On September 2, 2014, Peach Properties filed a protest of the recent selection of Nor-gen, by the Rio Nuevo District Board, for the development of the Arena Site property development. Peach, owned by Ron Schwabe, takes issue with the RFP process.
At the August 26, 2014, meeting of the Rio Nuevo District Board, Mark Irvin, called for investigation of the recent RFP process related to the Arena Site property development by the Arizona Attorney General’s office. Irvin, who has been lobbying for the Peach proposal behind the scenes, called into question Moore’s scoring of the two proposals.
A review of the scores shows Moore giving the Nor-gen proposal a perfect score of 1000, a mere 25 points higher than the score of 975 by Board member Jeff Hill. However, it is the scoring of Board president Fletcher McCusker that raised questions for many. McCusker gave both projects identical scores of 795. Leaving many to ask how it was possible that the two very different projects could earn identical scores.
During the second round of scoring, which was called for by Irvin because he was reportedly unhappy with the outcome of the first scoring round, in which Nor-gen won, McCusker gave Nor-gen a higher score claiming that he was uncomfortable with the idea that Rio Nuevo would be asked to participate in Peach’s project to the tune of $9 million. Nor-gen’s proposal has no such request, and would be completely self-funded.
In that second round, in response to the lobbying Irvin was doing outside of a public setting, Moore issued a protest of his own, when he gave Nor-gen a score of 1000 and reduced his previous score of the Peach proposal to a mere 70 points. Moore, believing that the process had been exploited by Irvin, attempted to show through his scoring that the process had been compromised.
Irvin’s dramatic but gratuitous request is supported by fellow Board member Alberto Moore. Moore believes that an investigation would reveal backroom lobbying by Board members for Peach and a pattern of intimidation by at least two Board members. Moore is the last remaining watchdog on the Board. Fellow watchdogs, Jodi Bain and Rick Grinnell were removed by Tobin and State Senator Steve Pierce two years ago.
The request will likely be ignored by Arizona Attorney General Horne and his staff, who have focused almost solely on federal issues, and have turned a blind eye to the local corruption in the state, especially in southern Arizona.
Peach’s complaint claims that both Moore and Board member Chris Sheafe violated the process by making comments during public portions of Board meetings.
Specifically, Peach alleges that Moore used criteria which was not stated in the RFP. However contrary to Peach’s claim, the statements made by Moore were in support of the RFP process. The Board had created a set of 5 criteria upon which the proposals would be based. They were: project description, consistency with District goals for this site, proposer qualifications, proposer business plan, proposer financial capacity, requested district assistance, project schedule.
Many viewed Moore’s comments as simply a recitation of what the District’s goals had been all along. It was on this site, that Board members had considered the Copper Bowl Arena; something grand that would serve as a gateway of sorts to visitors to downtown Tucson. The property is located near Interstate 10 and can be seen by passersby.
The goals were first crystalized in April of 2012, when the City of Tucson and Rio Nuevo were locked in what Josh Brodesky described as “nasty negotiations” of a settlement in their many disputes. It was City Councilman Paul Cunningham who first gave words to the legacy to which Moore referred in his speech on August 12.
At that time, Cunningham had hoped to build an arena that would draw both the University of Arizona’s mens’ basketball team and visits from the Phoenix Sun’s. Back then, according to sources, Irvin was leading the RFP team for the development of the site with the City. According to numerous sources, Irvin was pushing a Peach proposal. In 2014, McCusker had Peach’s architect, Phil Swaim, draw up plans for the Copper Bowl. However, the Rio Nuevo Board could not get the support of the necessary community partners. The plan was set aside.
Peach’s current project hinges on Norville building the exhibition hall he has been planning for years. Norville, whose wife founded the Tucson Gem Show, has sought to build an exhibition hall in order to expand the Gem Show by offering high end replacement to the tents he is forced to put up and take down every year.
For years, he had sought to build his hall, but every time he has advanced a project, the City of Tucson has blocked him. As a result of the City’s political-based planning there is a strong likelihood that the Norville portion of the Gen Show will move north. The rest of the exhibitors would come along because it is Norville who has provided the bulk of the marketing for the Show. Without marketing, you can build it, but no one will know to come.
Peach’s protest claims:
“During the August 12 meeting, Committee member Alberto Moore violated Rio Nuevo’s rules, the terms of the RFP, and the Rio Nuevo Procurement Code (the Code). The Code clearly states that the only criteria the Committee can consider are those stated in the RFP. Code § 28-18( 5). The Committee members signed a written statement stating that they will “guard against any tendency that might slant your evaluation in favor of a personal preference.” (Evaluation Committee Member Statement, Attached as Exhibit B) The RFP similarly protects against undue influence by severely limiting the contact a proposer may have with the Committee. (Exhibit A at § 8.3). To this end, Christopher Schmaltz, counsel for the Committee, instructed the Committee members to have no communication or contact with anyone, including other Committee members, that could potentially influence their scoring.
To read the complaint click here.
While, Peach claims that Moore “violated all of these rules,” they ignore the widely distributed email by Irvin, in which he solicits support for his position.
Peach claims in their letter of protest, “First, Mr. Moore stated that the area needed to be a gateway that provides the first impression for a visitor, and should “speak to both our history and our vision for the future.” The RFP says nothing of serving as a gateway or speaking to Tucson’s history or future.”
It is hard to imagine that the Peach claims would pass the smell test; one Board member cannot set criteria, especially one who usually ends up as a minority vote.
Peach takes exception to Moore’s statements that the area could be a “truly urban place,” because they the RFP “sought to create an “urban and/or mixed use development.” Peach complains that Moore “then compared the future development to iconic landmarks such as Rockefeller Center and St. Mark’s Plaza in Venice, Italy.”
While the idea that downtown Tucson could ever be compared to Rockefeller Center or St. Mark’s Plaza, is laughable, it is just as laughable to consider Moore’s rhetoric to be anything but rhetoric; not the stuff of official criteria.
Peach also complained that Moore stated he wanted to ensure the long-term stability of the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show as a goal. Peach’s protest states, “The RFP does not mention the Gem Show, except for the parking requirement.”
As one of the few, if only revenue generating venues currently in existence in downtown Tucson, one would imagine that responsible Board members of the revenue-based TIF District would be to secure the future of one of the few reliable sources of revenue. To do otherwise, would be a signal that Rio Nuevo reverted back to the days where money was no object, and the infamous orange Griffin statute on Scott Street was considered an investment.
The Peach protest raises eyebrows, when it admonishes Moore, the only minority on the Board, for his concern about the residents on the West side. They write, “Finally, Mr. Moore emphasized linkage to the west side ofl-10. The RFP only identifies support from the adjacent neighborhoods as a criteria. By considering, and inviting the other Committee members to consider, criteria not identified in the RFP, Mr. Moore violated Section 28-1 8(5) of the Rio Nuevo Procurement Code.”
For years the TCC, has come under criticism because the surrounding neighbors were not considered, and due to economic hardship, the residents could not enjoy the benefits of the TCC’s offerings. Many argue that as a result of the hard feelings by the neighbors, the TCC never really thrived.
As a long time Tucsonan, with deep ties to the residents of the West side, Moore has been particularly sensitive to the needs of the neighbors. Those residents were promised many things in the ballot measure which created Rio Nuevo so many years ago, including the money pit known as Mission Gardens.
Peach alleges that “spirit of the Procurement code” required that “personal preference” could not “influence the scoring” and that Board member Chris Scheafe joined Moore in violating the rules when he stated that he thought Mr. Moore’s statements were “particularly well stated . . .[a]nd I , frankly, appreciated it very much. And I would like to hear the rest of it.”
However, the official criteria: project description, consistency with District goals for this site, proposer qualifications, and proposer business plan, relies on personal preference to the extent that the scorer would apply the vague criteria though the lens of their own personal preferences and experiences.
Peach continues the now well-known smear campaign against Moore, by implying that he is “influenced by outside forces and/or considered factors not in the RFP.”
According to Moore, the only outside forces he is influenced by is “thinking outside the box” says Moore. “We can’t be looking at this project as another get rich scheme by real estate agents who are looking to make a quick buck on government subsidized housing and cheap retail space. Look, we can never repair the damage done to taxpayers by Rio Nuevo and the City of Tucson over the years to the tune of $260 million, but can leave a legacy and ensure future prosperity. If that’s objectionable, so be it.”
Peach is requesting that “the Committee award a contract consistent with the procurement code either by throwing out only Moore’s scores. However, due to Irvin’s apparent lobbying efforts, removal of both mens’ scores would be more equitable:
| 1st Session Scoring | ||||
| Proposer | Totals | Irvin | Moore | Adjusted |
| Peach | 5115 | 850 | 775 | 3490 |
| Norville | 5290 | 700 | 1000 | 3590 |
| Oral Session Scoring | ||||
| Peach | 3460 | 775 | 75 | 2610 |
| Norville | 4255 | 740 | 1000 | 2515 |
| Combined Sessions Scoring | ||||
| Peach | 8575 | 1625 | 850 | 6100 |
| Norville | 9545 | 1440 | 2000 | 6105 |
Irvin email:
Click on image to enlarge