Reliable Sources Tell Us…

One of our sources sent us the following information after reading last week’s postings about the Planning Department submitting false information in their staff reports and Power Point presentations related to rezoning requests. Apparently, this is not the only questionable thing that they have done. Read on…

The 2005 General Plan (Focus 2020) contained a "Special Area Policy" regarding the property that is now being graded for a 5-story retirement community called Nakoma Sky (assisted living, independent living, and hospice) located at Lambert Lane and First Avenue behind the Home Depot Plaza.

The 2005 General Plan had the property designated as Medium Density Residential with a Special Use Policy that no 2-story homes could be visible from First Avenue. The idea was to hide all the 2-story homes behind the hills so they could not be viewed from First Avenue.

The Planning and Zoning Administrator (Bayer Vella) removed the policy from the General Plan sometime around 2015. This was a voter-approved document. In other words, a staff member arbitrarily amended YOUR plan WITHOUT consulting even with the Council. Removing the Special Area Policy allowed for the approval of the 5-story Nakoma Sky along with additional 2-story buildings along First Avenue.

A policy change made by the Planning and Zoning Administrator can only be appealed to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decision. However, because this change was never noticed to the public (transparency?) nobody knew when the 30-day period began.

It costs $250.00 to file an appeal with the BOA and the only argument the applicant can present is to try and prove that the decision was without merit. The BOA decision can only be appealed to the Superior Court.

Without removing that Special Area Policy, there could not be a 5-story building.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Editor's Note: This is another example of the Town playing fast and loose with rules…always to the benefit of developers and at the expense of the residents. It’s also another example of why Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers Hornat, Snider, and Waters need to be voted out of office in this year’s Town Council election as they are the ones who approved the rezoning to accommodate the 5-story building.

When developers (rather than the citizens) are at the top of the Oro Valley Organizational Chart, this is what you get:

Separate Fact from Spin At Tonight's Candidate Forum

Tonight, the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce and the local advertising circular  will host a candidate forum (See right panel for details).  It is the 3rd of 4 forums.  Both sponsoring organizations have been heavy supporters of the incumbents. The local advertising circular, for example, ran a recall Zinkin ad next to a posting by Zinkin explaining his position.  And the Chamber lives off the largess of the town.  So, really, we don't expect the challengers to be given much of a chance.

Still, we think that is it important to set the record straight regarding assertions made by candidates at last week's SunCity Oro Valley Forum since we may hear these again:

False Assertion: There Is No Division On Council Because Most Votes Have Been 7-0
Fact: One Measures Disharmony By Displayed Actions and Attitudes, Not By Votes. Besides,  Most Council Votes Are "No Brainers"

Whether or not there is divisiveness and a lack of civility on the part of the Majority-4 can not be measure by "vote counts."   Divisiveness is measured by actions. The actions of the Majority-4 for the past 2 years demonstrates an effort to divide and not harmonize the council.  They think that there are no consequences when they try to recall Council Member Zinkin, marginalize the ideas of Council Member Garner, and intimidate Council Member Burns with impunity.

The only ideas the Majority-4 accept are their own. They never consider ideas of the minority.  For example, the minority, seeking to understand options for future revenue sources, and there are many options beyond a property tax, sought to put the item up for discussion. They were voted down by the Majority-4.  Something is wrong when only some of the ideas are considered.

The Majority-4 wants to convince you to measure "divisiveness" by votes cast at council meetings.  They asserted this at the SunCity Forum.  According to them, 59% of the votes cast in council meetings from June 2012 to July 2014 were 7-0 votes.

There have been 15, 4-3 votes.  If the vote count has any validity as a measure of division, it is not only in the number of 4-3 votes.  It is in the quality of the no votes. The no votes concerned important matters like:

• Approval of a Master Sign Plan for El Dorado 
• Reappointment to CDRB (was this the Gil Alexander hearing?) 
• Reimbursement from the general fund for TEP underground lines 
• A Platt amendment for single family home 
• Changing the Chief of Police Reporting Structure 
• General Plan Amendment for Vistoso Highlands 
• Election of Vice Mayor Waters
• Oro Valley Personnel Policy 
• 2014/2015 Budget Adoption of Final Budget

The "3" no-votes are all of the minority.  

Division? You think? Repeat: All the no votes are always those of the minority.

We conclude that, by any, measure, qualitative or quantitative, there is great division on this council. As a result, the voices of those who support the minority are never heard.

False Assertion: Minority Council Members Voted Against Home Rule
Fact: All  7 Council Members Voted To Put Home Rule On The Ballot

Incumbent candidate Mayor Satish Hiremath dropped this one at last weeks SunCity Oro Valley Forum:

"Keep in mind, there are members of this council, who are not up for reelection who voted 'no' on home rule." 

You will vote on Home Rule in November. Its passage allows Oro Valley to spend considerably more that the amount that would be allotted by state limits. Oro Valley residents have approve home rule ballot measures every time the measure has been on the ballot.

Mayor Hiremath is wrong. All 7 council members voted to put "home rule" on the ballot

False Assertion: Candidate Bristow Is Against The Development of Parks
Fact: Candidate Bristow Is For The Planned, Not Haphazard, Development of Parks

At this same forum, Council Member Lou Waters alluded to a lack of support on the part of Candidate Don Bristow regarding parks.   "I find it most difficult to find that Mr. Bristow is on the "your Voice our Future" committee."  Waters made this assertion after Bristow had observed that Oro Valley moved ahead with building 2 ball fields at Naranja Park before completing a current town-sponsored study on what to put at the park.  Bristow stated that the plan should be developed before the project begins.

Bristow has never said he was against Parks. He is against haphazard, one-off, unplanned adventures.

False Assertion: Oro Valley "...Does Not Have A Lot of Challenges"
Fact: Oro Valley Has Many Challenges Facing It, Including Protecting Our Lifestyle

Council Member Joe Hornat measures Oro Valley's challenges in "dollars and cents."  He, like Mayor Hiremath, see no other challenges facing Oro Valley.

So, we present a list of some of the items put forth by the challengers and others:

• Oro Valley moves forward on building things without a plan, such as the ball fields at Naranja Park;
• Oro Valley moves forward with a flawed "remodeling" plan for the pool. Then, after being told that the initial drawings were not sufficient to produce a world-class pool, it raids the bed tax and contingency funds to fund twice what it planned to spend on the Oro Valley Aquatic Center;  
• Oro Valley fails to move forward on items that were agreed upon when there was a plan, such as Steam Pump Ranch;
• Oro Valley still does not have a Community Center, despite paying "lip service" to the need for one for 4 years;
• "Civility, Integrity and Teamwork" has been replaced with "arrogance and dismissiveness" on the part of the Majority-4. Our community is divided. Bringing Oro Valley together is a big challenge.
• Oro Valley must consistently work to do things things smarter: "Less money does not mean less services," according to Mayoral Candidate Pat Straney. 

And what of our "quality of life?"  Shouldn't that be in the mind of every Oro Valley elected official?

Today, Oracle Road is becoming like Ina Road in Marana: Traffic lights, heavy vehicular traffic, shopping centers and schlock signs.  800 new apartments will increase population density along Oracle Road, disproportionately burdening the need for town services.  Dark Skies ordinances need to be created to eliminate huge illumination signs like the 2 LA Fitness signs,.  How about our views and hillsides?  These certainly must be protected against the onslaught of requested general plan and zoning amendments.

We could go on and on, but we think you get the gist.
---
Read the Arizona Daily Star's Fact Check of the Rancho Vistoso Forum.
---

Summarily Dismissed: A Story Of The Politics of Oro Valley Voluntary Board and Commission Appointments

We have suspected for some time that appointment to Oro Valley Voluntary Boards and Commissions can be arbitrary and political.   We know, for example, that it is far better to be recommended to a board or commission by a council member than to apply "cold."

We suspected this based on observing that Commissioner Cox has remained on the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission despite using his position to criticize elected officials.  He should have been removed, but he is the the political ally of the Majority-4.

We suspected this based on the dismissal of Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander from a board because he asked too many questions. He is not an ally of the Majority-4.  Read: "The Fix Was In."

Such is life in the "big city" that Oro Valley is becoming.

Town Council discussed the process of selecting members of Oro Valley's Boards and Commissions at the May 7 council meeting.  Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters  defended the current process.  Their defense of the process confirmed our suspicion.

These are the only town stated qualifications for being on a volunteer town board or commission.

"To serve on a board or commission, members must be residents of the Town, be available to attend the designated meetings and be committed to the completion of the Town’s Community Academy within their term."

Before you rush to apply, recognize that you need much more than what has been stated to serve on a board or commission.  You really do need an "in.

Each board or commission has a town council member as a liaison.  As stated by Council Member Garner at the May 5 council meeting, council liaisons should not be involved in the interview process. (Meeting marker 3:20:08)  Their participation biases those on the selection committee, whomever that may be, to "please" the liaison.

But, the liaison does participate in the interview process and their participation is significant.

It was Council Member Hornat's discussion of the recent process of filling vacancies on the water commission that affirmed this.  Watch his brief discussion of the process.

As he states, he participated in the review of the applications.  As Council Member Hornat explained at the council meeting: "There were 17 applications." Working with Bob Milkey, "We threw out 7 or 8. Some of those were for good reason. There were obviously or potentially conflicts of interest with their employer and what they had done in the past." (Source: 3:25)

Apparently, when they had done in the past includes being critical of a council member.

We know of an individual who applied for an opening on the water commission.  The individual was most surely qualified to serve on the commission as the individual had water rate making and water operations expertise.  The individual is also very current on Oro Valley operations. The individual has also completed the Citizen's Academy.  The individual was most certainly worth of consideration. The individual had not conflict of interest.   The individual submitted an application, expecting to be interviewed.  The interview never happened.

Why?

Hornat notes that some applications were thrown out for good reason.  We see no "good reason" for not even considering this individual.  Rather, we think that this individual was not considered for political reasons.  In this instance, this individual has been critical of Council Member Hornat's actions in the past.  Council Member Hornat knows this individual.  It appears that Hornat made sure that this applicant was never considered.

The "no thanks" letter sent by the town said: "Thank you for taking the time to apply for a position on the Water Utility Commission with the Town of Oro Valley. Although you were not selected at this time, we appreciate your willingness to serve the community."

Not selected?   Heck.  Not even considered.

Such is life in the "big city" that Oro Valley is becoming.
---

Oro Valley Council Votes Not To Consider Any Change In The Utility Tax

The Oro Valley Town Council voted 6-0 last week to not direct the town manager to consider a reduction in the Oro Valley 4% utility tax as the town prepares its next 5 year financial plan.

Council Member Waters spoke about the history of the tax and why he, Mayor Hiremath, and Council Members Snider and Hornat doubled the tax in 2010.

Council Member Snider discussed why the utility tax provided useful public funds for public good. She too discussed her reasoning behind supporting this tax.  "Frankly, I've received little feedback saying that people are upset about it," she observed.

Council Member Hornat noted that he would in no way consider a change in the tax.  The town simply can not "afford it."  A1 percentage point change in the tax is worth $720,000 to the town.  "I don't see the point of even considering a reduction."

The council will discuss the tax further in November.

However, at the moment, they will not even consider a change in it.

Watch their remarks.

Tell us what you think.
---