A public database of nearly 5,000 city-owned properties is riddled with mistakes and missing or misleading information, making it all but impossible for anyone outside the government to identify excess land that could be put back on the tax rolls.

Workers in the Real Estate Division say the database isn't a problem for them because they know the system and its shortcomings, plus they have their paper files to fall back on. Besides, City Manager James Keene said, the condition of the database isn't a critical concern since the city isn't actively trying to divest itself of surplus property right now.

Some City Council members see things differently, however, suggesting the city could sell off some of its surplus property to raise immediate cash for an ailing budget, and put that land back on the tax rolls to help finance future budgets. Surplus property is land, and sometimes buildings, the city owns that it is not using and is not likely to have a use for in the future.

Keene said he doesn't believe selling off public assets will solve the city's budget problem. The city doesn't have a lot of surplus property to sell, he said, and even if it did, the money would be a one-time fix for a long-term problem. City records show Tucson owns 49,230 acres, and the database lists 358 surplus parcels ranging from 0.01 of an acre to 60 acres. But an online list of what the city has for sale includes only 28 parcels totaling 10.67 acres. That list, however, does not include the 6,800-acre A-7 Ranch, which the city is actively marketing.

Nor does it include 320 acres at South Houghton and East Irvington roads, which the city has been negotiating to swap to a group of politically well-connected investors for two years, nor several other properties city officials acknowledge are available.

Further, Tucson Water, which is included on the Real Estate Division overall list, produced its own surplus property list that did not match the online list. The same is true for Community Services. And the Parks Department, one of the largest custodians of city property, was unable to come up with a list at all.

The Real Estate Division has 14 employees and a budget of $1.1 million with which to oversee the management, acquisition and disposition of city property. An analysis of the property database reveals hundreds of properties are listed as surplus, although city officials say they actually are not. Others are shown as being in use although they're actually vacant, with no plans for use.

It includes nearly 900 parcels the city no longer owns, some of which were sold more than 20 years ago, long before the database was created. Hundreds of others have been issued new identifying numbers and are now listed twice. Thousands of entries have critical information missing, or include incorrect information.

Dave Koss, custodian of the database, said it's intended to be a historic record of city property ownership as well as an inventory, which makes it harder for those not employed by the city to decipher. He said the problems stem from the information's having been extracted from sometimes-fragmented historical records, some dating back more than 100 years when records were less thorough, and having been entered into the database by summer interns who may have been prone to errors.

Keene said the database shouldn't be in the condition it is, but adds that correcting it is not a priority because the city is not actively marketing property, nor is it portraying the database as a viable search tool for potential buyers. Given the city's limited resources, Keene said he's more focused on upgrading the Coplink database and the Development Services menu of online services.

Tim Murphy, real estate program coordinator, said the city doesn't have the manpower to correct all the problems with the database even if it wanted to, which it doesn't because it prefers potential buyers to work through the Real Estate Division. He said the database lets people know if the city owns a piece of property. Beyond that, he said, if they're interested they can contact the Real Estate Division to get all the information they need.

When asked how a citizen is supposed to know a property might be available, when both the electronic database and accompanying color-coded maps are so fraught with errors, Murphy and co-worker George Parker said citizens need to call the Real Estate Division and ask. Although some City Council members have suggested land sales as a way to stave off budget cuts, Keene said that would only delay the problem for a year, even if the city had the property to sell.

Selling property to balance the budget "creates illusions and expectations about the city's ability to fund programs," he said. "We were looking at a $43 million deficit this year. If we could have balanced that with land sales, we'd still have the same problem next year but with no land left to sell." But for Tucson , he reiterated, selling property doesn't even represent a one-time fix. "We have lots of bits and pieces of parcels all over the place that, given the process we have to go through, would take a lot of effort to sell," he said. "So their value isn't that great."

Murphy said many of the properties declared surplus can't be used for anything by a private buyer because of their size, zoning or other constraints. Another consideration the city faces before it can sell any property, Keene said, is whether the sale would trigger other issues, such as those related to preservation, the environment and the impact of development on neighbors.

For example, the city owns 14 acres in the Groves area, near East Poinciana Drive and South Prudence Road, which Murphy describes as "a good surplus property that I'd love to sell." But those 14 acres aren't available for sale because the neighborhood association opposes any sale or development.

Then there's the 6,800-acre A-7 Ranch, formerly part of the Bellota Ranch, which the city bought four years ago to preserve. Earlier this year the council authorized selling it for a minimum $2.5 million, but with significant environmental restrictions on any development.

John Updike, a city project manager, said the only bid was from someone who wanted to swap the ranch for water rights in another county. He said the city is now readvertising the property without the minimum price to see if there are any offers.

Keene said any properties the city owns that have true market potential will continue to grow in value, so the city isn't losing anything by holding them. The department with the most problems identifying potentially surplus property is Parks, which was unable to produce its own independent list even though the city database indicates it has the largest inventory of vacant property for which there are no planned uses.

The database and accompanying color-coded maps regularly identify large unused parcels as surplus that real-estate officials say can't be sold. For instance, the city owns at least eight large, undeveloped parcels, ranging from 25 to 56 acres, in the fast-developing corridor along North Silverbell Road between West Speedway and Goret Road that show up in the database and maps as surplus.

Parker said none is available for sale because 15 years ago the City Council directed the Real Estate Division to identify large tracts of undisturbed desert for preservation as open space. Other properties are identified in the database as being in use when they're not.

One example is the 31-acre parcel that appears on the map as part of Silverbell Golf Course. The parcel was sold as surplus recently for $1.8 million, although the deal fell through when the high bidder found out how much it would cost to correct drainage, fill and right-of-way problems.

Parker said potential buyers need to look beyond the database because the status of any property is subject to the wishes of the City Council, and those wishes could change. An example is the 36-acre parcel of heavily vegetated desert at 10071 E. Speedway that the council specifically directed be preserved as open space, but which the council is now looking at a possible senior-citizen complex.

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

Back To News Articles