We have been asked once again about the Roundup's small paper award from the Arizona Newspapers Association (ANA). If you care, here are some things to consider:
1. It costs money to enter the ANA competition - hundreds of dollars based on the number of items a paper enters. The Mogollon Connection could not afford to enter - not even one story. So we don't know how the Roundup stacks up with its local competition. Nor do we know how many or to what extent other papers around the state can afford to enter. Remember, the Roundup is owned by a Kansas chain with deeper pockets than your average small newspaper.
2. Entries are submitted to the ANA in a vacuum. Because they have no knowledge of our community and its dynamics, the out-of-state judges have no idea how thorough, fair and honest a story is.
3. The Roundup has traditionally been heavily involved on the board of the ANA. Who knows how much, if any, influence that has. All we know is that the Roundup wins every year. It even won back when Mike Maresh was writing for them. It even won back when I was writing for them. Everything changes, but nothing changes.
4. If the ANA competition meant much, one would think the Roundup would also dominate the much tougher Arizona Press Club Competition. They don't.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Payson among towns overriding new fireworks law
By REBEKAH ZEMANSKY
Cronkite News Service
The ponderosa pine forest around Payson has survived years of drought. It has survived bark beetles.
Town officials want to make sure it survives Arizona’s new law allowing the sale of sparklers and certain other fireworks.
Payson is one of the first towns in the state to enact a local ordinance banning the use of fireworks that will become legal statewide on Dec. 1.
“We have conditions at different times of the year that can literally make the area around us a tinderbox,” said Payson Mayor Kenny Evans. “We wanted to make sure that people understood our anxiety about turning people loose with incendiary devices and fireworks.”
Fireworks allowed under the law include sparklers, cylindrical and cone and fountains, illuminating torches, wheels and spinners and toy smoke devices. Buyers must be at least 16.
In approving the measure, however, state lawmakers allowed local governments to prohibit the use – but not the sale – of those fireworks.
Show Low and Queen Creek have also passed bans, and Flagstaff is considering regulation.
Yuma is among cities taking a wait-and-see approach.
“Staff members are collecting information about the potential impact,” said Dave Nash, a Yuma city spokesman. “As of now, there’s just too many unknowns. We don’t have what the demand for it is going to be, we don’t know what usage is going to be, what kinds of hazards might present themselves. And we don’t know how much education the public may need on what’s allowable and what isn’t.”
Explosive devices like cherry bombs will still be illegal, as will bottle rockets and anything else that leaves the ground.
Every year, 10 million acres of forest in the West burn in fires caused by matches, campfires, arson – and fireworks. That’s a concern in Payson, which sits on the edge of the largest ponderosa forest in the world.
“When you get to forested areas and areas that are tinder dry during some times of the year, prudence needs to be the call word,” Evans said. “How we communicate that to people is going to be very, very difficult because what the legislation did.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
HSUS urges NO vote on hunting Proposition 109
LETTERLETTERLETTER
LETTERLETTERLETTER
LETTERLETTERLETTER
To the editor:
If lawmakers want to change our state Constitution, they should have a compelling reason for it. Proposition 109 fails to meet that test, and it does not warrant approval by voters. In fact, it’s a dangerous amendment, which will take away the voting rights of Arizona citizens, create legal confusion about properly regulating hunting, subject the state to expensive lawsuits, and replace scientific wildlife management with partisan politics.
The entire premise of Prop 109 is faulty: there is no political threat to hunting or fishing in Arizona. The only ballot initiative in the last two decades related to the taking of wildlife restricted the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and poisons on public lands. Voters approved that measure by a wide margin because they considered the traps to be inhumane and indiscriminate, sometimes catching family pets and endangered species in the process. In the 16 years since that vote, there has been no bill or ballot measure advanced to restrict hunting or fishing practices.
Prop 109 seeks to stop voters from initiating any wildlife protection ballot measures. In short, the backers of Prop 109 do not trust the people to exhibit good judgment on wildlife issues. If we give up our right to vote on wildlife issues, what other issues will be next?
If you care about wildlife, vote no on Prop 109. If you care about your voting rights, vote no on 109. If you care about preserving the authority of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, vote no on Prop 109. For more information about the ballot measure, go to www.NoOn109.com.
Kari Nienstedt
Arizona State Director
The Humane Society of the United States
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Phone: 480-381-4410
Email: knienstedt@humanesociety.org
Colorado, Payson resident LouAnn Fentzlaff dies
1941 - 2010
LouAnn Fentzlaff, 69, passed away on Oct. 14, 2010, at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Ariz. with her family by her side. She was born Jan. 25, 1941, in Amarillo, Texas to Melvin and Louise Davis.
They moved to Pueblo, Colorado in 1941. She graduated from Central High School in Pueblo, and attended Pueblo Junior College, where she received an Associate’s Degree in Business. She moved with her family to Durango, Colorado in 1972 and worked as a secretary at Ft. Lewis College, a police dispatcher, and a manicurist until she retried.
In 1987, she married Richard "Dick" Fentzlaff , and in 1994 moved to Payson, Arizona. They enjoyed many years traveling all over the United States in their motor home, and often took her two grandchildren with them.
Her interests included reading, family and friends; she devoted the last years of her life as a community volunteer for various organizations and belonged to several women’s clubs. She also was a member of PEO since 1969.
Mrs. Fentzlaff is survived by her mother, Louise Minton of Scottsdale, Ariz; brother, Mel and his wife Kathy of Rochester, N.Y.; her Nephew Hollan; three children, Mike, Brenda and Jeff. She also leaves two grandchildren, Buddy and Devin; and her devoted friend Brett. The light of her life was her Miniature Schnauzer, Sugar.
She was preceded in death by her beloved husband "Dick" Fentzlaff, her father, Melvin A. Davis, and former husband, William Bost.
A memorial service will be held Thursday, Oct. 21, at Rumsey Park in Payson, Arizona at 11 a.m.
Memorial contributions may be made to the American Cancer Society or the Lung Association.
WWII vet, Star Valley resident Owen Lyons dies
Owen V. Lyons
Owen V. Lyons passed away on Oct. 16, 2010 in Star Valley, Ariz.
Owen served in the United States Army in World War II in the Aleutian Islands and Central Europe as a dental technician. He resided in Payson at the Powell House then in Houston Creek Assisted Living in Star Valley.
He is survived by his sister-in-law, Robin Lyons, and nieces and nephews, Gail Sutter, Lee Lyons, Lindy Wagner, Bill Lyons, and Colleen Lyons, and their families. His two brothers, Bill and Tom preceded him in death as did his mother and father.
Owen is being buried in the National Memorial Cemetery on Cave Creek Road in Phoenix, Ariz., Friday, Oct. 22 at 2 p.m. We will all miss his gentle spirit, quick smile, but we give praise that he knew Jesus and is now in his loving arms and being overwhelmed by the glory of our Almighty God.
Owen V. Lyons passed away on Oct. 16, 2010 in Star Valley, Ariz.
Owen served in the United States Army in World War II in the Aleutian Islands and Central Europe as a dental technician. He resided in Payson at the Powell House then in Houston Creek Assisted Living in Star Valley.
He is survived by his sister-in-law, Robin Lyons, and nieces and nephews, Gail Sutter, Lee Lyons, Lindy Wagner, Bill Lyons, and Colleen Lyons, and their families. His two brothers, Bill and Tom preceded him in death as did his mother and father.
Owen is being buried in the National Memorial Cemetery on Cave Creek Road in Phoenix, Ariz., Friday, Oct. 22 at 2 p.m. We will all miss his gentle spirit, quick smile, but we give praise that he knew Jesus and is now in his loving arms and being overwhelmed by the glory of our Almighty God.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Service for Army veteran James Mallory Saturday
1965 - 2010
James (Jim) F. Mallory, 45, was born on Aug. 17, 1965, and passed away on Oct. 11, 2010, in Payson, Ariz. James was born to Patrick F. And Tommye Mallory of Payson, and is survived by his mother, Tommye Mallory; daughter, Brittany Mallory of El Cajon, Calif.; brother, Patrick Mallory of Escondido, Calif.; grandmother, Carmel Mallory of El Cajon; and numerous aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.
James was a vetran of the United States Army.
A memorial service will be held at the American Legion of Payson at 1:00pm Saturday, Oct. 23, 2010.
Rim Country Water group bashes Haney, Jones
Fair price for Milk Ranch 'about $250-300 K'
(The following update is provided by Water for Pine Strawberry, headed by the gentleman we dare not mention lest the Roundup stop printing his letters to the editor for associating his name with us. Hey guys: it's supposed to be about providing both sides of the story to your readers. Competition is a good thing.)
Next regular Pine Strawberry Water Improvement District (PSWID) Board Meeting: Thursday Oct. 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM at the Pine Cultural Center
As you may recall, on Sept. 1 the board cancelled the scheduled Sept. 16th meeting because they didn’t have anything they wanted to talk about. Rim Country Water (RCW) did hold a meeting on Sept. 18, where Mr. Gary Lovetro and Mr. Mike Greer found plenty of new information about the RFP for an operations company, bank financing, and problems with the Milk Ranch well to tell that group. It appears that the public meeting was cancelled to not conflict with the Rim Country Water meeting, but perhaps that is just a coincidence.
For those of you who are newer to water issues, RCW is the group that initiated the takeover of the PSWID board in March 2008 through the recall of four of the prior board’s members. They had the goal of blocking the K2 well and purchasing the water companies. Mr. Greer and Mr. Ron Calderon were two of their candidates in the recall and they are running for re-election on Nov. 2.
Two intrepid members of the Water For Pine Strawberry group attended the meeting and recorded it. I am working from that recording. For the most part it focused on bashing Mr. Bill Haney, the former chairman of PSWID, and Mr. Harry Jones, former interim District Manager, and pumping up Mr. Greer and Mr. Calderon for reelection. Normally, I wouldn’t spend time on what goes on in their meetings, but a couple of things stated during the meeting I think are useful to address.
Milk Ranch Well numbers vary
Mr. Lovetro claimed that the total cost of the Milk Ranch well would be $650,000. In the meeting Mr. Lovetro said that the Milk Ranch well could have hookup and filtration for $150,000 instead of the $429,000 that Tetra Tech estimated and that the Milk Ranch well would have a total cost of $650,000.
The cost of the Milk Ranch well, using Mr. Lovetro’s reduced connection number is $840,000. Using Tetra Tech’s estimate it is $1,119,000. The actual cost is likely to be somewhere in between those two numbers.
i. Spent to repair well: $120,000
ii. Cash for Purchase: $400,000
iii. Free Meters for Purchase: $170,000
iv. Connection cost: $150,000
v. Total: $840,000
Comparison of K2 versus current well purchases
The basics of the K2 agreement would have been:
i. PSWID would provide $300,000 for a test deep aquifer well at the K2 site.
ii. If the test well showed production of 150 gpm or better, Brooke would repay the $300,000 at 6% interest and invest in a production well at the site.
iii. If 150 gpm was not achieved, PSWID would own the well and be free to enter into a water sharing agreement.
iv. Extensive hydrological analysis and underground imaging showed a high potential for the well’s production.
v. If the well was successful, Brooke would have gone to the ACC for a rate increase for water users in Pine to cover the expenses of drilling, developing, and connecting the well into the water system.
The argument being made by the current board is that they are getting two wells for $1.29 million (Mr. Lovetro said $1.1 million in the meeting, but I am correcting his math) and that that compares favorably to the K2 well.
While it is a dead issue, since it is being brought up and we are being questioned about why we supported K2 in the past, the following are our main reasons:
i. K2 did not require spending $5 million to purchase the water companies.
ii. K2 would have delivered the new water for the summer of 2008. We are still waiting for new water.
iii. K2 is situated where it can easily deliver water to either Pine or Strawberry. It is not economical for wells in Pine to supply water to Strawberry because it has to be pumped uphill.
iv. K2 connection costs are minimal since it is adjacent to storage tanks and the Magnolia pipeline. Milk Ranch well connection will be very costly.
v. The people of Pine, who have the water problem, would have paid for its solution. Now the water users in Strawberry and property owners in both communities have to pay for the solution.
vi. We wanted the problems with water supply solved as quickly as possible and for the least cost. In our view the K2 well met that criteria. The opposition to K2 and the push to buy the water companies was to satisfy other agendas held by people in the community. They viewed K2 as a threat because it would have taken away the leverage that the water shortages provided for pursuing that agenda. We weren’t the only ones to see that agenda. As the ACC legal staff wrote in a February 29, 2008 legal brief: “The arguments that are being advanced against the [K2] agreement are to the benefit of a small group of developers, and against the overwhelming need of the public for more water.”
Why is $120,000 spent on Milk Ranch Well different from $300,000 for K2 well?
The $300,000 would have either been recovered by the district, with interest, or the district would have ended up owning a well and it could then make the water available to the community.
The $120,000 is being used to take a well that was not functional and repair and improve it. The community is then being asked to pay more than full price for the improved well, without any accounting for the fact that the community paid to fix it. It defies common sense. You would not pay to have an engine replaced in a car before you buy it and then pay the owner full blue book value for it.
Comment: I would venture a guess that none of the board members would spend their own money this way. They seem to be fine with spending their neighbor’s money this way.
It is deeply hypocritical on the part of the board members. RCW and the board members associated with RCW would get red in the face yelling at the prior board about how inappropriate it was to spend public money to the benefit of a private entity. However, when that private entity is their patron, then they are all for it.
Comment: So what would be a fair price for the Milk Ranch well? There is no perfect formula. There are things to weigh such as what the connection costs will be, the quality of the water, the physical structure of the well, the age of the well, and property and access associated with the well. The Milk Ranch and Strawberry Hollow wells are physically pretty similar, so using $450,000 for the Strawberry Hollow well as a starting point, and then subtracting the repair and improvements paid for by the community, plus a portion of the higher connection costs required by the Milk Ranch well, a price of $250,000 to $300,000, without the free meters, would appear to be appropriate.
Misinformation in Press and on Websites
For the past three years, every couple of months Mr. Ray Pugel or one of his surrogates will complain about how our website contains misinformation. Yet in all this time, they have yet to specifically identify anything that is incorrect. When asked at the meeting to name something specific, they changed the subject.
Comment: We make every effort to get the facts on the website and in these updates correct. We occasionally make mistakes and identify the corrections as soon as we are aware of them in the emails. We try to clearly indicate where we are giving our conclusions. Personally, I think that they are confused on the difference between facts, conclusions, and beliefs. The bottom line motivation is that they don’t want the community to hear any information that they don’t control.
This update is from the group Water For Pine Strawberry. We will be sending out an update after each PSWID board meeting with a summary of what the board did, additional facts that are relevant to what went on, and some commentary. Updates on earlier meetings are available on our website: www.WaterForPineStrawberry.com .
Water For Pine Strawberry is a group of residents who are concerned about the communities water issues and how they can best be resolved. Visit our web site, www.WaterForPineStrawberry.com, for more information. The website for PSWID is www.pswid.org .
Clarifications can be submitted by anyone who is explicitly named, implicitly identifiable, or a board member to items in this update. Clarifications will be posted on our website. We reserve the right to post a response. Clarifications must deal with the topics discussed in the update that relate to the individual or the board. They must be in family friendly language and be non-abusive. When the clarification is accepted, it will be posted to the website and notice of that posting will be added to the next update.
(The following update is provided by Water for Pine Strawberry, headed by the gentleman we dare not mention lest the Roundup stop printing his letters to the editor for associating his name with us. Hey guys: it's supposed to be about providing both sides of the story to your readers. Competition is a good thing.)
As you may recall, on Sept. 1 the board cancelled the scheduled Sept. 16th meeting because they didn’t have anything they wanted to talk about. Rim Country Water (RCW) did hold a meeting on Sept. 18, where Mr. Gary Lovetro and Mr. Mike Greer found plenty of new information about the RFP for an operations company, bank financing, and problems with the Milk Ranch well to tell that group. It appears that the public meeting was cancelled to not conflict with the Rim Country Water meeting, but perhaps that is just a coincidence.
For those of you who are newer to water issues, RCW is the group that initiated the takeover of the PSWID board in March 2008 through the recall of four of the prior board’s members. They had the goal of blocking the K2 well and purchasing the water companies. Mr. Greer and Mr. Ron Calderon were two of their candidates in the recall and they are running for re-election on Nov. 2.
Two intrepid members of the Water For Pine Strawberry group attended the meeting and recorded it. I am working from that recording. For the most part it focused on bashing Mr. Bill Haney, the former chairman of PSWID, and Mr. Harry Jones, former interim District Manager, and pumping up Mr. Greer and Mr. Calderon for reelection. Normally, I wouldn’t spend time on what goes on in their meetings, but a couple of things stated during the meeting I think are useful to address.
Milk Ranch Well numbers vary
Mr. Lovetro claimed that the total cost of the Milk Ranch well would be $650,000. In the meeting Mr. Lovetro said that the Milk Ranch well could have hookup and filtration for $150,000 instead of the $429,000 that Tetra Tech estimated and that the Milk Ranch well would have a total cost of $650,000.
The cost of the Milk Ranch well, using Mr. Lovetro’s reduced connection number is $840,000. Using Tetra Tech’s estimate it is $1,119,000. The actual cost is likely to be somewhere in between those two numbers.
i. Spent to repair well: $120,000
ii. Cash for Purchase: $400,000
iii. Free Meters for Purchase: $170,000
iv. Connection cost: $150,000
v. Total: $840,000
Comparison of K2 versus current well purchases
The basics of the K2 agreement would have been:
i. PSWID would provide $300,000 for a test deep aquifer well at the K2 site.
ii. If the test well showed production of 150 gpm or better, Brooke would repay the $300,000 at 6% interest and invest in a production well at the site.
iii. If 150 gpm was not achieved, PSWID would own the well and be free to enter into a water sharing agreement.
iv. Extensive hydrological analysis and underground imaging showed a high potential for the well’s production.
v. If the well was successful, Brooke would have gone to the ACC for a rate increase for water users in Pine to cover the expenses of drilling, developing, and connecting the well into the water system.
The argument being made by the current board is that they are getting two wells for $1.29 million (Mr. Lovetro said $1.1 million in the meeting, but I am correcting his math) and that that compares favorably to the K2 well.
While it is a dead issue, since it is being brought up and we are being questioned about why we supported K2 in the past, the following are our main reasons:
i. K2 did not require spending $5 million to purchase the water companies.
ii. K2 would have delivered the new water for the summer of 2008. We are still waiting for new water.
iii. K2 is situated where it can easily deliver water to either Pine or Strawberry. It is not economical for wells in Pine to supply water to Strawberry because it has to be pumped uphill.
iv. K2 connection costs are minimal since it is adjacent to storage tanks and the Magnolia pipeline. Milk Ranch well connection will be very costly.
v. The people of Pine, who have the water problem, would have paid for its solution. Now the water users in Strawberry and property owners in both communities have to pay for the solution.
vi. We wanted the problems with water supply solved as quickly as possible and for the least cost. In our view the K2 well met that criteria. The opposition to K2 and the push to buy the water companies was to satisfy other agendas held by people in the community. They viewed K2 as a threat because it would have taken away the leverage that the water shortages provided for pursuing that agenda. We weren’t the only ones to see that agenda. As the ACC legal staff wrote in a February 29, 2008 legal brief: “The arguments that are being advanced against the [K2] agreement are to the benefit of a small group of developers, and against the overwhelming need of the public for more water.”
Why is $120,000 spent on Milk Ranch Well different from $300,000 for K2 well?
The $300,000 would have either been recovered by the district, with interest, or the district would have ended up owning a well and it could then make the water available to the community.
The $120,000 is being used to take a well that was not functional and repair and improve it. The community is then being asked to pay more than full price for the improved well, without any accounting for the fact that the community paid to fix it. It defies common sense. You would not pay to have an engine replaced in a car before you buy it and then pay the owner full blue book value for it.
Comment: I would venture a guess that none of the board members would spend their own money this way. They seem to be fine with spending their neighbor’s money this way.
It is deeply hypocritical on the part of the board members. RCW and the board members associated with RCW would get red in the face yelling at the prior board about how inappropriate it was to spend public money to the benefit of a private entity. However, when that private entity is their patron, then they are all for it.
Comment: So what would be a fair price for the Milk Ranch well? There is no perfect formula. There are things to weigh such as what the connection costs will be, the quality of the water, the physical structure of the well, the age of the well, and property and access associated with the well. The Milk Ranch and Strawberry Hollow wells are physically pretty similar, so using $450,000 for the Strawberry Hollow well as a starting point, and then subtracting the repair and improvements paid for by the community, plus a portion of the higher connection costs required by the Milk Ranch well, a price of $250,000 to $300,000, without the free meters, would appear to be appropriate.
Misinformation in Press and on Websites
For the past three years, every couple of months Mr. Ray Pugel or one of his surrogates will complain about how our website contains misinformation. Yet in all this time, they have yet to specifically identify anything that is incorrect. When asked at the meeting to name something specific, they changed the subject.
Comment: We make every effort to get the facts on the website and in these updates correct. We occasionally make mistakes and identify the corrections as soon as we are aware of them in the emails. We try to clearly indicate where we are giving our conclusions. Personally, I think that they are confused on the difference between facts, conclusions, and beliefs. The bottom line motivation is that they don’t want the community to hear any information that they don’t control.
This update is from the group Water For Pine Strawberry. We will be sending out an update after each PSWID board meeting with a summary of what the board did, additional facts that are relevant to what went on, and some commentary. Updates on earlier meetings are available on our website: www.WaterForPineStrawberry.com .
Water For Pine Strawberry is a group of residents who are concerned about the communities water issues and how they can best be resolved. Visit our web site, www.WaterForPineStrawberry.com, for more information. The website for PSWID is www.pswid.org .
Clarifications can be submitted by anyone who is explicitly named, implicitly identifiable, or a board member to items in this update. Clarifications will be posted on our website. We reserve the right to post a response. Clarifications must deal with the topics discussed in the update that relate to the individual or the board. They must be in family friendly language and be non-abusive. When the clarification is accepted, it will be posted to the website and notice of that posting will be added to the next update.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
