The record on River of Time in Fountain Hills is far from straight
OPINION — In a recent letter Shelby Blecker attempted to “set the record straight” regarding the “conservative” majority’s recent decision to grant a “temporary extension” to the River of Time Museum’s lease.
Blecker contends that the delay in granting the extension was unrelated to the fact that the museum’s imminent demise had become a campaign issue. He asserts that conservative councilmembers supported the museum but could not agree to extend the lease for a nominal rent due to a “strict legal hurdle” created by the Arizona Gift Clause, that prohibited the council from renewing the lease unless it received a “fair market return.”
Both of those statements are subject to challenge.
According to Blecker’s letter, a one-year extension was proposed by staff in meetings with museum leadership in February and March. If that statement were true why, on April 28, 2026, did the town publicly announce its intent to terminate?
It was the museum president, not staff, who proposed the one-year extension. This proposal, discussed during the Feb. 24, 2026, council workshop, was expressly rejected by “conservative” Councilmembers Watts, Earle and Larrabee. Mayor Friedel said that he could “probably” support a one-year extension but failed to do so. Only Councilmembers Kalivianakis and McMahon unequivocally supported extending the lease.
Blecker’s assertion that there was a “strict legal hurdle” is also debatable.
During the workshop, Economic Director Amanda Jacobs and Town Attorney Jennifer Wright opined that the town could not renew the lease for less than the fair market rental value, pegged at $75,000. If that opinion was valid, why did the council belatedly agree to extend the lease for 16% of the $75,000?
Was the “legal hurdle” not so strict or was the opinion flawed?
Let’s hope that before next June an opinion by a recognized expert on this critical issue is obtained.
Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
