney's Office are forcing former County Manager Enrique Serna to sue to recover the contractual rights lost when Boyd, Marsh and Moore fired him Jan. 4, 1993. Deputy county attorneys have said there can be no multiyear contracts that bind a new Board of Supervisors.

It was in Moses' former office in the Great American Tower where Vyas and others met after the 1992 election to chart the reorganization.

Moses and Carl Remus, a former finance director who left last year for a job in Tulsa, also met with Boyd, Marsh and Moore at Moore's house to discuss reorganization before the new board took over.

In maneuvers similar to secret meetings in 1993 that have cost taxpayers millions, Supervisor-elect Sharon Bronson has been pushing behind the scenes for the county manager's ouster.

Bronson, who crushed Republican Ed Moore in the general election, met Dec. 21 with incumbent Republican Supervisor Mike Boyd seeking his support to fire Chuck Huckelberry, Boyd confirmed Thursday.

Boyd says Bronson and her aide, former Star reporter Chris Limberis, wanted his backing to replace Huckelberry with Bruce Postil, a former deputy county manager who supported Bronson's campaign.

Boyd said Bronson approached him because Democrat Raul Grijalva doesn't want to fire Huckelberry for Postil. The board's other Democrat, Dan Eckstrom has said he would support the switch.

Had he agreed to Bronson's proposal, Boyd says he would have been the needed third vote on the board to dump Huckelberry from the $127,000-a-year job he has held since late 1993.

Postil, who with his wife contributed $3,540 to Bronson's campaign, won a hefty settlement last year in a lawsuit he filed after losing his job in the 1993 re-organization.

Postil says he has not been approached by anyone on the board to become manager and refused to say whether he would accept the job offer.

The half-dozen firings and several demotions planned as Boyd and Paul Marsh joined the board in January 1993 have cost taxpayers at least $4.3 million in court settlements. At the time, Moore had just won a third term and both Boyd and Marsh, a Republican, had yet to be sworn into office.

The lunch meeting between Boyd, Bronson and her aide occurred one day after Limberis quit his reporting job.

Bronson said that in the meeting with Boyd she only mentioned Postil as a possible candidate.

Furthermore, she said her private meetings are a typical part of politics, especially when there is a change in leadership.

"This is not a house-cleaning like in 1993," Bronson said yesterday. "That's irresponsible."

She said unlike the secret 1993 GOP meetings, none of the Democrats of the new majority has charted out a massive restructuring of the county.

Furthermore, she says the conversations with her colleagues has centered on Huckelberry, whose contract to be county manager expired with the new year.

"The focus is the county manager, the focus is not the rest of the staff," Bronson said.

But other board members say that firing a half-dozen other administrators also has been discussed in informal meetings with Bronson since the election.

Bronson maintains that it's the board's option to choose its leadership.

"I don't care who the county manager is," Bronson said. "I just want a county manager that all the board can work with."

Still, she never approached John Even, the just-elected GOP supervisor, about replacing Huckelberry or other personnel, Even said last night.

Bronson said that while Huckelberry was not specifically discussed, she and Even talked about needed changes throughout the county during a lunch soon after the election. But Even, who defeated Marsh in the September primary election, says the lunch was merely to get acquainted and that specific plans were not discussed.

Even contends that before discussing firing Huckelberry, he should at least be given a one-year contract and with specific expectations from the board.

Bronson says that Huckelberry lacks the skills to seize control of the county budget and has moved too slowly to repair the ineffective changes the GOP made in 1993.

Huckelberry, who replaced Manoj Vyas, the man the GOP chose to restyle the county government in 1993, says he is not surprised by the discussion to push him out.

"I expected that there would be a lot of discussion about whether I would continue, and that's very legitimate," Huckelberry said. "The board has the right to select whomever they want as county manager."

Eckstrom, who is not one of Huckelberry's allies on the board, agrees.

He says that private meetings with his fellow board members about Huckelberry should be expected since his contract has expired and Even and Bronson will join the board.

"Decisions are not being made," Eckstrom says of the talks. "Decisions are made when you vote."

But Grijalva says that while meetings, such as the one between Bronson and Boyd are not illegal, he worries the public will think it is too much like those before the sweeping 1993 restyling.

Grijalva is expected to become board chairman Tuesday at the board's first meeting, concedes that he had some discussions with Bronson about Huckelberry and other administrators' job performance.

But he says he prefers a more public approach to a restructuring of county government.

He said he wants Huckelberry to devise a plan for restyling and trimming county management, but that it should be approved by the board in a public meeting.

"I think there's a tone that is set early, and I hope that our tone is going to be different than the Republicans in 1993," Grijalva said.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has kept his job - at least until the Board of Supervisors meets again next Tuesday.

Democratic Supervisor Dan Eckstrom last week scheduled a discussion on the county administrator's contract for yesterday's agenda.

But a decision was postponed because Republican Supervisor John Even left the meeting early for a doctor's appointment.

Eckstrom, who favors replacing Huckelberry, has said he is confused about Huckelberry's job status since his contract expired last month.

Chief Civil County Attorney David Dingeldine told the board yesterday that Huckelberry's contract is immaterial to his employment status.

He said Huckelberry remains county administrator unless a majority on the board - three members - vote to oust him.

In other action, the board approved spending an additional $125,000 to keep the southside's TCE clinic operating through June, while voting to slash funding for the Greater Tucson Economic Council by 27 percent.

Board chairman Raul Grijalva delayed a decision on whether the clinic should be moved from its current location at the El Pueblo Health Clinic, 101 W. Irvington Road, to Kino Community Hospital, 2800 E. Ajo Way.

Huckelberry recommended moving the TCE clinic to save money on staff. But Grijalva said that should be discussed when the clinic's funding is considered in July.

The clinic subsidizes prescription medications for low-income patients who link illnesses to exposure to TCE (trichloroethylene), an industrial solvent shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals.

"It took everything I have to get here this morning, $125,000 just doesn't cut it. We need more money to continue this program," Susana Ariano, a TCE clinic patient, told the board.

"I believe you should be knocking on Old Pueblo's door asking, 'How can we help you?' We shouldn't have to come here and beg," said Ariano.

TCE contaminates about five square miles of ground water on the southside. The pollution, which is being treated, forced Tucson Water to close 11 wells after it was found in 1981.

Even and GOP colleague Mike Boyd voted against the TCE clinic funding.

The board voted to cut the $500,000 allocation made to GTEC last year by the previous GOP board majority.

Instead of the half-million promised to the business development group by the Republicans last August, yesterday the board's three Democrats slashed GTEC's funding to $364,000.

Boyd provided the sole vote to retain GTEC's full funding, with Even absent for the vote.

Even's absence yesterday delayed a decision on a two-year, $230,000 lobbying contract for Tucson law firm Munger & Munger.

After yesterday's tie vote - with Democrats Sharon Bronson and Grijalva voting no - the contract is scheduled to come back to the board Tuesday.

Grijalva opposes the lobbying contract because John Munger, a partner in the firm and Arizona Board of Regents member, tried unsuccessfully in 1995 to force the state's three universities to abolish their affirmative action policies.

Democratic Supervisor Raul Grijalva voted with Republican board members to keep Chuck Huckelberry as county administrator.

Democrats Dan Eckstrom and Sharon Bronson have been backing Bruce Postil, a former deputy county manager, for the job.

But neither offered Postil as a replacement at yesterday's meeting.

Instead, Eckstrom voted to install former County Manager Enrique Serna, whom Grijalva has supported recently.

Bronson seconded Eckstrom's nomination, but the motion failed 2-3.

After the meeting Grijalva said he voted against Serna because he did not think Eckstrom's motion was sincere.

Eckstrom said he nominated Serna because he thought he was the person Grijalva wanted for the post.

Both Eckstrom and Bronson have criticized Huckelberry in recent weeks, saying he lacks a firm grip on the county budget and has been slow to correct personnel changes forced on the county in January 1993.

Both Serna and Postil were ousted in the 1993 reorganization, pushed by the then-Republican majority.

Serna was replaced by Manoj Vyas, who lost the job to Huckelberry in December 1993.

Serna is currently town manager of Guadalupe, a community just south of Phoenix.

Postil, who with his wife contributed $3,540 to Bronson's recent campaign, won a hefty settlement from the county last year in a lawsuit he filed after losing his job.

Yesterday's vote lets Huckleberry keep his $127,000-a-year job as long as a board majority continues to back him.

He does not have a contract.

Grijalva said after the meeting he wants the board to give Huckelberry a list of specific changes they want in how the county functions and its bureaucratic structure.

"I'm really happy that Sharon and Dan recognize Henry (Serna) to be a legitimate candidate," Grijalva said after the meeting. "(But) the issue is whether we're going to give Huckelberry a chance to succeed or fail."

Eckstrom first put appointment of an administrator on last week's meeting agenda. But he delayed the matter to yesterday because Republican Supervisor John Even left the last meeting for a doctor's appointment.

In other action yesterday the board voted to:

*Call for a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss what items to include on a ballot for a bond election scheduled for May.

Grijalva favors holding a second bond election for transportation and flood control-related issues in November. The City Council and other board members say splitting a bond election would be too expensive and might confuse voters. The board scheduled a meeting to discuss the bond election for Feb. 11.

*Award a two-year, $230,000 lobbying contract to the Munger & Munger law firm. Grijalva sought to eliminate the contract because a partner in the firm, John Munger, tried to eliminate the universities' Affirmative Action programs in 1995 while serving on the Board of Regents. Eckstrom joined the Republicans in approving the contract.

Supervisors tomorrow are expected to decide on a contract for County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry that gives him a hefty raise.

The board also is scheduled to take a critical vote on restyling its health-care services and will debate 53 projects the administrator proposes be part of a $350 million road bond package.

In the contract Huckelberry submitted to the board late Thursday, he gives himself a $21,000 raise, to $148,000 a year, plus $7,500 in deferred compensation - such as retirement benefits.

And if the board fires him before the contract expires on Jan. 2, 2001, they'll have to pay Huckelberry an extra $75,000.

Huckelberry is paid $127,638 a year.

He has been working without a contract since January when he weathered a push by Democrats Sharon Bronson and Dan Eckstrom to dump him.

Earlier this month during a vote on the budget, the board agreed - at Eckstrom's suggestion - that Huckelberry prepare a contract.

With the raise and deferred compensation, Huckelberry would be paid $155,500 a year and still would be eligible for any across-the-board pay raises that county workers get during the term of the contract.

Also, Huckelberry would continue to get a car plus car insurance. And he'd get extra paid time off - in addition to his annual sick leave, vacation and holidays - to serve on public, professional or advisory boards.

The county also would pick up the tab for any of the administrator's county-related legal troubles.

Huckelberry can be fired without cause any time a majority on the board - three votes - chooses to do so.

Meanwhile, the board will decide two unrelated issues at the same meeting:

*An integration plan for the county's health-care programs.

The board voted July 1 to let the county's Integrated Health Care System Coordinating Council work on a plan to distance the board from the day-to-day operation of county-provided health services such as indigent and home care, services at Kino Community Hospital and an assortment of medical programs and clinics.

A specific plan will be offered to the board tomorrow.

*Discussion of 53 separate road projects and a $44 million reserve fund for bridge repairs, safety improvements and other improvements such as bike lanes and bus pullouts that Huckelberry wants in the transportation bond package.

Voters will be asked to approve the $350 million bond proposal on Nov. 4.

The board has until 10 days before the polls open to issue a final package detailing projects, including their cost and a schedule for their completion.

Supervisors yesterday rejected a proposed contract with a $20,000 raise for County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.

Last month at the direction of the board, Huckelberry prepared a four-year contract. He proposed increasing his salary from $127,638 to $148,000 a year.

The contract also included $7,500 in deferred compensation - such as retirement benefits - plus an extra $75,000 if the board fired him before Jan. 2, 2001.

Democrats Dan Eckstrom and Sharon Bronson, frequent critics of the administrator, voted to approve the contract as long as Huckelberry added job performance standards to it later.

That move failed 2-3, with Democratic Chairman Raul Grijalva siding with Republican Supervisors Mike Boyd and Ray Carroll.

Grijalva asked Huckelberry to provide the board with performance standards, as well as comparable compensation figures for managers in similar-sized counties.

Huckelberry has been working without a contract since January, when Bronson and Eckstrom voted to oust him.

The board will consider the revised contract on Sept. 23.

In an unrelated matter, the board accepted incorporation petitions for the city of Catalina Foothills.

Residents submitted 4,285 signatures to place an incorporation measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. The proposed city is bordered loosely by the Rillito River and the Coronado National Forest, from North First Avenue to Sabino Creek.

Casas Adobes residents also will vote on Nov. 4 whether to become a town. The town of Tortolita incorporated earlier this month.

Pima County supervisors yesterday settled on 56 road projects to include in the Nov. 4 transportation bond election.

Democrat Supervisor Dan Eckstrom deleted Marana's request for $2 million for design of a Linda Vista Road interchange at Interstate 10 from the $350 million bond package before the board approved it, 4-1.

Democratic Supervisor Sharon Bronson voted against the plan, saying she prefers the county's traditional pay-as-you-go approach. If voters approve the bond projects, the county will pay $147.6 million interest over 20 years on the bonds, using its share of state gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees.

"This way, $147 million goes to interest payments and our (state) money is tied up for (20) years," she said. "We can't predict now what our needs will be that far out. We give up flexibility and get nothing for (public) transit."

Eckstrom said he removed the Linda Vista interchange "because we had enough already. The board majority approved it."

Marana Mayor Ora Harn said Eckstrom told her he removed the interchange because no one from Marana called him.

"I can't say as I'm surprised," Harn said. "It seems that for a while Marana has been the bad lady to pick on. Our only support is from Sharon Bronson."

Marana roads now get only $2.9 million. The package earmarks $111.9 million for roads in Tucson, $5.3 million for South Tucson, $3.7 million for Sahuarita, and $3.5 million for Oro Valley.

Successful incorporations around Tucson would reduce the county's share of state gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees that it needs to pay off the bond debt.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said the county would have to negotiate with each new suburb to use the county's state road money to help pay for projects in those areas.

Plans call for selling $60 million worth of bonds every two years at a predicted 6.5 percent interest rate, ending in 2008 with a $50 million sale, said Jim Barry, Huckelberry's executive assistant.

The county would complete the roadwork in 12 years, he said.

The board dropped its recent threat to require Tucson to develop recharge projects for its Central Arizona Project water in exchange for the board adding two city road projects, Board Chairman Raul Grijalva said.

"We'll continue to work with the city on recharge projects," he said. "The issue was raised and we left it at that."

Huckelberry said he deleted $8.5 million in bridge improvements, $8.5 million to improve access roads from rural clusters to urban areas, and $2.5 million for bicycle paths and bus bays to accommodate Tucson and Marana.

The county made two late additions at the city's request:

* $15 million to help pay for the $35 million widening of two miles of Broadway from Euclid Avenue to Country Club Road.

* $2.5 million to widen a half-mile of East Golf Links Road from South Bonanza Avenue to South Houghton Road.

The mayor and a majority of the City Council agreed to support the bond package, as long as the county included those two projects.

Barry said Marana's deleted $2 million goes into a contingency fund.

In other action, the board voted 4-1 to approve a four-year contract for Huckelberry, who will be paid $138,000 this year - an $11,000 raise from last year.

Grijalva voted no. "I have a problem with the contract - it's one-sided," he said. "It has no performance standards and we'd have to buy him out with $75,000 severance pay if we want to make a change."

The board unanimously voted to accelerate spending on $5 million of general obligation bonds county voters approved in May. The affected projects are: $2.5 million for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; $1.5 million for a neighborhood reinvestment program; and $1 million for new adult education space at El Pueblo and El Rio neighborhood centers.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors is expected to give County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry a new four-year, $184,900-a-year contract Tuesday.

That's a $4,400 raise for Huckelberry, 51, who has been the county's chief executive since December 1993.

The package includes $176,400 in base pay, and $8,500 or the maximum in tax-exempt deferred compensation legally allowed, whichever is greater.

He also is eligible for the same annual percentage raises given other city employees.

If Huckelberry is fired before January 2004, he collects $75,000 in severance damages, unless it's for neglecting his duties or breaking the law.

Democratic Board Chairman Raul Grijalva, who put Huckelberry's contract on the Tuesday agenda for a vote, said he hasn't secured commitments from other supervisors, but only one - Ray Carroll - has voiced significant objections.

Carroll is vacationing and couldn't be reached for comment. But aide Scott Egan said his boss opposes the contract.

Egan said allegations by Transportation Director Brooks Keenan that Huckelberry, Democratic Supervisor Dan Eckstrom and Grijalva improperly diverted large engineering contracts to political supporters, which have yet to be investigated, are a key reason for Carroll's opposition.

Other supervisors were out of their offices and did not return Star telephone calls.

Huckelberry has denied any wrongdoing in the awarding of the contracts.

He said his new salary, a 52 percent increase over what he was hired for seven years ago, reflects "the market for larger government institutions."

He said he read the contracts of new City Manager James Keene and new Tucson Unified School District Superintendent Stan Paz, both hired earlier this year, before beginning negotiations on his own contract.

Keene is paid slightly less than Huckelberry, at $178,000 a year. Paz makes somewhat more, at $207,000 in base pay and special benefits.

Huckelberry said taxpayers can expect the county deficit to be paid off by July, as promised, and for significant progress to be made implementing the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan over the next four years.

Grijalva said Huckelberry's position as a leading instigator and architect of that plan justifies his new deal.

Grijalva was the only supervisor to oppose Huckelberry's last contract renewal in October 1997.

He said the county is going into one of the most difficult phases of implementing the plan - educating the public and building support for the purchase and preservation of thousands of acres of vacant land.

"If we remove him, who are we going to replace him with? Who's going to finish the job? Chuck needs to finish what he started," Grijalva said.

He said he was also impressed with Huckelberry's budget efforts to pay off the county's estimated $45 million deficit in two years.

The Board of Supervisors approved a four-year, $184,900-per-year contract with County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry yesterday.

The contract, which includes a $4,000 raise, requires Huckelberry to be evaluated semiannually on progress toward meeting five specific goals.

The board approved the contract 4-1 despite Republican Ray Carroll's call to wait for the results of an investigation into charges that Huckelberry and Democrats Dan Eckstrom and Raul Grijalva rigged the award of four road projects for political supporters.

Carroll said the delay, during which Huckelberry would remain in office, would signal to county employees and taxpayers that the charges leveled last month by Transportation Director Brooks Keenan "are being dealt with seriously."

Carroll said the board should also wait until it has time to study the five evaluation points, proposed yesterday by Republican Supervisor Ann Day.

One requires Huckelberry to review and measure compliance with county procurement policies.

Huckelberry, Eckstrom and Grijalva were accused by Keenan of ignoring procurement rules in order to divert $2 million in road engineering projects to their friends, and of modifying the rules to make them easier to get around.

All three have denied improperly influencing any contracts. Huckelberry asked the County Attorney's Office to find an outside law enforcement agency to investigate the charges.

Deputy County Attorney Katharina Richter said two agencies have agreed to do the investigation.

Democratic Supervisor Sharon Bronson said that while there's no question the investigation is needed, there's no need to hold up the contract until it's done.

If the investigation produces evidence of misconduct, there are provisions for Huckelberry's removal, she said.

Grijalva said: "The investigation is important and should be expedited.

"As one of those mentioned in the charges, I welcome it and look forward to it," he said.

Eckstrom said: "People need to know that not only Mr. Huckelberry, but Mr. Grijalva and myself asked that that investigation be expedited. I'm happy to have my life investigated."

Huckelberry will also be evaluated on how well the county complies with local, state and federal bond sales regulations - including Internal Revenue Service regulations - and how promptly it gets bond projects built.

The county recently had to turn nearly $1 million in interest earnings over to the federal government.

The county sold $70 million in tax-exempt, low-interest bonds for sewer and road projects that were delayed. The money sat in a bank for up to two years, earning nearly $1 million more in interest than federal regulations allow tax-exempt bonds to accrue.

Huckelberry's evaluations will also consider:

* Progress implementing the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

* Improving the quality and efficiency of county health care at Kino Community Hospital.

* Success in identifying where development should take place and planning for it.

On another issue, the board awarded an $11.3 million construction contract to The Ashton Co. to widen East River Road between North First and North Campbell avenues.

The project, expected to start in two months and take about a year and a half to complete, will expand River Road from three lanes to four lanes plus turn bays and a median.

* Contact Joe Burchell at 573-4244 or burchell@azstarnet.com.

Do you think it's a good idea to write a letter to your boss blasting him for "grossly inaccurate," "reckless," and "offensive" comments he made about you?

County Administrator Chuck. H. Huckelberry did.

This week, Huckelberry wrote Supervisor Ray Carroll criticizing him for comments Carroll made on a radio talk show.

Carroll, who released Huckelberry's private memo, has fired back with his own letter.

Testy exchanges are never pretty, especially between two public officials who have a history of disputes.

Recently I wrote about the county supervisors' decision to spend $3.8 million to locate, count and create a computer database for the county's estimated 59,000 manholes.

It was a tongue-in-cheek critical piece.

Well, it has caused some fur to fly between the District 4 supervisor and Huckelberry.

Carroll, who has made no secret of his differences with Huckelberry, took to the airwaves.

He criticized the decision and Huckelberry. Carroll suggested that Huckelberry was manipulating the contract award "to a friend."

"It was Chuck taking care of one of his friends when his own department could have been doing that (manhole) inventory themselves, obviously," Carroll said on the radio show.

Huckelberry was a bit miffed.

"For the record, your remarks . . . are not only grossly inaccurate, they are reckless and offensive," Huckelberry wrote in his personal memo to Carroll.

The chief administrator defended the consultant selection process as appropriate within established procedures.

"In the future, I would hope you would be better informed . . . so that you do not misstate the facts and portray such items in a false light."

That got Carroll's dander up a tad.

"Mr. Huckelberry, my primary job is to look out for the taxpayers of Pima County," Carroll wrote back.

Carroll again questioned the contract and its amount, arguing that it was too much.

He wrote that he will not stop with his criticisms.

"Unlike you, Mr. Huckelberry, I know for whom I work," wrote Carroll, one of Huckelberry's five employers.

Obviously, these two guys don't like each other much.

In January, Carroll didn't vote to rehire Huckelberry and award him a $4,000 raise.

The Republican supervisor has widely criticized Huckelberry's financial management and contract-award decisions.

Privately Carroll has asked some of his four colleagues to replace Huckelberry, who has a a four-year, $184,900-per-year contract

That's not going to happen, at least not now. Carroll doesn't have two votes.

Huckelberry said he doesn't mind the criticism from supervisors.

"I get it all the time," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

But he won't idly sit if a supervisor "intentionally misrepresents the facts," he said.

Well, I kind of feel responsible for this recent flap between the two.

In good conscience I had to do something.

So I called an expert in employer-employee relations.

Cathy Nicholson, UA director of employee relations, said there are many ways for an adult to respond to another adult in a dispute.

"Greater the words, greater the outrage," Nicholson said.

The level of response from the aggrieved party depends on the seriousness of the charge made by the accuser, said Nicholson.

Another way of saying it: One hard verbal slap will get one back.

To resolve differences, Nicholson said the two individuals first have to understand what their conflict is about and to agree that they have a common mission.

Said Nicholson: "Things happen. People get mad. Get over it."

* Contact Ernesto Portillo Jr. at 573-4242 or e-mail at netopjr@azstarnet.com

COLUMN

/////

Don't bother inviting County Supervisor Ray Carroll and County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry to dinner together.

It's unlikely that they would accept the invitation.

The only time they're likely to be at the same table is during Pima County Board of Supervisors' meetings.

Even then there's no friendly chitchat between the two.

I suspect they don't like each other much - although neither is willing to publicly admit it.

"I'm not trying to disparage anyone," Carroll said.

Said Huckelberry: "He's entitled to ask any question he wants."

Last week, Carroll more than asked a question. He called for an outside audit of the county's road bond program.

Carroll said it's a mess.

In asking for an audit, however, Carroll is implying that Huckelberry's management is askew, at the very least.

At worst, Carroll is suggesting that Huckelberry is intentionally hiding information from the board.

Either way, Carroll isn't shying away from challenging Huckelberry.

"He's trying to delay the bad news," said Carroll, who is in California on a post-holiday vacation. "We're behind the eight-ball."

The Republican from District 4, which stretches from Tucson's East Side to Green Valley, would like to can Huckelberry. But he can't get two other votes from his four colleagues.

Instead, Carroll, who voted against a four-year contract for Huckelberry last year, will publicly admonish Huckelberry's management whenever he gets a chance.

In his latest dig, Carroll disputes Huckelberry's financial prognosis for repaying the bonds on the the county's beleaguered road construction projects.

Carroll contends that the shortfall to repay the bonds will total more than $500 million over 18 years.

Huckelberry said that his persistent critic is flat-out wrong. The shortfall is about $45 million, said Huckelberry.

In addition to the shortfall in the bond repayments, there is a gap in the cost of the transportation improvement program itself, which was approved by county voters in 1997.

Thirteen of the 58 road projects - six within the city of Tucson - are on hold because of the lack of money.

The projects' $350 million price tag has spiked upward to about $700 million.

Carroll isn't shy with his criticism of Huckelberry and county staff. He thrives on it.

"I'm not going to stick my head in the sand," said Carroll.

I suspect Huckelberry would like that. But he won't say it.

The supervisor, or any other supervisor, can ask any questions they want, said Huckelberry.

And they can ask them any way they want, Huckelberry added.

He doesn't seem to be bothered by Carroll's criticisms.

Huckelberry considers it part of his job, which he has held since late 1993 when the board brought him back to the county, where he had worked for 19 years before he briefly left.

Huckelberry bolted in the spring of 1993 after he lost out in a power struggle involving former supervisor Ed Moore and former county administrator Manoj Vyas.

Unfortunately, I wasn't living in Tucson and missed all the fun.

From all accounts, the county supervisors and administrators were at each others' throats.

That all made great stories, but the fighting had more to do with management philosophy and style.

I suspect that is what is going on here.

Carroll does not like Huckelberry's management style.

But until Carroll can convince two colleagues of the need for change, we can expect more of the same.

SPECIAL REPORT: First of a two-day series

/////

Road, sewer fees balloon under open-ended contracts

/////

Pima County wastes much of the money it spends on roads and sewers by avoiding competitive bidding, disregarding its own contractor rating system and failing to track its spending, a three-month Arizona Daily Star investigation shows.

How the county government issues public works contracts helps explain why the cost of a $350 million voter-approved bond referendum in 1997 has ballooned to $700 million today.

Here are highlights of the Star investigation:

Work "as needed." With no public scrutiny and few restrictions, bureaucrats decided who got how much money in nearly half the 300 road and sewer contracts awarded by the county during the past five years. The result: Some contractors get minimal work, some get lots, with little explanation.

Politics vs. quality. Contributions to a supervisor's election better indicate who gets design work than how a consultant scores in a quality-ranking. Five of the six firms getting the most county design work also topped the contributions list, giving about $29,000. By comparison, the five firms getting the most city work gave just $55 to the Tucson City Council.

No accountability. Little tracking is done to ensure taxpayers receive the best value for the $323 million spent during the past five years on roads and sewers - more than half the county's capital budget. One reason: Few files are on computers and paper records are scattered among four offices. Rather than question a contractor when costs exceed estimates, the county routinely just pays.

The Star also examined public works contracts awarded by the city of Tucson, which is about to ask voters to support $400 million in transportation spending. If the plan is approved on May 21, it will be the biggest city sales tax increase ever.

The city, which would use 20 percent of its $40 million a year in new sales tax money on seven road widenings left unfinished by the county, also has problems with its contracting system: About 20 percent of the contracts reviewed by the Star were missing documents, some because summer interns were hired to file them.

The city's system, however, is more in line with best practices nationwide, designed to get value and create distance between elected officials and millions of dollars in contract awards.

"Why would I want the 16th-rated company to do a job when competitive selection means you get the top-rated firm at the lowest price every time?" asked Wayne Casper, procurement director for the city of Tucson.

Yet that's just what happens under Pima County's contracting system.

The Board of Supervisors acknowledged the problem before, in January 2001, when it voted 5-0 to seek an investigation into contract-rigging allegations. More than a year later, though, no key players have been interviewed, and state and local agencies say they aren't investigating.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry agrees his process still needs to be streamlined to improve efficiency, but he and the board leaders insist politics don't affect who gets work.

No one can really know that, though, in the view of one official in El Paso County, Texas, which doesn't use "as-needed" contracts.

"There's so much opportunity for misappropriation and the good ol' boy system to kick in," said José Lopez, assistant purchasing agent for El Paso County. "How is anyone supposed to know if the contract went to the most qualified or to my old college roommate?"

Eckstrom defends system

One example of the wide variance between county rankings and awards is Catalina Engineering, 180 W. Magee Road. Rated second among 16 firms seeking bond projects in 1999, Catalina was seventh on the list of contracts awarded. Two lower-rated firms each got twice the work Catalina did.

Supervisor Dan Eckstrom defended the county's contracting system, saying it doesn't bother him that awards don't track rankings.

All the firms on the as-needed lists met a basic level of competency, Eckstrom noted.

"Anybody on the short list is qualified, in my opinion."

As-needed contracts also help the county handle a heavy workload, said Frank Castro, a former county transportation director-turned-consultant, of Castro Engineering, 3580 W. Ina Road. His firm ranks fourth in volume among 43 firms getting county design business.

"They're swamped," Castro said. "They wouldn't have the time or the manpower to do (proposals) for every project."

But Pima County is bucking a national trend in this approach, and contractors question what criteria the county uses in choosing firms from its lists.

"You never know with the county where you're going to end up in terms of work. It doesn't seem to be tied to where you're ranked," said Bob Brittain, from Johnson-Brittain & Associates, 378 N. Main Ave. "It's not like the city or state, where you know if you rank at the top you're going to get the biggest contract."

What is clear with the county system, according to internal staff correspondence, is that using "as-needed" contracts has jacked up the price of projects.

Transportation engineer Ruben Lacandola complained in an August 2000 memo that hourly rates charged by consultants for as-needed contracts are significantly higher than when they're hired competitively.

That's because competitive bidding helps lock in a price by nailing down the specifics of a job. With open-ended contracts, when consultants demand extra money to finish jobs, Lacandola wrote, the county has no grounds to deny their claim.

"They become top-heavy, the principals, project and senior engineers charging a lot of time to the contract," his memo says. "It is no wonder sometimes their fee proposal is two to three times as much what the work is worth."

Purchasing official Mike Studer criticized a growing 1996 contract in another memo, noting as-needed agreements are "very expensive" because they allow hourly billing. He said work should be competitively bid when the county knows in advance what it wants done.

Studer also said in the memo that he might need help persuading county supervisors to approve large increases.

"I'll need a few ‘buzz' words for the summary sheets, in addition to the usual hackneyed phrases like ‘. . . potential loss of federal funding,' (or) ‘it is cost beneficial for this consultant to continue, . . .' " his memo reads.

Little accountability

County rules allow as-needed contracts to be rolled over for three years, which means county departments can generally funnel up to $450,000 to each firm on its call list for different services - with little accountability or competition.

Take South 12th Avenue.

Rather than bid the design portion of the $24 million project, county officials decided to put it under as-needed contracts held by Collins-Piña Consulting Engineers, 33 N. Stone Ave., and DJA Engineering, the predecessor to Castro Engineering. This decision was made despite written acknowledgements by top officials that the job was far larger than normally allowed with an as-needed project.

Each company's contract started out at $100,000 in 1997, then was extended by an additional $275,000 each to absorb the cost of the work.

When this as-needed money ran out, the county issued Collins-Piña a new $800,000 no-bid contract to complete the design.

County Administrator Huckelberry told supervisors that Collins-Piña - the top contributor to supervisors' political campaigns and the top recipient of county design work - should get the job because it had already done the first phase and scored well in the ratings process for a different project under way at the same time.

That argument didn't apply in another as-needed project, though. SAIC/Transcore, a bit player in the political game, which did the first phase of the West Wetmore Road widening, offered to finish the job for $700,000. But the county insisted on soliciting other proposals and gave the work to Collins-Piña - for $990,000.

Huckelberry said the difference between the two was that county transportation officials weren't satisfied with SAIC/Transcore's work.

James Witkowski of Transcore said the decision to solicit other proposals came "as a complete surprise" because the county had already asked his company to submit a work plan and cost estimate.

A few firms get lion's share

Pima County awards most of its as-needed contracts for design work and other services, which totaled $78 million during the past five years.

Construction work, which totaled $245 million during the period, is awarded mainly through competitive bidding.

Pima County code says design work should be spread evenly through a rotation of eligible contractors, as determined by a quality-ranking system.

But somehow, through the years, the rotation has sent the lion's share of the work to a small group of companies.

In a series of 1999 flood-control contracts handed out to six companies at $150,000 apiece, Collins-Piña ended up with almost $226,000 in jobs while ranking No. 6. Meanwhile, the No. 1 ranked firm got $45,253.

In 1997, nine firms were awarded $100,000 open-ended contracts for civil engineering work. By the time the contracts closed, Collins-Piña had received $555,000 in work while Johnson-Brittain & Associates, a firm described in engineering circles as one of the county's most competent, got $25,000.

The city of Tucson, on the other hand, uses a competitive process for all but the smallest projects or those for which an emergency dictates a quick decision, said procurement director Casper.

During the past five years, just 16 percent of the city's 463 public works contracts - and just 7 percent of spending - have gone for as-needed work. At the same time, 44 percent of the county's 296 contracts - and 18 percent of spending - were issued this way.

Prequalifying a number of consultants, as the county does, means some of the work ends up going to companies with low ratings, Casper said.

That's what happens in Pima County: Of seven open civil engineering contracts, the contractors' scores ranged from 85 to 69 on a 100-point scale. All were awarded $150,000 contracts.

So far, seventh-ranked and politically active Castro Engineering has twice as much work as top-ranked Johnson-Brittain.

The national trend is to curtail as-needed contracts, said Rick Grimm, chief executive of the Virginia-based National Institute for Government Purchasing.

Where they're still used, Grimm said, is for small jobs - typically with a cap of $10,000 to $25,000 - or for emergencies.

"For most jobs, you want to go through a specific procurement to find the best of the best for each job," Grimm said. "It's the norm in any professional procurement organization."

"If you don't know how much a job is supposed to cost, you can't know how to respond when you get change orders. They're going to run amok."

Huckelberry said the county has been slowly reforming its procurement system since 1997, but change takes time. Those changes have been more difficult because they coincide with a massive construction program, which has dramatically increased workloads.

"I think the staff has gotten lazy or finds the as-needed process is easier than going to a specific request for proposals for every project that they should," he said.

He said that if the rotation system is being ignored or manipulated, it will be corrected once a study ordered by the board last week is done.

Former Pima County Supervisor Raul Grijalva, who stepped down after 14 years in February to run for Congress, said he's convinced the county needs to scrap as-needed work or dramatically scale it back.

Grijalva said if he had it to do over again, he would have done a competitive selection for the South 12th Avenue project instead of hand-picking Collins-Piña and DJA. He did it, he said, because he wanted minority firms to get the work. Now he sees that he tainted the project.

"You can't justify it. The way we assign as-needed contracts begged to be corrected two years ago and it wasn't."

/////

Glossary of terms

Procurement: A process by which government obtains goods or services.

As needed: A type of open-ended contract in which a company is awarded the opportunity to provide a service with the exact job and amount to be determined later.

Competitive selection: A process in which government attempts to find the most-qualified or least-expensive firm to do a specific job. Competition may be based on the low bid, generally used for construction projects, or a firm’s qualifications and experience, normally the standard for assigning services such as road design.

Bonds: Voter-approved securities sold by government to pay for construction projects. They are most often repaid through a property tax assessment or a predetermined revenue stream, such as state gas taxes that filter to the local level. No law requires local governments to identify what they plan to build, but local governments generally do.

Sales tax: A tax levied on the sale of goods, based on a percentage of the cost of those goods. In the city of Tucson, goods are now taxed at 7.6 percent of the purchase price.

Public works: Works constructed for public use, such as roads, sewers and buildings, typically built and maintained by the government.

— Arizona Daily Star

Largest open-ended design contracts

Final Award Rank Company Original payout Service Date

1. Malcolm Pirnie $1.5 million $4.1 million Engineering 1987*

2. Cella Barr/ $200,000 $571,267 Misc. sewer system 1993†

3. Collins-Piña/ $100,000 $554,931 Civil engineering 1997 Tetra Tech

4. Castro/DJA $100,000 $473,578 Civil engineering 1997

5. EEC $200,000 $382,609 Engineering design 1998

6. Malcolm Pirnie $200,000 $367,149 Engineering design 1998

7. Catalina $150,000 $336,141 Civil engineering 1999

*extended through 1999; †extended through 2000 source: Star research

These contracts were awarded by Pima County for road and sewer work on an as-needed basis during the past five years. Supporters say this method allows flexibility when change is needed; critics say amounts greater than $25,000 or so should be locked in through competitive selection.

/////

Chuck Huckelberry

Eight years as county administrator

"We've been moving toward reforming the system. . . . Reform is always incremental. This reform has been made more difficult because it comes in the middle of our biggest public works building program ever."

Sharon Bronson

Democrat, board chairwoman

Six years as a supervisor

"Given the pattern, it would be wise to review our procurement practices and bring them up to industry standards. . . . On the surface, our policies are in line with those in other places. Maybe our practices aren't."

Ray Carroll

Republican, Five years as a supervisor

"Chuck is the lieutenant. He does what people above him tell him to do. . . . I think when contracts are awarded based on favoritism and lack of control you tend to get people who think they're protected and you get slipshod work."

Ann Day

Republican, One year as a supervisor

"Currently we have a soft and squishy system pushed around by political whim. . . . You would think if you have rankings you would follow them. Otherwise, why have rankings?"

Dan Eckstrom

Democrat, 14 years as a supervisor

"I don't know anybody here, Republican or Democrat, who votes on something based on who gives them money. . . . Maybe the firms who do give are the ones who have the most qualifications."

Richard Elias

Democrat, One month as a supervisor

"I don't hear any hard evidence. I've seen insinuations, but I don't see any hard evidence."

Raul Grijalva

Democrat, Supervisor 14 years, resigned Feb. 15 to run for Congress

"The perception that something is wrong is something the county needs to correct. . . . We won't be able to pass another bond election, whether it's transportation or not, whether they're open space or not. Those issues are bigger than any design contract or any particular consultant."

SPECIAL REPORT: Second of a two-day series

/////

Pima County's convoluted record-keeping makes it hard for even county workers to track construction spending, but one trend is clear: Those who contributed most to supervisors' political campaigns snared the most work.

An Arizona Daily Star analysis of roughly 300 county contracts shows that tax money is spent on contracts that have expired or run out of money, consultants frequently ignore county billing standards, and there is no central record keeping for the $323 million spent on roads and sewers during the past five years.

Former procurement officer Mike Studer likened the county's system to "a husband and wife writing checks on the same account, and neither one knows what the other is spending until you go to the ATM and suddenly you're overdrawn."

While supervisors and other county officials deny politics and contracts are linked, memos scattered throughout files reviewed by the Arizona Daily Star point to a keen awareness of connections in the distribution of county work, with references to "politically sensitive" contract awards and to consultants who failed to support bond elections.

"Pima County is run a lot like Chicago in terms of patronage," said longtime Tucson consultant John Lynch of GLHN Archi-

tects & Engineers, 2939 E. Broadway.

"Firms that I know of that have difficulty getting work with other government entities seem to fare very well with the county. If they struggle to get work anywhere else, why do they do so well at Pima County?"

William Carroll, vice president of Stantec Consulting Inc., 4911 E. Broadway, said that when he doesn't get a job with the city of Tucson, he usually can look through proposals and see why the competition scored higher.

"At the county, I don't necessarily feel the top firms are the best qualified."

Collins-Piña in spotlight

With $9.25 million in county business during the past five years, Collins-Piña tops the list of about 50 engineering firms that get county work.

Collins-Piña, purchased in recent years by Tetra Tech, also tops the list of political contributors during the period, with employees giving $8,500 - mostly to the Democratic board majority.

Collins-Piña originally agreed to discuss its relationship with the county for this story. The company canceled the interview last week, on the same day supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bronson scheduled a last-minute board discussion of contracting procedures.

But county records speak about the lengths staff members have gone to in getting work for Collins-Piña, 33 N. Stone Ave.

In 2000, the county's waste-water management staff decided it wanted Collins-Piña to do more design work on a storm-water detention basin near Kino Sports Park.

Collins-Piña already had exhausted all the money in its contract, but county officials made a suggestion for keeping the company on the job: Filter the additional money through another contractor.

A work order was issued for GLHN, with instructions to hire Collins-Piña as subconsultants.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said he didn't recall the project, but that practice is inappropriate.

Another firm closer to the bottom of the giving-and-getting lists saw its fortunes change after stepping up political contributions to supervisors.

Engineering and Environmental Consultants, a Tucson firm at 4625 E. Fort Lowell Road, teamed with the Phoenix office of Sverdrup Civil in 1998 in an effort to oversee construction of the massive $70 million Ina Road sewage treatment plant expansion.

Under the county selection process, in which a panel of county and outside experts rates companies based on work history and staff skill, the EEC/Sverdrup team ranked first, with 290 points, and was in line for $1.2 million in work.

Three other firms were supposed to get work too, according to an original county worksheet on the project.

But when a revised recommendation later surfaced, fourth-ranked RS Engineering - 20 points behind Sverdrup but second only to Collins-Piña on the five-year list of political contributions - won the award. EEC/Sverdrup got nothing.

What happened? A handwritten note in the files indicates County Administrator Huckelberry spoke with the Board of Supervisors before the final vote.

Huckelberry said last week that he didn't recall the contract details. Jon Schladweiler of the Wastewater Management Department said there was a concern Sverdrup wasn't local.

Until that point, EEC had only sporadic work worth half a million dollars with the county. Since boosting contributions to $1,200 in the last election, it has landed $4 million in county contracts.

Chuck Hollingsworth, EEC founder, said political contributions rose because business improved and he took on more partners, who gave money.

Hollingsworth also said he and other engineers give money to charities popular with county officials, including Democratic Supervisor Dan Eckstrom and former waste-water director George Brinsko. One such charity is the Pio Decimo Center, 848 S. Seventh Ave., which provides social and educational services to South Side residents.

The contributions aren't an attempt to win favor, Hollingsworth said, but are a way to build friendships and foster awareness.

"A lot of the money we gave to that charity in South Tucson . . . they've got the Eckstrom and Brinsko connection who know a lot of people in my business," he said.

Consultant Robert Suarez of RS Engineering, 2445 N. Tucson Blvd., echoed that view, saying that establishing relationships with government is what he gets from contributions - not favored treatment.

Suarez, and other consultants interviewed, said they don't give as much to City Council candidates because they don't ask.

During the past 10 years, engineers have given four times as much money to county incumbents as to City Council members, even though there are two more seats at the city level.

Bob Brittain of Johnson-Brittain & Assoc., 378 N. Main Ave., said that's because city contracts are based on staff evaluations of who's most qualified. "The mayor and council stay out of it," he said.

"The supervisors you give contributions to, they know you gave," Brittain said. "And if you don't give, they know that, too."

Adds Lynch of GLHN, "I can tell you, City Council members won't take calls from consultants whining about the fact they don't get work."

At the county, though, politicians do.

Eckstrom connection

Two contractors with work-related ties to Eckstrom succeeded in bucking staff rankings and recommendations to win engineering work.

Steve Corrales got a no-bid contract in 1995 to design the La Cholla-Rudasill intersection after inquiries from Eckstrom, with whom he had worked before Eckstrom joined the board. The award came despite e-mails from transportation officials predicting Corrales would have problems completing the job.

Eckstrom said it was his right to ask for an explanation of why Corrales wasn't getting work, but he said he never demanded a contract for him.

A subsequent memo says Corrales did, indeed, have trouble completing the assignment.

"What has happened on the previous projects by this firm is that there have been serious deficiencies in their designs, and because of schedule pressures to get the projects done, we have paid him off and taken over and finished the projects ourselves," Brooks Keenan, then deputy transportation director, wrote to one of his staffers.

Still, five months later, the Corrales contract increased, and at the direction of Huckelberry, Corrales was excluded from a countywide freeze on capital spending projects.

Huckelberry, who called Corrales "the epitome of a small businessman," said staff opinions of contractors can be subjective and might not have been shared by everyone.

Finally, in 1997, the Transportation Department let his contract lapse.

"The consensus in design is that there are no projects that he can do (or that they would want him to do). Maybe it's time to just LET GO," procurement staffer Studer wrote to Keenan.

Corrales says now that he never knew the county staff was unhappy with his work and points to a 1997 award he received from public works colleagues for a city job he did along Irvington Road.

Not only did the county never reprimand him by phone or mail, he said, but his contract kept getting renewed.

Son Charles Corrales, vice president of the firm, said the company had been having trouble getting work and put in a call. "If you have a pothole in the road in front of your home, you call your councilman or supervisor, too," he said.

The Corraleses said they are relatively happy with the county process but are having less success getting work with the city and state.

In the second case, BKS Engineers - a firm that for years hired Eckstrom as a consultant and donates money to Democrats on the board - was one of four competitors for a $200,000 bridge project on Avra Valley Road.

Holben, Martin & White ranked No. 1 on the quality-assessment list, with 287 points - 24 more than fourth-ranked BKS, 2834 E. Grant Road.

A county Transportation Department memo said it had had problems with only one of the four applicants - BKS - noting the company struggled to meet a time line for another bridge project. In fact, plans for that earlier project were submitted so late that the county lost out on federal bridge replacement funding that year.

While the Avra Valley project went to Holben, Martin, a second $200,000 project - never advertised - was handed to BKS.

BKS owner Vinod Sanan declined to comment.

Departmental disconnects

A review of county files also reveals a thread of interdepartmental disconnects that's as prevalent as the political connections.

The files are rife with examples of staff overspending contracts because, they complain, departments with differing responsibilities for the same contract had little way of knowing what another department was doing.

To get a complete picture of each contract requires a visit to the procurement office to see who got a job, then departmental administrative offices to track change orders, then project engineers to follow progress and finally finance staffers to see how much was paid.

Even then, a complete record isn't always available.

Aggravating the problem, the county often hires consultants to oversee construction on projects, and those consultants are allowed to use their own widely varying standards for communicating with the county.

In one example, then-procurement officer Roseanne Sweeney was trying to figure out what to do with a $2,266 consultant invoice for a Parks Department project that was submitted for payment under an expired Transportation Department contract.

"You guessed it - another consultant assignment I knew nothing about," the memo reads. Sweeney says in the memo that she was going to have to get the firm to resubmit under a current contract.

"Ho hum," she wrote. "Here we go again."

Here are some other examples from the files of the staff overspending contracts - or finding creative ways around the problem:

Losing track. In 2001, staff members lost track of how much money was left on an open-ended contract held by Catalina Engineering, prompting them to authorize $22,000 in added work for which there was no money.

Rather than admitting the error, they sought money for extra work with the explanation, "due to unforeseen design considerations."

More demolition. In 2001, a $109,000 contract to demolish eight houses in a right of way had to be more than doubled to $237,000 to cover the cost of demolishing yet another eight homes.

A procurement department memo complains the second set of homes should have been put out to bid, but it was being added to the old contract "to cover for their failure to include these houses in the first contract."

Shifting contracts. In 2000, the county attempted to cover a $142,000 shortfall in Southern Arizona Paving's 1997 annual road maintenance contract by applying the bills to a new contract issued to the company in 1999 for road work.

Internal memos say the shift was necessary because the earlier contract "had been continuously out of money. Before an amendment could pass, it was out of money again."

In 2000, staff members overshot a $100,000 contract by nearly 50 percent and had to ask the elected Board of Supervisors to cover a $48,000 shortfall for new work authorized along Silverbell Wash.

Twice in 1999, staffers tried to charge expenses to contracts that had long since expired - once for $1,999 and once for $7,000. In both cases, records show bills were quietly diverted to another contract the same companies held on another project.

In most cases, the board is stuck paying. In justifying the increases, the staff often tells board members that to withhold payment for work already done would expose the county to liability or would stop work on a project altogether.

Supervisors in the dark

Sometimes it's apparent that the Board of Supervisors doesn't know what's going on because it has to rely on questionable staff information.

In 1998, the county Wastewater Management Department solicited proposals for much-needed odor control improvements at the Roger Road sewage treatment plant. The selection panel ranked Cella Barr first with 86.5 points. Malcolm Pirnie, the next-closest, tallied 82.5 points.

But the recommendation sent to the board said only that Malcolm Pirnie got more first-place rankings than the competing firms, never mentioning that Cella Barr rated first overall. A separate section of the report listed Malcolm Pirnie as the No. 1-ranked firm, without revealing the actual scores.

Malcolm Pirnie was awarded the $400,000 contract, which ultimately grew to $775,400.

Supervisor Eckstrom said that heavy reliance on staffers proves supervisors have little control over who gets work.

"At this point, our system is pretty much driven by staff," Eckstrom said. "And for now, unless someone shows me otherwise, I trust them."

/////

Top contributors to supervisors

(Among 42 contracting firms, 1997-2002)

Consultant/ Contribution/ Rank/ County contracts/ Rank

Collins-Piña $8,515 1 $9.2 million 1

RS Engineering $7,420 2 $6.1 million 4

DJA Engineering $7,180 3 $6.8 million 3

BKS Engineers $4,280 4 $1.4 million 15

MMLA $4,015 5 $5.7 million 5

Camp, Dresser $1,845 6 $8.6 million 2

/////

On StarNet: For a detailed list of transportation, water and sewer projects awarded by the city of Tucson and Pima County from 1995 to 2001, see our expanded online coverage at azstarnet.com/specialreports

/////

The money

contributions to officeholders

$53,042

pima county supervisors (10 years, five seats)

$13,758

Tucson City Council members (10 years, seven seats)

contributions supporting bond-election campaigns

$73,750

Pima County (one election, 1997)

$32,790

City of Tucson (two elections, 1994, 2000)

Huckelberry orders review of contracts

/////

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has ordered a freeze on the use of open-ended "as-needed" professional services contracts until he and the Board of Supervisors can reassess the practice.

The order, issued Tuesday, also calls for a review of existing as-needed contracts to see if the county is using them to distribute work that should be competitively bid or is overpaying for some services.

Professional services include such items as road and sewer system design and engineering, architects, surveying and flood plain management.

Huckelberry said Wednesday that he will make allowances for work in which taxpayer interests would be jeopardized by delaying a project and when using an as-needed contract is the best way to get the job done quickly.

For urgent needs, he said, departments will have to "plead their case to me, and I'll decide on a case-by-case basis if it's truly an emergency."

The supervisors approve dozens of as-needed consultant contracts each year, typically at $150,000 per contract. The exact job and amount, however, are left to be determined later by department staff members behind the scenes.

Huckelberry said Wednesday that the freeze was prompted by stories published Sunday and Monday in the Arizona Daily Star questioning the extensive use of as-needed contracts.

The three-month Star investigation found areas of lax contract oversight, no control over how work is assigned, and the apparent ignoring of consultant rankings in favor of political cronies.

The board unanimously ordered a study of county contracting practices last week, after being interviewed about problems that were detailed in the series.

Huckelberry said the freeze will remain in place until the supervisors review all aspects of the issue, including costs and whether as-needed contracts are being used in order to circumvent the county's qualifications-based consultant selection process.

"We need to identify the problem, solve the problem and restore public confidence. It's as simple as that," Huckelberry said. He said he expects the board to consider a number of reforms, including limiting size and cost of projects that can be done under an as-needed contract and requiring a lot more oversight of contract awards and billings.

Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bronson did not return an Arizona Daily Star telephone message Wednesday.

In response to assertions by two county staff members in the Star stories that exorbitant fees charged by consultants under as-needed contracts were inflating building costs, Huckelberry said he wants a review of the rates and number of hours billed under existing as-needed contracts completed by the end of this week.

He ordered a full review of all as-needed contracts for projects in which the estimated cost is more than $50,000. That is to include an analysis of what would happen if the contract were terminated.

A preliminary report could be done by the end of next week, Huckelberry said.

After that, he said, he expects the supervisors to initiate a public review of contracting procedures. John Bernal, deputy county administrator for public works, said workers are still trying to determine how many projects might be delayed because of the freeze.

GUEST OPINION

/////

The allegations by Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll regarding the fixing of county contracts and patronage jobs is sensational reading.

It is also pure fiction. It is no secret that Carroll would prefer that I not be the county administrator. But county and city managers are hired and fired by a majority of the governing body, not by an individual member.

Comparing Pima County to Tammany Hall does a real disservice to dedicated, loyal, public employees of the county.

The county has had a merit system for personnel selection since 1974. This system works. County employees are hard-working, honest individuals.

Carroll complains of "no-bid contracts, abuse of restricted funds and ghost payrolls." Regarding "no-bid contracts," I assume Carroll is referring to professional-service contracts for architects and engineers.

State law prohibits the use of a competitive bidding process for professional-service contracts.

Pima County, like our state government and every other Arizona county, relies on a qualifications-based bid process. When hiring professionals, we want the best, most qualified firm, not necessarily the cheapest.

Regarding "ghost payrolls," I assume Carroll is referring to the former aide of Supervisor Raul Grijalva.

Rather than endure the politically motivated accusations of Carroll, Ruben Reyes resigned from his county position and received no county funds for his work, despite the placement over the years of at least 19 former aides and staff of former supervisors in county employment.

These staff members have all successfully contributed to county public service. Many have even retired from county service.

To characterize former or even present supervisors' aides and staffers as unproductive political ghosts does a disservice to the most difficult job of being a county supervisor's staffer.

I can only guess that the reference to "restricted funds" is the legitimate and board-approved temporary lending of surplus wastewater funds to Kino Community Hospital. These funds have all been repaid, with interest.

This well-documented transaction has always been a matter of public record and was openly discussed at meetings of the board, which Carroll attended.

Dissent, comment and criticism of the county and my job as county administrator are welcomed.

It is healthy, since it allows continual review of policies, procedures and programs for modification and improvement.

It should also be noted that whistle-blowers in the county are protected by code and by state law. The present whistle-blower protection granted county employees is founded in state law, and it is as strong as state law permits.

The revisions to the procurement code that I suggested and the board adopted in November 1998 came after biased ratings were received from a staff selection panel the first time a new process for consultant selection was used. The revisions I suggested do not change or even modify any ratings, even if they are biased.

What they do is make the ratings public, which opens internal bureaucracies to public scrutiny, something I believe is healthy. The current code strictly follows state law.

Further, the code does not allow me to change the department recommendation-only to forward to the board of supervisors a separate recommendation from myself as county administrator, if I believe such is necessary.

Such a process has never been used since the code was modified in November 1998. Based on the present policy, no recommendation from any department director has ever been changed.

Other modifications to the policy eliminated potential staff and private conflicts of interest, ensured that evaluation documents are public records and disclosed erratic panel member scores. These improvements contribute to an open government.

Regarding my employment contract, yes, I have a contract. All professional county administrators and city managers should have a contract with their employers to avoid the kind of political pressure that an individual or less than a majority of the members of a political body could attempt to exert.

The governing body, in this case the board of supervisors, has the right to select any individual it chooses as its county administrator.

If the majority requests my resignation, it will be tendered with no questions or arguments - such reflects a professional relationship with the governing board.

Finally, Carroll needs to understand that there is no administrative branch of government. There are the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

In local county government, the board of supervisors, the elected representatives of the county, function as both the executive and legislative branches.

As such, they are, in fact, in control of the county. I am employed to carry out their policy direction.

The policy direction of any elected body, whether it is the Legislature or Congress, is set by majority opinion, not the voice of a single member - that is the way democracies work.

Using inflammatory language such as "culture of corruption" confirms Carroll's concern for the taxpayer is, frankly, a thinly disguised witch hunt.

I welcome any investigation by any independent law enforcement agency - always have, always will.

I will also fully cooperate with any citizen body, such as the present procurement committee, as well as the independent national expert now reviewing our procurement process. The more facts and the less innuendo, the better.

Pima County is a great place to work. Staff members are dedicated and hard-working. They honestly care about everyone in this community - young, old, rich and poor - and they should not be subjected to these unfounded accusations.

Chuck Huckelberry is Pima County's administrator.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted sweeping changes Tuesday in the way contracts - worth hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year - are awarded.

Among the changes spurred by a citizens panel and an outside consulting firm, after an Arizona Daily Star investigation, are:

All procurement authority will be delegated directly to the director of procurement.

The county administrator and the board will not be involved in the consultant selection process.

Projects projected to cost more than $100,000 will be issued individually in a public process. Approval by the Board of Supervisors will be required.

The board voted 4-1 with Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll opposing. Carroll said the changes shouldn't be carried out until a new procurement director is on board.

The county's process for selecting design and engineering consultants was reviewed over the summer by the National Institute of Government Purchasing and a citizens committee following an Arizona Daily Star investigation published in May.

The series raised questions about the county's heavy use of open-ended, "as-needed" contracts, a pattern of ignoring consultant ratings when awarding contracts, and a seeming link between contracts and political contributions.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry on Tuesday released his own report, which melds the two entities' findings.

Carroll said he favors the changes, but believes having a new director in place first would help the community feel "a sense of completion on the task that was started."

Democrat Dan Eckstrom disagreed with Carroll, saying the changes need to begin as soon as possible.

In August, the Board of Supervisors ordered the county's current procurement director to devote herself full-time to reforming the way contracts are awarded.

In her regular duties, Martha Durkin also acts as the county's director of revenue and oversees its elections division.

Huckelberry agreed a search needs to begin for a new director, but said that shouldn't mean waiting to adopt changes. "My own opinion is that it's time to move forward, time to take a step toward reform, time to do something,'' he said.

Huckelberry's report also includes the following changes:

The board will delegate contracting authority to the procurement director in the amount of $100,000.

As-needed projects predicted to cost more than $100,000 will not be awarded. No consultant can be awarded more than $250,000 for as-needed projects a year.

Instead of awarding consultants open-ended contracts for $150,000 and later assigning them work under those contracts, the county will assess whether contractors are certified and then award them contracts for specific projects.

The system of rotating work between consultants who had a contract will be scrapped. The procurement director will now identify the most qualified contractor based on their experience and work load.

Contractors will be evaluated on their performance and those evaluations will be used to determine whether they get future contracts.

A formalized system will be established to evaluate contractor performance.

In other action:

The board voted 4-1 in favor of allowing developer Joseph Cesare to build an upscale shopping and business center on six acres on the southeast corner of River and Craycroft roads. Eckstrom voted against the rezoning.

The vote, which approved the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, allows for development of six acres for commercial development in the west portion of the 10-acre parcel.

The remaining four acres at River Road and Calle Rosario will be developed as low intensity urban, which allows for 1.2 homes per acre.

A lengthy public hearing preceded the board's decision, with 19 citizens speaking in favor of the development and 13 speaking against it.

GUEST OPINION

/////

The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is simply our promise to be responsible stewards of our fragile Sonoran Desert environment for future generations. We must foster land uses that protect our natural landscapes as well as our environmental and cultural resources. This is the basic premise as well as pledge of the conservation plan. We have an ethical obligation to leave this place much as we found it for future generations to enjoy. For the first time, facts, science and a sense of public responsibility will guide future land use decisions, not politics or special interests.

The conservation plan will clearly guide future growth and development. The plan identifies critical and sensitive resources and then assigns high to low values for the conservation of these resources. The concept is simple - where there are high-value resources, it would be wise to build carefully, and where these resources are low or do not exist, building should be encouraged.

Critics of the plan say we will not have enough land left in Pima County upon which to build. They also say the county has developed unreasonable and restrictive regulations, ordinances and policies for building. I would like to address these concerns.

Opponents charge that only 13 percent of the land in Arizona is private and we should do little to regulate the use of this small amount of private land. A great sound bite until you look at the details. In eastern Pima County, 31 percent of the land is private and, more importantly for the future, 33 percent is State Trust Land that will or could become private. Therefore, over 64 percent of eastern Pima County is either developed now or could be developed in the future.

Now let's look at the possible effects of the plan on building. One of the products of the plan has been development of a Conservation Lands System, which is the Environmental Element of the Pima County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, required by the Legislature in 2001. This system assigns conservation goals to lands that contain high-value natural and cultural resources based on factual, scientific and reliable information. The conservation goals for protecting resources varies from as high as 95 percent for riparian areas (remember, it is not smart to build in flood plains) to as low as 60 percent for multiple-use areas. The weighted conservation goal average, based on resource values within the entire Conservation Lands System, is 75 percent. The total land affected by the system outside existing reserves such as national parks and national forests but generally within the unincorporated area is slightly over a million acres. Therefore, approximately 250,000 acres within the Conservation Lands System could be developed and still attain the conservation goals of the plan.

It is also very important to understand that approximately 225,000 acres lying outside the Conservation Lands System are essentially vacant, within or near incorporated areas, and are prime locations for quality development.

Partially at the insistence of builders, the county recently completed an economic study for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This study addressed the question of land availability and concludes that we will run out of water long before we run out of land. Our present water supply will support approximately 2 million people, and it will require another 260,000 acres of development to accommodate this population. Given that we could build on 250,000 acres within the Conservation Lands System, and we have 225,000 acres with little resource value in areas for future development, it would appear the land availability crisis claimed by builders is an exaggeration. Essentially we have twice as much land as water for development.

The claim that the conservation plan has spawned a number of new regulations, ordinances and policies is equally wrong. The county has acted, for decades, to protect our most important resources. Mountain park protection began in 1929 with Tucson Mountain Park. The first historic zoning district was enacted in 1972 to protect San Xavier Mission. Pima County began protecting flood-prone and riparian areas in 1974. Cienega Creek, the last lowland- elevation perennial stream in Arizona, was acquired in 1987. A number of ranches destined for urban sprawl have been conserved because of county efforts since 1987. Our knowledge of the biological importance of critical and sensitive habitats dates from 1985 with adoption of the first native plant ordinances. Conservation is not a new or unique concept in Pima County. Very few new ordinances have been adopted as a result of our present conservation efforts.

It seems to me the Board of Supervisors is on the right track with the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. They recognize the need to speak not only for the people who live here today, but also for future generations that will follow us. Pima County remains committed to working with the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association for a quality community and improved lifestyle. But wasting our precious natural and cultural resources by building wherever we want is not the answer.

If you would like to know more about the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, please visit our Web site at www.pima.gov/sdcp. You can also send comments directly to me at chh@pima.gov.

Chuck Huckelberry is the Pima County administrator.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry should be a top choice for Tucson's next city manager, two unlikely City Council allies said Wednesday.

Republican Kathleen Dunbar and Democrat Jose Ibarra, who seldom agree on anything, both said Huckelberry would be a favorite to replace the departing James Keene, if he's willing to consider the move.

Huckelberry said he hadn't thought about the city job, and any comment on his part would be "premature."

The search should be kept within the region and not conducted nationally, Ibarra and fellow Democrats Shirley Scott and Steve Leal told Mayor Bob Walkup, a Republican, in a memo yesterday. That led to Huckelberry's name coming up.

Keene resigned last week, effective in January, to take a job as director of the California Association of Counties.

The idea of limiting the job search to local and regional candidates appears to have support from most of the council.

The three Democrats also suggest appointing a citizens committee to decide how to identify and evaluate candidates for the council to consider.

That idea didn't go over very well with the rest of the council members - Walkup, Dunbar, Republican Fred Ronstadt and Democrat Carol West. They want city officials to conduct the search, and to give citizens input after finalists are chosen.

The memo asked Walkup to put the issue on a council agenda. Walkup will do so for a Nov. 1 study session, his spokesman said.

"I'd like to have Chuck Huckelberry," Dunbar said. "If we want to make this a metro government, the way to start is with someone who knows the city and the county. He does. If you're serious about consolidation, who would be better?"

Besides, Dunbar said, "He's popular. People like him and people trust him."

She said she also considers former IBM head Rick Myers a possibility.

Ibarra worked with Huckelberry when the councilman was an aide to former county Supervisor Raúl Grijalva. "We went through a lot of fights, against each other and with each other," Ibarra said.

Although they didn't always see eye-to-eye, Ibarra said he always found Huckelberry "extremely capable and intelligent. More than just being intelligent, he knows government and he has good instincts.

"If he's willing, we should welcome and encourage him to consider the job. He would be a great asset if we could get him," Ibarra said.

Huckelberry's contract, which expires in January, includes a salary of $185,000 a year. If he left for the city job, he would be eligible to retire at about 75 percent pay, in addition to his city salary.

Keene makes $192,000 a year.

Ronstadt is less enamored of the Huckelberry possibility.

While all the attributes noted by Dunbar and Ibarra are true, Ronstadt said, he thinks Huckelberry's management style would rub a lot of top city employees the wrong way.

Huckelberry comes from a more political environment, Ronstadt said.

"He engages with his staff differently than our staff is accustomed to being engaged," Ronstadt said, predicting an exodus of key city officials if Huckelberry were hired.

Walkup aide Andrew Greenhill acknowledged Huckelberry's name has come up but said the mayor is focused on setting up a process for finding a new manager and not ready to comment on any candidate yet.

Walkup said last week that he wanted to limit the replacement search to Arizona.

Walkup was not available for an interview Wednesday but issued a statement through Greenhill about the Democrats' memo.

While he still believes Arizona should be the primary search area, Greenhill said Walkup wants to meet with the full council before deciding how the search should be conducted.

West agreed with her fellow Democrats that the city needs to get moving on hiring a new manager, saying she is surprised the issue isn't on Monday's council agenda.

County official opts not to apply for city manager

/////

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said Friday that he will not apply for the soon-to-be-vacant city manager's job and will seek a four-year renewal of his current contract.

The county Board of Supervisors will discuss Tuesday whether to grant Huckelberry's request for a new contract that would pay him a combined $216,000 in annual salary and deferred compensation. That's about a 5 percent boost from his current $205,707.

The new contract would give him $198,000 salary and $18,000 a year in deferred compensation, which won't be taxable until he retires and starts using it.

Huckelberry, who took the administrator's job in December 1993, seems likely to get the contract he wants from the board.

Democratic Supervisors Richard Elías and Ramón Valadez said Friday that they were inclined to support Huckelberry's request. They said he has done a very good job handling difficult issues such as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and Kino Community Hospital and that his background as a native Tucsonan continues to make him a good choice.

Board Chairwoman Sharon Bronson, also a Democrat, didn't return calls but she has been a strong Huckelberry supporter.

Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll, who opposed Huckelberry's contract four years ago, was the only supervisor who said he'll vote against this one. He said that a pact that long doesn't provide enough accountability and that Huckelberry needs to resolve the Wastewater Management Department's financial and management problems before he gets a long-term contract.

Fellow Republican Ann Day said she didn't want to publicly discuss the contract until the board talks about it in executive session.

Two Tucson City Council members, Democrat Jose Ibarra and Republican Kathleen Dunbar, said in October that they saw Huckelberry as a top candidate to replace outgoing City Manager James Keene. They cited his intelligence, knowledge of both city and county governments, and personal popularity. Keene is leaving city government in January to become director of the California Association of Counties.

On Friday, Huckelberry said he wants to finish up several key county initiatives started during this and previous terms. They include:

* Showing that bond money is spent appropriately and wisely, after voters approved a $732 million bond package last May.

* Reforming the criminal justice system.

* Wrapping up and getting federal approval of the conservation plan's proposal to protect endangered species, which is slated for formal release next year.

"I think I'm pretty much done after this. I think probably 14 years in any chief executive position in local government is about enough," Huckelberry said. Actually, if he serves a new four-year term, it will be 16 years as administrator.

Keene's current combined salary and deferred compensation is, at $204,968, slightly lower than Huckelberry's current combined pay. The city manager gets a $3,900-a-year vehicle allowance. Huckelberry doesn't get one, although he has use of a county car. Keene doesn't have a city-owned car.

But Huckelberry said salary has nothing to do with staying with the county rather than pursuing a city job, and that he was not trying to parlay the two council members' interest in him into a higher county salary. He doesn't know what Keene makes other than what's been reported in the paper, he said.

Elías, who joined the board in the middle of Huckelberry's latest term, said he thinks Huckelberry has a reasonable level of accountability to the public and the board.

"He is subject to serve at pleasure of the majority of the board. I think that is adequate accountability," Elías said.

Carroll, however, said that the current and proposed Huckelberry contracts contain no formal accountability standards or year-end review.

"Until he gets Wastewater straightened out, it's too premature to talk about his contract," Carroll said. For now, the supervisor said, "I'll be happy to give him an extension."

Huckelberry's office is slated to release a comprehensive audit next week on the Wastewater Department, which has been plagued by budget deficits, cost overruns in major sewer projects, and problems with management and oversight of projects such as the Randolph Park reclamation plant.

The administrator said there's no question that the Randolph plant has been plagued by poor planning and that the department should have told the board much earlier that it was going to use money that ultimately would come from bond funds for seven other sewer projects for Randolph.

But he said his record in winning voter approval of the bonds and in getting the board to overhaul the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and his move to privatize Kino Community Hospital, show he can resolve the Wastewater issues.

"I think the board evaluates me probably every day of the week," Huckelberry said.

/////

Cost comparison

* The county Board of Supervisors will discuss Tuesday whether to grant Huckelberry's request for a new contract.

CURRENT ANNUAL PACKAGE

$205,707

total annual package, including deferred compensation

PACKAGE PROPOSAL

$216,000

total annual package, including deferred compensation

/////

If you go

* Huckelberry's contract renewal will be discussed in closed session followed by public consideration and a possible vote at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting. The session starts at 9 a.m. in the board hearing room on the first floor of the County Administration Building, 130 W. Congress St.

/////

To-do list

Initiatives started during this and previous terms that Huckelberry wants to finish:

* Showing that bond money is spent appropriately and wisely, after voters approved a $732 million bond package last May.

* Reforming the criminal-justice system.

* Wrapping up and getting federal approval of the conservation plan's proposal to protect endangered species, which is slated for formal release next year.

In other action Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors:

* Voted 4-1, with Republican Ray Carroll dissenting, to approve a new, four-year contract for County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry that pays $216,000 in annual salary and deferred compensation, up 5 percent from his current $205,707. The board added eight performance standards to his proposed contract, including the development of a comprehensive strategic plan to make county government accountable to residents.

* Voted unanimously to require that developers move within the next six months to submit tentative layout plans to develop all land within a 21,140-acre area on the Far Southeast Side and a final plan in 18 months or lose the suburban density zoning approved for much of the area in 1959.

Changes to the Vail-Posta Quemada Zoning Plan were recommended by county officials who said the old plan is in direct conflict with the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with the county's Conservation Lands System requiring preservation of at least 70 percent of all sensitive lands when rezoned and developed.

* Voted unanimously to approve a series of fee increases and new fees for using various facilities at the county's Kino Veterans Memorial Community Center at 2805 E. Ajo Way.

People using the center's aerobics facility, for instance, will pay $2 for the first time, while weight-room users will pay $1.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has told department heads not to respond to requests for budget information from Supervisor Ray Carroll, who, with fellow Republican Supervisor Ann Day, has presented an alternate budget.

Huckelberry said Carroll's questions would require a lot of research to answer, and it isn't fair to staff members to do that research unless a majority of the Board of Supervisors wants the same information.

"He's asking for a lot of work," Huckelberry said. "The board needs to make that decision, not one member of the board."

Earlier this year, Pima County department heads prepared their ideal budgets and budgets that were 2 percent and 5 percent smaller in anticipation of reduced state-shared revenue.

Huckelberry then recommended a $1.4 billion budget that calls for 2.3 percent cuts in all general-fund-supported departments.

The budget also calls for a 40-cent reduction in the tax rate that would save the owner of a $200,000 house $80 next year.

Additional tax cuts called for in the Republican proposal would save the owner of a $200,000 house an additional $35. The proposal calls for the county to collect no additional tax revenue next year and uses new growth to further reduce taxes on current homeowners.

Huckelberry said the Republican proposal would result in a 9 percent budget decrease because the county would take in $14 million less in local property-tax revenue at the same time state-shared revenues from sales taxes are down.

Department heads told Huckelberry a 9 percent reduction would result in hundreds of layoffs, parks closures and reductions in essential services.

But Carroll said the county administrator is painting an exaggerated picture of his proposal's impact. On Friday, he asked department heads to research the impact if they received the exact same revenue as last year.

"I don't think it's an unreasonable question," Carroll said.

Carroll said the county administrator is preventing him from obtaining relevant information to challenge the budget.

"We're about delivering services," Carroll said. "And we want to know what impact it will have on services if departments have the same amount of revenue next year that they had this year."

Huckelberry said the question may not be unreasonable, but it's also not grounded in reality.

"How do you make up the difference in the state-shared revenue?" Huckelberry asked. "You can't assume you have the same revenue when you don't."

Carroll said he will put his request on Tuesday's agenda and raise the question when the county holds its budget hearings.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday on whether to renew County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry's contract for another four years.

Huckelberry has been the county's top executive since 1993, but his tenure with the county extends far beyond that.

Huckelberry had worked for the county for 19 years - the last six as an assistant county manager - when he was demoted as part of a sweeping overhaul of the county's top management ordered by the newly elected Republican Board of Supervisors majority in January 1993. Seven top officials were ousted from their positions.

Huckelberry resigned a few months later to work for a private consultant and for the Metro Water District.

But he was back before the end of the year, signed to a six-month interim contract as county administrator at a rate of $110,000 a year.

His new four-year contract will pay him the same $230,000 he now makes.

Although he can be fired at any time by the Board of Supervisors, if he is terminated without cause the contract calls for Huckelberry to be paid six months' salary as severance. It also calls for him to receive whatever cost-of-living raises other county employees get for the next four years.

The last contract, approved in 2004, put his salary at $198,000; it has escalated since then to just under $230,000 with cost-of-living raises - something neither he nor other county employees will be getting this year.

Huckelberry also will receive $22,000 a year in deferred compensation toward his retirement.

/////

DID YOU KNOW

In 1979, Chuck Huckelberry became Pima County's youngest department head ever when, at age 29, he was put in charge of what was then called the Pima County Highway Department. Huckelberry had worked for the department for five years at the time.

Administrator's contract approved

/////

3 Dem supervisors approve photo-generated citations

/////

A contract that paves the way for photo-enforcement stations throughout unincorporated Pima County was approved Tuesday by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in a 3-2, party-line vote.

Democrats Richard Elías, Ramón Valadez and Sharon Bronson voted yes, saying photo enforcement will make county roads safer by reducing speeding and accidents.

Republicans Ann Day and Ray Carroll voted against the contract. They argued that photo-radar enforcement infringes on civil liberties and would be especially rough on county drivers during tough economic times.

Carroll said it's unfair to drivers to ask them to defend themselves weeks after the fact.

Day said she was upset that the contract appeared on the consent agenda, which normally is reserved for routine items that are voted on as a group, and without much backup information. She said adopting photo enforcement is a major policy decision that should have been accompanied by a presentation about the pros and cons.

County officials estimate the new contract could raise as much as $1.5 million per year, depending on the number of tickets issued and how quickly drivers respond to photo enforcement by slowing down.

The decision to deploy photo enforcement comes as the county faces tough budget decisions in response to falling tax revenue, and the Sheriff's Department has a hiring freeze to help save money.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said money is not what's driving the decision.

"This is in response to a known traffic safety hazard, which is speeding in the unincorporated areas," he said.

The contract allows for the Sheriff's Department to deploy as many as 10 fixed units and 10 mobile van units in locations determined by accident data and traffic counters that also record the speed of passing cars. Tickets will be issued when vehicles are caught on camera going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.

Both the Tucson Police Department and the state Department of Public Safety already use photo speed enforcement. TPD also uses red-light cameras, which Pima County will not.

The county's contract provides the vendor, American Traffic Solutions Inc. of Scottsdale, with $60 from the first 95 paid tickets each month from the fixed-location units and $23 for every ticket after that. The company will get $60 for the first 250 paid tickets each month issued on the mobile units.

A county's most common speeding ticket costs $201, of which $94 goes to the county. The rest goes to state surcharges and the clean-elections fund.

As with most photo-enforcement agreements, the equipment doesn't cost the county anything, but the contractor is paid from the county's portion of the revenue.

The contract calls for a seven-day warning period when the units are first deployed, probably about a month from now, and a review of how it's working in a year.

"I don't think a review in a year will indicate anything other than it's a great program, and it's generating revenue for the county and the contractor," said Carroll, who questioned why the county didn't deploy more motorcycle officers if police are aware of the problem areas.

Lt. Karl Woolridge of the Sheriff's Department said the department has only seven motorcycle officers doing traffic enforcement for the entire county, and they often are responding to complaints near schools and in residential areas.

Valadez said concerns about whether photo enforcement is unfair to speeders are misplaced.

"Don't our kids and families have a right to be safe?" he asked.

In other business, the Board of Supervisors renewed Huckelberry's contract for another four years. Carroll, who cast the only 'no' vote, said he did not feel that Huckelberry provided adequate information or help with constituent services to Republican supervisors.

Valadez said Huckelberry, who has been the county's top executive since 1993, provides needed stability in what are expected to be very difficult financial times for the county.

"I never believe it's good to rock the boat in turbulent times," Valadez said. "I believe this community has been well-served by him being the administrator."

The supervisors also unanimously approved two resolutions that ask federal agencies to require an environmental-impact statement from California Portland Cement before they issue any permits for mining in Davidson Canyon, and ask state agencies to review those impact statements before issuing permits.

PHOENIX - Saying the Pima County administrator needs to be restrained, a House panel voted Thursday to create a special committee to oversee county bond elections.

The party-line vote in the Republican-controlled Committee on Technology and Infrastructure came after a plea from Marana Town Attorney Frank Cassidy, who said the county has created a "culture of intimidation."

He said part of that is because County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry proposes bond elections with more than 100 individual projects - and sub-projects within them - to a point where advisory committee members are so overwhelmed that they defer to Huckelberry's recommendations of what gets funded and what does not.

HB 2656, sponsored by Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, would require Pima County - and only Pima County - to establish a bond oversight committee with veto power over what projects get put on the ballot and any changes in how already-approved bond money is spent.

Proud said the special legislation is justified.

"Southern Arizona is really no stranger to corruption," she said, citing the failed Rio Nuevo revitalization project. And Proud said Pima County has more bond debt than even the far larger Maricopa County.

Proud also made it clear she believes the blame lies with Huckelberry.

"For too long we've had one man control everything," she said. "And I think that needs to stop."

Proud's bill would do more than simply create an oversight panel. It would give the county and each of its five cities one vote.

County lobbyist Mike Racy said that would allow representatives of just three communities, with as little as 6.5 percent of total county population, to block anything until they could get what they want.

"Our concern is just how grossly inequitable one vote per jurisdiction would be," he said.

Proud said she sees nothing wrong with that, contending that's the way it works at the Legislature.

"I represent a larger district than someone else may represent," she said.

However, under federal law, all legislative districts are required to have roughly the same population. That is why new district lines are redrawn after every census, to adjust for population changes and keep them the same size.

Cassidy, however, said the weighted voting system is justified - and far better than what exists now.

"This is simply an opportunity to provide more transparency to the process and to give real feedback in the nature of an actual, meaningful vote to those communities affected by it," he said.

He said each supervisor gets to name three members to the current advisory committee, with three named by the county administrator, each of the two tribes getting one member and each incorporated city naming one member.

That, he said, dilutes the ability of affected communities to make their needs known. By contrast, Cassidy said, each community getting one-sixth of the power on the committee ensures "a meaningful and binding, realistic piece of feedback" on the process.

Cassidy conceded Racy's point that Proud's legislation would let any three communities, no matter how small, effectively hold up the process and block public votes on multimillion-dollar bond projects for the entire county, or any change in funding priorities. But he said that's not necessarily a bad thing because it would produce "the happy result of our taxes finally going down."

While this new oversight panel would have veto power over new bond projects, the main argument of proponents is that it is designed to prevent shifting of priorities after voters approve the borrowing.

Cassidy told lawmakers a prime example involves $22 million approved as part of a 2004 bond to build a joint city-county courthouse. He said Huckelberry instead shifted some of the money to remodel one floor of the Superior Court Building.

Huckelberry called that "a good story until you tell the other side of it."

He said the court project ran into unexpected delays and an extra $18 million in costs when it unearthed an old cemetery with 1,500 bodies that had to be relocated.

While the project was on hold, Huckelberry said, the county bond advisory committee agreed to spend $9.8 million to remodel the existing court, on the condition the county repay the money for the new courthouse from regular tax dollars, which has been done.

He said the fund shift went through multiple public hearings "and it was always intended as a stopgap measure for court overcrowding."

While all the Republicans on the House panel supported Proud's legislation, Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said he is less than comfortable with giving the county's smallest communities an equal vote with not only Tucson but with the Board of Supervisors, which represents the 36 percent of the population living in unincorporated areas. Seel said he may propose a change when the measure goes to the full House.

On StarNet: Read more about local, state and national political news at azstarnet.com/politics

Pima County started ramping up the pressure Wednesday to get state lawmakers to back off on a plan that would give satellite jurisdictions veto power over county borrowing for roads and other projects.

Those who have benefited from previous county bond projects - or who hope to when the next round of bond projects goes before voters again - spoke at a press conference demanding the bill sponsors withdraw the effort to force the county to first get a majority of a new six-member board to sign off on any bond package before it could be sent to voters.

With the proposed board consisting of one member from the county plus a member from each incorporated city within the county, the plan could conceivably allow Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita to band together to scuttle any new bond package.

"It's going to politicize the process, and it will be very parochial - and that's not the way we function currently," said attorney Larry Hecker, chairman of the existing Pima County Bond Advisory Committee, which has representatives from every jurisdiction among its 25 members.

Without a $1 million cash infusion from county bonds, the Pima Air & Space Museum wouldn't have been able to raise $6 million in private donations to expand its exhibit space and bring in 74 new aircraft, said Ferdinand von Galen, the chairman of the Arizona Aerospace Foundation.

Without county bonds, the county would not have a new psychiatric facility that's freeing up space in the emergency room and diverting people from jail, said Neal Cash, the chief executive of Community Partnership of Southern Arizona.

County bond funding has helped preserve Davis-Monthan Air Force Base by funding the acquisition of land in the departure corridor to cut down on the risk of encroachment, said Mike Grassinger of DM-50, a group of community leaders working to keep the base here.

Others talked about the impact on low-income housing, on open space and on roads throughout the county.

Despite the litany of speakers, state Rep. Vic Williams, R-Tucson, one of the bill's sponsors, said the question isn't whether bonds can help fund important services.

"This bill is a reaction to the abuse of power that the county Board of Supervisors and the county administrator have used in using bonding measures as a political tool," said Williams, who is eyeing a seat on the county board as Supervisor Ann Day retires. "This brings more parity to the system."

Williams, however, could not immediately cite any examples of abuse. As for whether the bill gives too much clout to smaller areas, Williams said, "We'll be looking forward to having that discussion as the bill continues to move forward."

The primary sponsor, Republican state Rep. Terri Proud, contends the county rolls over smaller communities and shifts bond funding with impunity instead of following through on promised projects.

But County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry countered that of the 69 specific projects approved by voters in the 2004 and 2006 bond programs, 42 have been completed. Two have been retired - one because Rosemont Copper doesn't want to sell land the county wanted and another at the request of Oro Valley. The remainder are under development or planned for the future. Huckelberry said he anticipates no substantial deviation.

Some shifting has occurred, Huckelberry concedes, but he said there are checks and balances in place. The bond committee reviews changes in cost, scheduling and scope of projects. Any changes to projects requested by other jurisdictions must get approval from that area's mayor and council. The county board has to approve such changes at a public meeting.

Gary Davidson, a county parks commissioner, said the measure leaves county residents at a disadvantage, since they can't appeal to a city or town for help with their needs.

If the concern is the bond packages aren't being monitored sufficiently, he said, then state lawmakers should write a law that covers the entire state and require independent auditing of any bond program. "This idea that they can just step into our local process is the wrong approach," he said.

The bill so far has passed the House Committee on Technology and Infrastructure. Huckelberry said the county would likely sue if the bill actually passes.

Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at rbodfield@azstarnet.com or 573-4243.

PHOENIX - Gov. Jan Brewer gave the go-ahead late Thursday for a special "forensic audit" of Pima County to see if local officials played favorites with bond projects or punished enemies.

Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said Brewer was responding to concerns expressed by Marana residents and the legislators who represent them, who contend the area is not getting its fair share of funds from the county's 1997, 2004 and 2006 general obligation bonds.

"Ultimately, the people of Marana want to make sure that the money that they contribute to the tax system in Pima County is being used appropriately," Benson said. "Counties are accountable to the taxpayers, and this audit will help assure that."

But Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said the push led by Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, whose district includes part of Marana, is little more than political payback for the county fighting the town's move to take over a sewage treatment plant. The county objected to the move, arguing that county sewage ratepayers who paid to build the facility were not properly compensated.

Proud acknowledged she was not happy with Pima County's moves to block Marana from taking the sewage plant, a fight that ended after the Legislature intervened on the town's behalf. But she said her concerns predate the sewage plant fight.

"I'm not one to hold a grudge," Proud said.

Republican Rep. Vic Williams, who represents the same northern Pima County legislative district, said he does believe the fight over the sewage plant is part of what ultimately led to the call for the audit. But Williams supported the legislation, calling the examination worthwhile.

Benson said Brewer sees nothing wrong with singling out one county for special treatment. He said the Auditor General's Office, which will perform the examination, routinely examines the finances of state agencies, local governments and school districts.

This audit, however, goes far beyond making sure the books balance.

Lawmakers want the auditors to compare what projects were authorized by the county's bond advisory committee and where the money ultimately went. They also want to know whether some projects listed as being completed early were pushed back.

Also required will be an analysis of the explanation made by the Board of Supervisors for each change in use of funds and delivery times, "including in each instance whether there is any reason to believe or conclude that Pima County changed the amounts or uses of funds or the timing of projects to reward or to punish an entity, party or official who stood to benefit from or be affected by the project."

"It's something that I think should be looked at," Proud said, adding that she has been "hearing things" about misspending.

"If that's not the case, they don't have anything to worry about," she said.

Huckelberry said auditors will find nothing irregular.

"Our bond program is absolutely transparent," he said. "It's all there - every ordinance, every amendment, every change is documented. It follows a very strict and rigorous process."

But Huckelberry said that does not mean there won't be some fallout for the county.

He cited plans to ask voters in November to approve $200 million in new bonds to relocate roads away from Raytheon Missile Systems and create new ones. That lack of buffer space is one reason the company decided to build a new missile factory in Alabama last year rather than Tucson, he noted.

"How can you ask voters for another bond when the program is under investigation by the state?" Huckelberry asked.

He said the audit likely would force putting off the vote until 2014, delaying the economic development project.

As part of its response to a coming state audit, Pima County could establish a new committee to analyze bond spending.

The Board of Supervisors will consider the idea today.

The possible action comes after the governor approved a bill that requires an Auditor General audit of the county's 1997, 2004 and 2006 bond programs later this year. The bill was backed by the town of Marana and is part of a continuing dispute between the town and county over wastewater facilities.

Marana Mayor Ed Honea said the county already brags about its current Bond Advisory Committee, and forming a new committee won't help anything.

The existing committee and County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry recommended a new panel, and Huckelberry suggested the members be from the Bond Advisory Committee, Raytheon, Tucson Electric Power and business groups.

The proposed Bond Program Audit Committee would help in the audit process and review the Truth in Bonding code.

Huckelberry said all of the information required by the bill already is available to the public, much of it online at www.bonds.pima.gov

Honea said Marana pushed for a state audit because the county has withheld voter-approved bond funds from the town, "and we feel this is just a punishment because of the sour grapes we have."

He said the state agency will conduct "a true audit."

"We want somebody other than the county, so it's not like a fox hiring a fox to count the chickens," Honea said.

Huckelberry said allegations about changing bond programs to punish the town are "ludicrous."

"The town of Marana should have had the courage to make this specific allegation directly instead of hiding behind and invoking the credibility of the Legislature to conduct a political witch hunt through the Auditor General," Huckelberry wrote in a memo.

Honea said the audit will show Marana hasn't received its share of bond funds.

But Huckelberry said, "The evidence is overwhelming that Marana has benefited far more from the bond program of Pima County than they have paid in taxes to support the program."

Contact reporter Becky Pallack at bpallack@azstarnet.com or 573-4346.

Five years of court battles ended Tuesday when the Arizona Supreme Court denied a request from the town of Marana to review a case related to wastewater systems.

The Arizona Court of Appeals sided with Pima County in June, saying the town lacks legal authority to own or operate a sewer plant it seized from the county earlier this year.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said he will ask state and federal authorities to take action because, without the proper legal authority, Marana is operating the plant in violation of the Clean Water Act.

Marana also must pay $170,000 to $180,000 in legal fees to the county, as awarded by the court.

The Supreme Court decision ends a legal battle that started in 2007.

Marana, meanwhile, is not pulling back on its plans to own and operate its own wastewater system.

"Just like any other community in the state of Arizona, we have the legal right to operate our own wastewater system," said Town Manager Gilbert Davidson.

The Town Council last month approved a ballot initiative for the March town primary election to ask voters to give the town legal authority to own and operate the county plant and other wastewater facilities connected to it.

Davidson said the town wanted to exhaust all its legal options in the case, but the town is dedicated to moving forward on the issue with the ballot measure.

"We want to be able to operate our own wastewater system to fully manage every drop of water in our community," he said. The town wants to make its own decisions on water management, costs, water quality and development services, he said.

The Town Council held a special meeting Tuesday to discuss the wastewater system, but there was no discussion in public.

The town previously contracted with the county for wastewater services, but it wants to run its own service to have more control over development.

An election is "their choice," Huckelberry said.

But for Pima County, the issue has always been about the town taking over the plant in north Marana at less than full value under a "fraudulent" state law, he said.

Marana asked for - and got - a new law from the Legislature that allowed the town to take the county's plant by paying only the outstanding debt.

Marana took over the plant in January but has paid just $40,000 on the $18 million debt and interest. Huckelberry said the full value of the plant is around $27 million.

The county's challenge on the constitutionality of the state law is still pending in court.

"Our primary job is to protect ratepayers, and that's what we've done," Huckelberry said.

Davidson maintains the town is moving in the right direction, but added he would like to reach a settlement with the county to buy the facilities.

Contact reporter Becky Pallack at bpallack@azstarnet.com or 573-4346. On Twitter @beckypallack

The on-again, off-again ballot measure to give Marana authority to own and operate a disputed sewer plant is on again.

The Marana Town Council voted Thursday to place the question on the March 12 primary election ballot along with the Town Council candidates.

Voters will be asked: "Shall the Town of Marana be authorized to acquire and operate the Rillito Vista Wastewater Reclamation Facility" and some connected systems?

The Town Council previously authorized the ballot measure in June for the November ballot, canceled it in July, and then acted in November to get it on the March ballot.

The dispute over the wastewater treatment plant at 14393 W. Luckett Road began five years ago, when the town tried to annex the plant. When that plan was rejected in Superior Court, the town asked for - and won - a new state law last year to allow it to take over the plant by paying only the outstanding debt.

Marana took over the plant in January, but then lost a series of court battles to Pima County.

Now the county has given the town options for settling the matter for $18.2 million, and the Town Council has agreed to negotiate a settlement.

The settlement depends on the March election results and on the state Senate repealing two laws that allowed Marana to take over the plant.

"The other option we had is to pursue a citizens suit, which was to compel the federal and state agencies to enforce the Clean Water Act," which could have forced the town to give the plant back to the county, said County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry. "We chose not to do that in the hope that we'd get a settlement."

He said he needs an answer within a couple of weeks.

"We haven't been paid anything for the plant, and they still have it and they're still collecting user fees, and we're being financially harmed. It just can't go on indefinitely."

The council also changed the town's election code Thursday to eliminate the regular pre-election publicity pamphlet.

The pamphlet would have listed arguments for and against the ballot initiative, but the town received only one argument, which was in support of the initiative, said Marana Town Manager Gilbert Davidson.

Cutting the pamphlet will save the town about $10,000 and prevent any possible claims that the town tried to influence the election by distributing only favorable arguments, Town Attorney Frank Cassidy said in a memo to the council.

The town will provide other information about the ballot measure, including on the town's website, Davidson said.

Huckelberry said, "I think people need to be informed. It's a very complicated subject, and it has a huge fiscal impact on the town."

On StarNet: Go to azstarnet.com/news/local /govt-and-politics to read more about local and state government and political news.

Contact reporter Becky Pallack at bpallack@azstarnet.com or 573-4346. On Twitter @BeckyPallack.

After a 10-month in-depth examination of Pima County's bond program finances, the state auditor general has issued the program a clean bill of health.

The results were made public Tuesday, and a public meeting is planned for Friday.

As part of an ongoing dispute with the county, Marana town leaders asked the Legislature to make a special audit mandatory.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said he didn't think anything was wrong with the bond programs and said the clean audit proves the county bond programs are successful and financially sound.

Marana Mayor Ed Honea said he couldn't comment on the audit report because he hadn't seen it yet.

The auditor general's staff reviewed thousands of pages of information from the county related to more than 500 bond projects.

Though the findings fulfilled Huckelberry's prediction of no wrongdoing, he said the audit wasn't a waste of time or money.

"It was worthwhile because it verified what we've been saying," Huckelberry said, that the bond programs are "genuine, they're real and they make real improvements, and there's no financial mismanagement whatsoever."

While Marana officials alleged county bias against some jurisdictions, the audit report praised the county bond program as "uniquely collaborative" with local jurisdictions and found no evidence the county changed bond projects to "reward or punish" jurisdictions.

Honea said last year that he expected the audit to show Marana didn't receive its fair share of bond money. But the auditors found the taxes paid by the residents of the various jurisdictions "approximated the value of bond projects completed in or benefiting those jurisdictions."

Marana residents paid about 4.7 percent of the taxes collected for debt repayment and benefited from about 5.9 percent of the completed projects, including a population-based share of countywide projects, according to the audit report.

The special audit came in addition to regular audits by the state and semiannual audits by the county.

The special audit and a forthcoming performance audit may be used to help sell a future bond issue to voters.

The county's Bond Advisory Committee hadn't been meeting during the special audit, but earlier this month Huckelberry told the group a 2014 election is possible, depending on the economic and political climate.

The audits answer questions about how the money is spent and what community needs are met, Huckelberry said, and that contributes to voter confidence.

"They can pretty much be assured that what they vote for is what they're going to get," he said. "There won't be a bait-and-switch, they won't be shortchanged, they will receive what they anticipate they're going to achieve when they vote yes for a bond program."

On StarNet: Go to azstarnet.com/politics to read more about local and state government and political news.

If you go

Bond program meeting

• When: 1:30 p.m. Friday

• Where: County administration building, 130 W. Congress, Board of Supervisors hearing room

• What: Hear from Arizona Auditor General Debbie Davenport and others about the bond program report

Contact reporter Becky Pallack at bpallack@azstarnet.com or 573-4346. On Twitter @BeckyPallack.

Even inside of the world of municipal budgeting, nature abhors a vacuum.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has found six ways to spend part of the $3.9 million created two weeks ago by the Pima County Board of Supervisors when it raised the property tax rate above his recommendations.

Beneficiaries span several supervisors' districts, including $35,000 to keep the Community Performance and Arts Center in Green Valley open, $40,000 to partially open a shotgun trap and skeet facility at the Southeast Shooting Range as well as help the Ajo Chamber of Commerce move into a newer facility.

Other projects include one-time funding to the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation for a suicide prevention program aimed at teens, increasing the annual amount given to sheriff's deputies to cover their uniform allowance by $450 and moving an unused modular structure from the county's sewage treatment facility to the Littletown Food Bank after the food bank's previous trailer was essentially condemned by the county Health Department.

In total, Huckelberry has identified how the board should spend $744,000 of the $3.9 million figure.

In late May, Democrats Ramón Valadez, Richard Elías and Sharon Bronson voted for a 7 percent property tax rate increase for next fiscal year, or about $52 for the average single-family-home owner. Their proposal is slightly higher than the 5.5 percent property tax increase Huckelberry had recommended.

The two Republicans on the board, Supervisors Ray Carroll and Ally Miller, voted against the tax-rate increase.

Democrats on the board say the tax increase is needed for projects important to their constituents.

Topping the list will be filling potholes, sealing cracks and otherwise fixing county-maintained roads - 62 percent of which have earned a failing grade.

The board is expected to make a final decision this morning on the tax rate as part of the final adoption of the $1.27 billion budget Huckelberry has proposed.

If you go

• What: Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting

• Where: 130 W. Congress St., first floor

• When: Today, 9 a.m.

Contact reporter Joe Ferguson at jferguson@azstarnet.com or 573-4346.