| Author | Post |
|---|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:19 am |
|
I'll have to say I wasn't so crazy about the city idea when I first moved out here but I'm gradually warming up to the whole idea. I'm seeing some definite benefits.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 05:16 am |
|
Bambi wrote: So, let's take a look at some of the ways that people on the "outside" looking in perceive our area, then perhaps it will paint a true picture of our condition.
We have a private utility company serving us that is constantly in the media, mostly for indescretions against the public's trust, and never reflecting a positive picture of the quality and sustainability of the water out here, the safety and the affordability....one of the reasons Banner requested to be annexed by Q.C......they emphatically stated they wanted municipal services.
Our Property Taxes have doubled, and are looking only worse on the horizon. Development, Business's nor residents want to enter an area with that huge expense.
We have one of the highest, if not the highest, impact fees for commercial and industrial development.....triple that of our neighbor, Queen Creek. Another reason for Banner requesting annexation. Impact fees can't be negotiated, but I bet concessions can be reached thru other means that only a municipality has at their disposal.
We're obviously loosing our revenue, both present and future, so we are perceived as weak in that field, which only leads to a compact bedroom community which attracts high crime, but not industry. Tenants occupy the majority of those types of communities.
We have another private corporation, Rural Metro, who is in the media for their indescretions of the public's trust. They serve our area too. CEO's stealing the company blind thru their "unaccounted for" receipts for missing funds.
We need to make headway, not be infected with the ill will of a public utiltiy provider that a potential purchaser representing the public, said no honest person would entertain an agreement of that sort with him. If we have inferior infrastructure, then we may have inferior alot of other things, that George is not disclosing. When that report is disclosed, it will be just another blow to our economic future.
Bambi, another set of great reasons to becoming a city.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 05:15 am |
|
gk wrote: I'm pretty sure from what my brother in law has told me about J.U. that it is the engineering and the infrastructure of the system.
The think the Corporation Commision has long been in Johnsons pocket, they have given him free reign to do whatever he wants. They have not held him to any commitments. He is pumping water out without any recharging.
The Commision is in a position to hols him responsible but they have failed miserably at that job. You gotta womder if money is being exchanged?
let's not forget the arsenic levels.......from what I have gathered, they are not below the 10 ppm recquired by Federal regulations.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 12:53 am |
|
So, let's take a look at some of the ways that people on the "outside" looking in perceive our area, then perhaps it will paint a true picture of our condition.
We have a private utility company serving us that is constantly in the media, mostly for indescretions against the public's trust, and never reflecting a positive picture of the quality and sustainability of the water out here, the safety and the affordability....one of the reasons Banner requested to be annexed by Q.C......they emphatically stated they wanted municipal services.
Our Property Taxes have doubled, and are looking only worse on the horizon. Development, Business's nor residents want to enter an area with that huge expense.
We have one of the highest, if not the highest, impact fees for commercial and industrial development.....triple that of our neighbor, Queen Creek. Another reason for Banner requesting annexation. Impact fees can't be negotiated, but I bet concessions can be reached thru other means that only a municipality has at their disposal.
We're obviously loosing our revenue, both present and future, so we are perceived as weak in that field, which only leads to a compact bedroom community which attracts high crime, but not industry. Tenants occupy the majority of those types of communities.
We have another private corporation, Rural Metro, who is in the media for their indescretions of the public's trust. They serve our area too. CEO's stealing the company blind thru their "unaccounted for" receipts for missing funds.
We need to make headway, not be infected with the ill will of a public utiltiy provider that a potential purchaser representing the public, said no honest person would entertain an agreement of that sort with him. If we have inferior infrastructure, then we may have inferior alot of other things, that George is not disclosing. When that report is disclosed, it will be just another blow to our economic future.
Last edited on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 12:55 am by Bambi
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1708 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 07:27 pm |
|
I'm pretty sure from what my brother in law has told me about J.U. that it is the engineering and the infrastructure of the system.
The think the Corporation Commision has long been in Johnsons pocket, they have given him free reign to do whatever he wants. They have not held him to any commitments. He is pumping water out without any recharging.
The Commision is in a position to hols him responsible but they have failed miserably at that job. You gotta womder if money is being exchanged?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 02:25 pm |
|
So, let me walk this thru my mind. Johnson's rates are above State averages and higher than any other utilitiy companies rates surrounding him. He owned most of the land out here in Johnson Ranch, including the utility company. So, upon selling the land to the developers, and then bringing the sewer line and waterline and the hookup fees to each home, we have a very very wealthy individual. To bring a waterline to a resident, it cost about $20. a ft. Then the hookup or HUFF fees are around $2500. per household. Lots of money there, cause he does the same thing with the sewer hookups.
So, with all that wealth, he is introducing his edicts.......with the Corporation Commisions blessings? They, the Corp. Comm., stated he is in line with other utilitys. This article states he is not. C.C. says he is operating legally and within the law.....then why hide anything? Q.C. purchased their utility company from a private party for over $30 million. How many hookups does that translate into? This article states 20,000 customers would become Florences, for this purchase of $190 million, although this purchase of Johnson's would include the sewer system and the cable system I would assume, so that bring more value to the table...... plus all the infrastructure. I understand we have around 46000 people out here in J.R. area, that are a part of Johnson Utilities. So, why only 20,000 mentioned? If they purchase this utility, they purchase all the customers too.
The public has a right to see if he is indeed a viable company, and the city of Florence has an obligation to reveal that to its citizens also, in my opinion. They paid for part of that study. Especially the viability study and the Engineers report. And the public has a right to know why councilman Tom Smith felt very uncomfortable about closing the deal with Johnson, after reading the study, and his followup remarks stating he doens't know of anyone on the up and up, who would want that agreement. That statement in itself, is very disconcerting and eludes to wrongdoing, and must be investigated. Any corporation that serves the people and is responsible for the people's welfare, has to be transparent to the people and their representatives.
I have a gut feeling that he knows of some major problems on the horizon and is not disclosing it to us. What's his motivation for selling the company?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 11:05 am |
|
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/114334
April 20, 2008 - 3:33AM
Johnson Utilities’ legal shroud could lift
Jason Massad, East Valley Tribune
Developer George Johnson is no stranger to legal controversy. Late last year, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard hit Johnson with a $7 million fine for environmental violations in his unsuccessful bid to turn desert in southern Pinal County into a huge master-planned housing development named La Osa Ranch.
Johnson Utilities has 10 days to present argument
Tribune files motion for access to utility study
Records on possible water deal blocked
Now, a multimillion-dollar failed deal between Florence and a water company he owns will land Johnson’s utility and Florence in Pinal County Superior Court over potentially damaging information about the company. And Florence officials are expressing concerns about the town’s dealings with Johnson — both in negotiations to buy the company and withholding information about the company.
Johnson wants to protect what he calls “proprietary information” from being released to the public by seeking a restraining order of a $300,000 taxpayer-funded study of Johnson Utilities.
Florence officials, including the Town Council, agreed to a confidentiality agreement before entering into negotiations with Johnson for the privately owned utility in January 2007.
Councilman Tom Smith said that at the conclusion of a study he was uncomfortable in closing a deal with Johnson.
“He’s got a lot of business connections in different areas and with different companies,” Smith said. “I don’t know why anyone on the up and up who would want that agreement.”
The Tribune became a third party in the case in which Johnson seeks to protect information about the utility. The Tribune seeks release of the records, and a judge last week gave Johnson Utilities 10 days to come up with a good reason for Florence to withhold the records.
Some of the information in the study was provided to Florence by Johnson. Other information, like an engineer’s study of the system, was contracted directly by the city.
The information provided by the company included the company’s profit-loss margin, the long-term viability of the company based on the current slowdown in the housing market and the structure of the business, Florence spokesman Jess Knudson said.
A recent comparison of Johnson Utilities water rates shows the utility is more expensive than surrounding utilities and the state average.
Florence’s public stance is that all the documents should be public.
However, Mayor Tom Rankin said the town knew the issue would likely end up in court, given the fact the council and the town agreed to the confidentiality agreement.
The report’s findings could have ultimately killed the deal, Rankin said.
“There must have been something in there at the time the deal stopped that George didn’t want out there,” he said. “What it is, I couldn’t tell you.”
The purchase of the utility could have allowed Florence to extend its reach to 20,000 of Johnson’s customers — and perhaps future incorporation of places such as Johnson Ranch.
Brian Tompsett, executive vice president of Johnson Utilities, said the deal didn’t break down because details of the utility would have become public if a government entity purchased the water system.
However, town officials have reported the two parties were only $2 million dollars apart on an approximately $190 million deal.
“The negotiations are confidential and should remain that way,” Tompsett said. “That was our stance all along.”
In March, Johnson paid the town $219,000 of the study’s costs after negotiations had ceased.
That payment doesn’t entitle Johnson to any rights over the study, Knudson said. He said the appearance of a conflict was not an issue.
“If he paid just one dollar ... it would not affect the town’s ability to release those documents,” Knudson said.
Dan Barr, an attorney representing the Tribune, said that confidentiality agreements seeking to supercede state open records law have not held up in Arizona courts.
“All of it is public information,” Barr said. “Anything created or maintained by the town is a public record.”
|
Current time is 07:33 pm | |
|
|
|