Mighty Strong Headwinds

Below is what former Councilmember Mary Snider asserted at the April 6, 2016 town council meeting as being the reason for the lacking interest in golf memberships at the Town-owned El Conquistador Golf Courses.

“One of the reasons I believe we are lacking in revenues, frankly, is Mr. Zinkin’s constant attack on the viability -- his opinion of the viability of this property. It’s creating a headwind in town. You constantly question the staff. You make the staff look like they don’t know what they’re doing. You go on radio shows, hold meetings, give information out. You’re creating negativity in the community about this project… Your negativity is impacting the memberships in golf…”

We’re bringing this up because LOVE recently learned that the Oro Valley Optimist Club held an annual “Scramble for Youth Fundraiser” on May 11th. The fundraiser was a golf tournament that was held at The Golf Club at Dove Mountain in Marana.

Mary Snider and former Planning and Zoning Commissioner Don Cox, have been long-time members of the Oro Valley Optimist Club. On the members roster, Cox is listed as “District Representative.” Cox and Snider have also been big proponents of the town-owned El Conquistador golf courses.

So why didn’t these two “El Con Golf Cheerleaders” advocate to hold this golf tournament at the El Con? We doubt that it was fully booked that day because Troon admitted at the recent budget study session that the golf courses were only at 60% capacity.

If the El Con was booked that day, they still could have supported the town of Oro Valley by holding their golf tournament at The Views Golf Course or the Oro Valley Country Club. Why did the Oro Valley Optimist Club decide to support a Marana golf course?

If it was due to the strong headwinds at the El Con, we have to ask…Were there strong headwinds at The Views and at OV Country Club as well?

Below is the Optimist Club membership roster and the fundraiser information from their website.

Does the Town care about Town Policies?

Oro Valley has adopted 11 Town Policies (Policy 1 was rescinded in 2005) but one might wonder if anybody at the Town cares about them or is even aware of them. Examples of three of these policies being violated or ignored are discussed below.

Town Policy 2 ~ Council/Staff Relationships
“The Council should give instructions to the Town’s staff in a manner according to the principles of the council/manager system. For example, assignments should be directed to the Town Manager and should originate from a consensus directive of the Council, not with individual council members. Council members should contact staff directly ONLY when the purpose is to communicate information; e.g. to report conditions, describe a problem, or request information. Council members SHOULD NOT contact staff with special project requests or utilize large blocks of staff time in order to pursue individual areas of interest.”

Potential violation: According to the Executive Summary on the February 20th council agenda, the town’s Legal Services Director, at the request of council members Rodman and Pina, undertook a review of the Animal Control Ordinance. This appears to be a violation of Policy 2 since two council members do not represent a consensus (a minimum 4-3 vote of the council).

The Town’s Legal Director does not work for the Council, he works for the Town Manager. If the Executive Summary is correct, why didn’t the Legal Services Director refer Councilmembers Rodman and Pina to Policy 2?

Town Policy 6 ~ Unbudgeted Expenditures
“All requests for expenditures not budgeted for in the Town’s budget, shall be forwarded to the Town Manager. Upon review, the Town Manager will forward said request(s) to the Town Council for approval. It shall be the decision, by way of a majority vote of the council, to either approve or disapprove said requests for expenditures.”

Potential violation: A few months ago, Town Manager, Mary Jacobs, chose to extend the Troon contract an additional six months (from June 2019 to December 2019). This extension is not budgeted due to the fact that the current budget runs out on June 30, 2019. The policy mandates the Town Manager to take the unbudgeted request to the Council. To date this has not been accomplished. Is the current Council mandated to approve this 6-month extension of the Troon contract in the upcoming budget?

Town Policy 9 ~ Council Liaison to Amphitheater School District Governing Board
Among other things, “The Council Member Liaison will meet quarterly with the Town Manager, the Amphitheater School District Superintendent, and President of the Amphitheater Board to discuss subjects of mutual interest, such as establish Intergovernmental Agreements if needed; promote joint-use facilities when possible…”

With the recent failure of Prop 454 (the proposed property tax to fund improvements at Naranja Park), do you think the previous Council liaison (former Councilmember Mary Snider) ever met with the above individuals to discuss the possibility of utilizing Amphi playgrounds during the summer months to expand the town’s playgrounds availability?

Awareness is key
One would think that all new Council members would be briefed by staff as to the Council policies. However, after observing the Town Manager violation of Policy 6 and the possible Councilmember violation of Policy 2, one wonders if anyone in staff is even aware of these policies.

Guest View: Jack Stinnett ~ How Special Interests have influenced our Town Council elections

Just since 2014, developers and special interests have contributed a quarter of a million dollars to influence the elections of Oro Valley’s mayor and council. So far it has worked to allow their candidates to control our town and approve every developer requested General Plan amendment and rezoning.

Town Council decisions allowing rampant over-development is viewed by many as being a direct result of developers and special interest money buying our small town elections. Below is the sequence of events that has caused our town to fall prey to outside big money influence.

2010 Election
This was Hiremath’s first run for mayor and he funded his campaign at a level 5 times greater than his opponent. Hiremath raised over $45,000, (some from personal loans) and $13,000 from special interests. Despite this advantage, Hiremath won the 2010 election by only 30 votes. His campaign later repaid his personal and family loans.

2014 Election
In the 2014 election, Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers Hornat, Snider, and Waters ran as a team who knew “what was best for Oro Valley.” Hiremath was opposed by Patrick Straney. Donald Bristow was the only opposing council candidate.

Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters had now learned the campaign finance model, as did the developer, builder, and real estate community. This time, special interests kicked in $59,000 (a four-fold increase from 2010) for a second term of their team who knew “what was best for Oro Valley."

The Top 5 Donors in the 2014 Election were: [click to enlarge]

The special interest funded candidates won re-election. Why was this unheard of level of Special Interest funding needed to fend off two first time candidates -- and two incumbent council candidates who were effectively running unopposed?

2015 Recall Election
In the 2015 Recall election of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters, special interests once again contributed heavily to keep their council in office. Humberto Lopez (HSL Properties), the HSL Family trust, and HSL employee Omar Morales donated $24,000 to defend Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters against four recall opponents.

Through the October 15, 2015 campaign finance report, Mayor Hiremath alone had raised $104,000 and spent $101,323 to retain his office against challenger Patrick Straney. Despite Hiremath outspending Straney by 15 to 1, Hiremath won with only 51% of the vote.

2016 Council Election
In the 2016 election, candidates Rhonda Pina, Bill Rodman, and Steve Solomon defeated incumbents Zinkin, Garner, and Burns, effectively giving Mayor Hiremath a 7-0 council. Zinkin, Garner, and Burns had refused to accept donations from special interests and were heavily outspent as a result. Once again, the special interest funded challengers won the election.

The result of three special interest funded elections (2014-2015-2016)
During the period 2014 through 2016, special interests funded Mayor Hiremath and our six elected council members to create an unassailable 7-0 council majority. Since the new council took office in November 2016, over 90% of all decisions have been 7-0 votes, with many items agreed prior to council meetings by "consent agenda" and never discussed in public. Not one developer requested rezoning or General Plan amendment has been denied by the Oro Valley mayor and council.

The Top Donors to Mayor Hiremath and the current council from 2014 to 2016 were: [click to enlarge]

2018 Primary Election
Now running for a third term, Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters reported $61,580 in campaign contributions during the 2nd quarter reporting period [April 29 - June 30]. (Editor’s Note: Campaign Finance Reports through August 11th reveal that the incumbents raised an additional $35,581 since the June 30th reporting period.)

Further inspection reveals that over 90% of this amount came from developers, landowners, and other special interests expecting to do business with or in Oro Valley.

As of the June 30th reporting period, the incumbents raised less than $2,000 from Oro Valley residents. That’s not nearly enough to pay for the multiple glossy, multicolor mailers we have received, much less the multiple full page ads in the Explorer.

So when you receive all their promotional material, recognize that it is coming from special interest contributions to influence your vote to keep the status quo for them.

Let’s vote ‘em out.

Editor’s Note: For more information on the updated Campaign Finance Reports, please scroll down to read our Special Saturday Edition that you may have missed since we don’t normally publish on the weekends.

Town Council Election ~ Special Saturday Edition

Below are two charts showing the total amount of contributions from developers, landowners, and other special interests that were donated to the incumbents (Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters) in the 2018 Town Council election. 

If you want Town Council decisions to be based on your vision rather than the vision of wealthy developers, we urge you to vote for Joe Winfield for Mayor, and Melanie Barrett, Joyce Jones-Ivey, and Josh Nicolson for Town Council.  They have not accepted any special interest donations.

[Click to enlarge]

Source: Campaign Finance Reports -- Dr. Hiremath for Mayor, Vote Lou Waters for Oro Valley, Mary Snider for Oro Valley, Vote Joe Hornat

Challengers: "Special Interests Trying To Buy Oro Valley Election"

91% of incumbent contributions came from special interests
91% of campaign contributions to Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Water's Snider and Hornat have come from special interests, according to an August 23 press release of challengers Winfield, Barrett, Jones-Ivey and Nicholson.

Challengers contributions came from the public
"The incumbent’s campaigns have now accepted over $84,000 from groups, companies or individuals looking to influence the Oro Valley town elections," according to the release.

In contrast, challenger funding has come from more than 300 residents and their own pockets. They "...raised $29,311 from over 300 individual contributions from residents supporting their campaigns."

The special interests contributing to the incumbents' campaign include the "usual suspects": Developer HSL, the company that sold the failed El Conquistador Country Club to the town; and developer-landowner Kai family.  PAC's contributing include the Realtors of Arizona and the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association.

"Large campaign donations buy access, increase influence"
 ...the challengers note in their release. They assert that it is wrong to accept “Candidate contributions of this magnitude, from landowners, developers, and special interest groups over whom council can approve land re-zoning applications."

It may be wrong, but it is the way of Oro Valley elections when Hiremath, Snider, Waters and Hornat run.
In all of their four campaigns, they have always received the bulk of their campaign financing from special interests. Their actions on council, as documented over 8 years in LOVE, have demonstrated their preference in serving the needs of these donors.
---
Yesterday, LOVE reported that the incumbents are using this special interest money to employ the services of a California political consulting firm. Read on for more.

Bits and Pieces

More evidence of Special Interest Influence
Mayor Hiremath stated that the discussion to purchase the El Con Country Club and Golf Courses from Humberto Lopez/HSL Properties began in mid-2014. Town records reveal this to be true as the initial meeting took place on June 18, 2014.

However, what Hiremath never mentions is that just one month prior to that meeting and again one month after that meeting (the meetings that would set the stage for the Town’s $1 million dollar deal with HSL) Humberto Lopez/HSL Properties donated a total of $14,000 to the campaigns of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters.

And they wonder why residents don’t believe their claim that special interest donations do not influence their decisions.

Another broken promise
In October 2015, Mayor Hiremath was quoted in the Explorer as stating:

“The upgrades for the (Community Center) buildings and golf courses will be paid for by a 0.5% increase in our sales tax rate. There is no borrowing involved so there would be no long-term debt. We are paying cash as we go.” [Oro Valley Recall Election Candidate Answers, Explorer, 10/21/15]

Fast-forward to the June 6, 2018 Town Council meeting:
Mayor Hiremath and the Town Council voted unanimously to bond for $6 million dollars in order to remodel the outdated Community Center and upgrade the aging golf course irrigation lines.

What happened to the upgrades being paid for with the half-cent sales tax increase? Looks like just another broken promise from Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters.

Incumbent Flyer Myths – It’s the Recession stupid
The incumbents (Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters) distributed a Myths vs. Facts flyer where they attempt to answer the so-called myths about their 8 years on council. We don’t have time to address all of their excuses, but this one was particularly amusing.

Myth: “This council is putting up too many homes too fast.”

Their Response: “From 2000-2010, the number of home permits issued was an average of 383 home permits per year. Since 2010, during this council’s tenure, the number of home building permits issued has been an average of only 182 per year (a 45% decrease).”

The Whole Truth: First of all, it’s disingenuous to compare a 10-year period with an 8-year period, but more importantly, they omitted the fact that the recession began in 2008 and continued through their first five years in office, 2010-2015. Homebuilders stopped building during the recession. The lack of new home permits during this time wasn’t because the incumbents were being selective with their approvals, it was because there were barely any developer applications to approve!

According to Town Finance Director, Stacey Lemos, Oro Valley was still feeling the results of the recession until around 2014-15. Quoting her from the June 6th budget discussions:

“The adopted budget amounts fluctuate (over the years) and not only reflect the impact of The Great Recession when we saw those budgets dip below $100M during FY 2011/12 through 2013/14, but we also see them start to rebound (in 2015) as the local construction activity started to gain speed in the single family and multi family housing markets.”

In a separate section of their “Myths” flyer, the incumbents admitted that their tenure took place “during Oro Valley’s worst recession in history.” This means that they knowingly included the low number of permits approved during The Great Recession in order to skew the calculations in their favor.

Town records reveal that in 2010 and 2011 (during the Recession) they approved only 50 and 47 single family home permits respectively…but by 2016 and 2017 they had approved 302 and 335 single family home permits respectively.

Town permit records do not yet show that in 2018, they also approved a total of 748 new “cluster homes” just in the LaCholla area. So while they claim that since taking office in 2010, their average is 182 home permits per year, that average jumps to 462 per year in the past three years. (302 + 335 + 748 = 1405 divided by 3 = 462)

Councilmember Mary Snider omits important details at El Con Forum
During the Candidate Forum held at the El Conquistador Hotel on July 31st, Councilmember Snider claimed that the proof that they listen to citizens regarding development proposals was that the Capella rezoning (west side of LaCholla between Naranja and Lambert) took three years to pass.

What she didn’t say was that the Major General Plan Amendments for this parcel were approved in May 2015 (after 9 months of negotiations with a citizens’ group in which Snider played no part) and that it was the applicant who chose to not come back to request the Rezoning until three years later in 2018.

Mayor Hiremath lies about “the simple things”
In the June 20th Explorer, Hiremath made this assertion about the challengers: “If they are willing to spread falsehoods to you about simple things, then you have to ask yourself what will they be willing to tell you on serious matters if elected?”

If you watched the Take Back OV video that we posted on Friday (Mayoral Fiction and Fantasy) you now know that while Mayor Hiremath claimed that, “It felt good to interact with the community while canvassing for signatures” and “we didn’t really get any negative feedback at all” (implying that he had done some serious door-to-door canvassing), a review of his petitions (public record) revealed that he collected only 20 signatures.

If he’s willing to spread falsehoods to you about simple things…

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Councilmembers Snider and Hornat offer absurd reasons for approving a recent rezoning

Click HERE to read the absurd comments that Mayor Hiremath made during the same Council Meeting when discussing this rezoning in the LaCholla/Naranja area.

Today’s article focuses on the absurd justifications made by Councilmembers Snider and Hornat to explain their approval of that rezoning request…rezoning 85 acres of pristine desert on the west side of LaCholla from R1-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot lots with custom grading) to R1-7 (minimum 7,000 sf lots with mass grading).

Prior to their discussion, I spoke at the podium, pointing out the false information that had been supplied to them by the applicant and the Town Staff…false information that they would use in formulating their decision. Below is an excerpt from my speech:

"I’d like to begin by stating that The WLB proposal contains misinformation. Page 5 states that the existing land use east of the property at Ironwood Canyon has “a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.” That is false. The smallest lot size is just under 15,000 sf and there are only 2 lots of that size. The majority of lots are between 18,000 and 23,000 sf.

In your Council Packet, Item C3 states that the largest lot in Ironwood Canyon is 28,884 sf. That is false. The largest lot is 33,020 sf.

Those two falsehoods should make you question how many other items in the report may also be false.

Page 48 of the WLB proposal states…“This residential development, with its relatively low proposed land use intensity…will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” That is false. 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east at Ironwood Canyon and it’s 20 times smaller than the 3 acre lots directly to the north. How is that compatible?"

Councilmember Mary Snider’s absurd comment

Snider tried to blame approving small lot sizes and cluster homes on quote...

“...the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance [ESLO] which the citizens of our community drafted and this council approved in 2011 or 2012. We’re following the direction of what the community has said they want us to do in conserving more open space…Sometimes people might not understand why we’re getting slightly smaller lots, but we’re getting more open space.”

My rebuttal
Really, Mary? You think that residential lots that are half the size of the adjacent lots to the east and 20 times smaller than the adjacent lots to the north are slightly smaller??!! You need to be replaced with a council member who can do basic math and who cares about the property values of ALL Oro Valley residents, not just the ones who live along the golf courses.

Also, it was not the citizens who wanted cluster homes on tiny lots. You failed to mention that the ESLO Committee included members of the development community including Councilmember Steve Solomon (a developer) who acted as the Town Council representative for the ESLO Committee.  As usual, they got what they wanted and the citizens were ignored. The ESLO concept that citizens had in mind is vastly different from what was adopted. Why do you think the citizens continually complain about the constant rezonings for postage-stamp sized lots?

It’s disingenuous of you to say that you’re following the direction given to you by the community when you have never taken that approach when it comes to approving General Plan amendments and rezonings. The General Plan was written by the community, giving the Town Council direction on what the citizens want for our town, yet you have had no problem approving one General Plan amendment and rezoning after another. In fact, in 2016, you approved a General Plan Amendment just 8 days after the new General Plan was ratified. Citizens worked on that plan for two years and you began dismantling it in 8 days. So spare me your sanctimonious, “We’re following the direction” of the citizens.

Councilmember Joe Hornat’s absurd comments

Hornat Comment #1. “I’m a little defensive about when people tell me that we haven’t followed through with the process. The P&Z folks who rejected this, or denied it, never even brought up the number of houses or the size of the lots. They were concerned with traffic. I submit that they denied it, but not for the reasons that have been brought up here.”

My rebuttal
Joe, you were present when Town Planner, Milini Simms gave the Town’s Power Point presentation on this rezoning, shortly before you made your comments. She stated that this rezoning…

“…was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6th. They did recommend denial. The main focus of that meeting was compatibility to the surrounding area and traffic along Naranja.”

The compatibility had to do with the tiny lot sizes not being compatible with the surrounding homes. You were present at that P&Z hearing, so you were well aware of what had transpired that evening.

Hornat Comment #2: “Is this really that much different than what is across the street on the East side? We can play with the numbers all day long. We can look at the pictures. It’s not that much different. It might even be better. I don’t want to get into a numbers game. That’s just ridiculous.”

My rebuttal
Yes, it’s much different than what’s across the street on the East side. As I outlined in my speech (were you listening?) 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east.

Other differences include:
• mass grading vs. custom grading
• 2-story homes vs. 1-story homes
• 10 feet between homes vs. 50 feet between homes
• lot widths of 50 feet vs. lot widths of 100 feet
• connecting walls vs. no connecting walls

Why do you listen attentively to the applicant when they discuss their numbers? They present their numbers (lot sizes and number of homes) as they try to convince you that their numbers are compatible with the surrounding numbers. But for some reason, it’s not until the residents speak about the numbers not being equal that you decide that you don’t want to “get into a numbers game.” What's really ridiculous is how the Town Council repeatedly gives more weight to the presentations of the applicant/developer and the Town Staff than they do to the presentations of the citizens.

I’ve come to expect ridiculous comments from Mary Snider, but your comments at this meeting had me wondering if perhaps you had died recently and the council is now propping up your body at the dais in the manner of Weekend at Bernie’s.

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ The $6 Million Dollar Bond

The “turn-key” Community Center needs another $6 MM in taxpayer funds
In December 2014, Town Manager, Greg Caton, plus Mayor Hiremath, and Councilmembers Hornat, Snider, and Waters insisted that the Community Center and Golf course purchase was a great deal because it was a “turn-key” operation costing only $1 million dollars and that no debt service would be required. Turns out that this has become just another one of their lies/broken promises.

Through a series of email exchanges with the Town, I recently learned that Town Manager, Mary Jacobs is recommending a $6 MM bond for Community Center expenses, with half to be spent in FY 2018/19 and half in FY 2019/20.

According to Finance Director, Stacey Lemos, the actual cost for this bond, assuming an interest rate of 5% over 20 years will total an estimated $8.7 million dollars.

A Budget Study session will be held on Wednesday, May 2nd at 3 PM in Town Council Chambers. Will the mayor and council consider approving a $6 million bond in order to save golf? We expect that they will since none of their previous efforts to finance the Community Center and Golf Courses have been successful.

The Repeated Lies and Broken Promises of the Town Council

• They promised that the half-cent sales tax increase would cover ALL Community Center costs. It hasn’t.

• They asserted that there would be no debt service. Yet, here we are, three years later, discussing a $6 MM bond for Community Center/Golf expenses.

• They lied when they said that only $1.2 MM would be taken from the General Fund Contingency to jump-start the Community Center Fund. As you will recall, they had to transfer another $350,000 from the General Fund last year to meet Community Center expenses.

• They lied when they promised they would pay back the $1.2 MM to the General Fund with $120,000 a year for the next 10 years.

• They spent $50,000 of taxpayer money on a Golf Study and then completely ignored the recommendations.

Mary Jacobs email stated the following:

“I point you to page iv of the Town Manager’s budget message that outlines how the recommended capital expenditure is being budgeted in FY 18/19.

In addition, the Recommended Budget includes half of the projected $6 million in total planned funding for capital improvements at the Community Center building as well as irrigation system replacement, turf reduction and other improvements on the Canada and Conquistador 18-hole golf courses. The expenditure will be financed via the issuance of a 20 year bond, and debt service will be repaid through the Capital Fund…..it’s a $6 million bond with HALF of it expected to be expended in 18/19, and HALF expended in 19/20.” (emphasis added)

Page 228 of the TMRB
Town Manager Jacobs has requested $3.6 MM for golf course repairs and $2.4 MM in Community Center improvements (TOTAL $6 MM) spread over two years and financed with a 20-year bond

The following information was obtained from Page 228 of the Town Manager’s Recommended Budget (TMRB).

COMMUNITY CENTER (CC) BOND FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS

                                                                     FY18/19                FY19/20                  TOTAL
Community Center Improvements              $1,200,000            $1,200,000              $2,400,000
Golf Course Irrigation Replacement           $1,800,000            $1,800,000              $3,600,000
TOTAL CC BOND IMPROVEMENTS         $3,000,000            $3,000,000              $6,000,000

The Town Council’s Community Center financing plan did not work
The additional half cent sales tax was supposed to offset ALL expenses for the Community Center, including golf, tennis, and the Community Center building. Instead, all of the sales tax revenue is going down the drain for golf. As such, there have been limited funds for capital improvements which is why the Town now wants to bond $3M in the 2018/19 budget and another $3M in the 2019/2020 budget.

How many more millions of taxpayer dollars are they going to spend on this endeavor before they admit that they made a mistake in purchasing the El Con Community Center and Golf Courses?
---
Mike Zinkin has a Bachelor’s degree in history and government from the University of Arizona and a Master’s degree in Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education from California State University, Northridge. He was a commissioned ensign in the United States Navy Reserve. He was an Air Traffic Controller for 30 years. He and his wife moved to Oro Valley in 1998. Mike served on the Oro Valley Development Review Board from 2005-2009 and the Board of Adjustment from 2011-2012. He served on the Town Council from 2012-2016 during which time he was named a Fellow for the National League of Cities University, he was a member of the National League of Cities Steering Committee for Community and Economic Development, and a member of the Arizona League of Cities Budget and Economic Development Committee.

Guest View-Brian Selvy: Revisiting the Cost of a New Community Center

The recalled incumbents vastly overstate the cost of of  a real community center
The "Majority 4" continue to say that a new community center which meets the expectations of Oro Valley residents would cost over $20 Million. Mary Snider mentioned the $20 Million figure again recently, and this was not based on her own research but what a landscape architect told her. A landscape architect isn't the most qualified person to make such an estimate.

Architekton Designed Community Center

Not $20 million but $10 million
Tempe-based Architekton is an architectural design firm that has successfully designed and built many community and recreation centers, YMCAs, and multi-generational centers all over Arizona. They successfully built centers for diverse clients for $90 to $215 per square foot. Even taking into inflation, these centers could all be built for less than $250 per square foot today.

In 2014, the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended a 40,000 square foot recreational center. At even the overly conservative price of $250 per square foot, Oro Valley could build a customized community center for $10 Million. At $200 per square foot, which is reasonable, the center would cost $8 Million.

Snider inflates the numbers
To put in perspective how unrealistic and inflated Snider's $20 million number is, consider this: A $20 Million, 40,000 square foot recreation center would come out to $500 per square foot - an absurd price that doesn't pass the giggle test. As a comparison, two LEED Certified Silver
health and wellness complexes at Arizona State University (which require special green building materials and processes) were built for $310 and $335 per square foot, respectively.

A old clubhouse is not what the residents want in a community center
Let's also look at the other aspect of the Snider's statement: We'd have to spend $20 Million to get what Oro Valley residents desired.

Let's break this down. First of all, this implies that the 30 year old El Con racquetball club building is what residents desire: An old building that has converted racquetball courts, a dance studio with 8' high ceilings, workout equipment in hallways, and a non-ADA compliant structure. That in no way is what Oro Valley residents desire.

Second, take a look at the Architekton designed buildings for yourself: these include custom community meeting rooms, indoor sports courts, indoor tracks, fitness facilities, etc. They are what residents of a prestigious town such as Oro Valley want.

Snider's claim that it would take $20 million to give the residents of Oro Valley what they want in a community center is yet another blatant example of the M-4 generating an El Con cover story that doesn't hold water.
---
Brian Selvy has lived in Oro Valley for 5 years. He and his wife moved here from a suburb of Los Angeles and chose to settle down in Oro Valley due to the abundant natural beauty, small town feel, good schools, public safety, and slower pace of life. He has a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and an M.S. degree in Systems Architecting and Engineering from the University of Southern California. He and his wife spend the majority of their free time enjoying the constant whirlwind of activity associated with having two young children. Additionally, he enjoys helping coach his daughter's teeball team, hiking, working out, gardening, and reading. Some of his favorite local activities are hiking in the Catalina and Tortolita Mountains and enjoying evenings on the patio at Noble Hops, preferably sipping on a local beer from Dragoon.

Northwest Conservatives Forum Incumbents Misstate The Facts On Oro Valley's Employee Wage Increases They Granted

Last week the Northwest Conservatives hosted a candidate forum at the Oro Valley library.  LOVE's John Musolf video recorded the event.  We posted in on YouTube for you to view.  You can access it at the top right panel of this blog.  This posting is first of several that we will post regarding the forum.
---
Incumbents Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters either misstated the facts of simply obliquely responded when asked the following question at last week's Northwest Conservatives candidate forum.

"Lacking any evidence that the Town has difficulty retaining employees, the recently adopted salary increases were based on a study that compared Oro Valley to cities and counties with much larger populations. The increases are ongoing and also trigger increased retirement obligations for the Town. Given that residents’ incomes are flat or declining, and County property taxes are increasing significantly, please explain your views on fiscal responsibility relative to salaries.” 

Fact Check: When All Is Considered, The Average Wage Increase Is 6.5%, Mr. Mayor, not 2%

Mayor Hiremath stated:  "The reality is, the average raise the employees got was 2%."

Mayor Hiremath is wrong.

The fact is that the minimum one time salary adjustment was 2.7% for Oro Valley's top 24 employees. Some one-time adjustments are as high as 6%.  On top of this, each employee will receive an merit increase on their employment anniversary date of from 3.5 - 4.0% on their new base wage.  Taken together, the one-time adjustment plus the merit increases will average about 6.5%,  Some employees will see a double digit increase over their 2013-2014 compensatoin

Fact Check: There Is No Town Of Oro Valley Employee Retention Problem

No one discussed the retention rate of Oro Valley employees.    Our guess is the incumbents either never checked on what the retention rate is or that the retention rate is high, therefore not supporting their position.  We have seen no mass exodus of Oro Valley employees despite not receiving salary increase for 3 years. This is because there are few comparable job opportunities. 

Incumbent Lou Waters provided two examples of the town is losing employees. In neither case, compensation was not the reason.

Waters pointed to former town planner David Williams. Williams, be believe, left to go into private practice for, what we understand, were personal reasons over which the town would have no control; and the town's Human Resource Director, Ron Corbin, left to return to Yuma to be with his wife.  His position, based on this study, received a 8.3% earnings increase based on the study.

Fact Check: 8 of 11 Municipalities To Which Oro Valley Was Compared In The Salary Study Are In The Phoenix Area

Council Member Joe Hornat disputed that the study included towns bigger the Oro Valley. He observed that Sahuarita and Marana were included in the study. He is correct. However, these are only 2 of the 11 communities considered.   The fact is, as noted in our posting last week, 8 of the 11 cities in the study were in Maricopa County. All of these have substantially larger populations than Oro Valley.

Fact Check: Current Compensation Is Just One Possible Factor That Attracts Or Retains Quality Personal

Council Member Snider stated the following in response to the question:

"Any organization that thinks they can satisfy the needs of their constituents on mediocrity [of employees] is set up for failure."  

We think that Snider equates high pay to retaining quality employees.  Pay is merely one possible reason people want to work for the Town Of Oro Valley.

Some like public service. Some serve because a public sector job presents a more suitable life style than the pressure-filled competitive nature of the private sector. Others like working in the public sector because public sector jobs are more secure than private sector jobs. Some like it because the benefits they receive, like the ones offered in Oro Valley are far richer than those offered in other communities or the private sector.  Even others like it because of the rich defined benefits retirement program, a program that is no longer offered in the private sector. Regardless of the reason compensation is only one reason that motivates people to work for the Town of Oro Valley.

Fact Check: Challengers Agreed That Some Increase Was Warranted, However...

Mayoral Candidate Patrick Straney and Council Candidate Don Bristow observed that raises were in order for town staff.  Employees had, after all, not received increases in 3 years.

Bristow pointed out that it is the basis for determining the size of the raises that is of concern: "The problem is that the study [upon which the decision was made to significantly increase staff salaries] is flawed."

Pat Straney cautioned that Oro Valley should be thinking "long term" when it comes to granting salary increases.  Given the transient nature of most of Oro Valley's revenues: "We need to know the impact and where the money [in the future] is coming from" to pay for increases.
---
Please watch the video. Then, tell us: What is your analysis of the responses?

Garner, Burns, Zinkin: Why This Budget Deserved A "No" Vote

The Oro Valley Town Council approved a record $107.1 million budget for 2014-15  by a 4-3 vote last Wednesday.  This is a 13.1% increase over prior year.

The Majority-4 (Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters) voted for the budget.  Council Member's Burns, Garner and Zinkin did not vote for the budget.

In their remarks to council, council members Zinkin and Burns clearly stated their reasons for not supporting this budget.

Council Member Zinkin did not support the budget for a number of reasons. These are detailed and supported in the PowerPoint presentation at right.  (You can view the presentation to the right or  you can view it by clicking here.)

Zinkin was not allowed to present this PowerPoint document because it was objected to by Mayor Hiremath.  According to Council Attorney Kelley Schwab, meeting materials are supposed to be included with council meeting materials one week in advance of the meeting.

Zinkin continued that he felt that the budget includes a "hidden" increase in the number of employees and a substantial increase in average compensation (including benefit cost) per employee.  He believes that the raises are being granted based on an invalid compensation study.  "Our employees are well paid and they deserve it. Do they deserve to get paid as much as an employee in Avondale [or other Pheonix Communities]? The cost of living is much more up there."

Zinkin continued that he can not support this budget because the spending "...is not balance between the community and the employees"   Zinkin asserted, "We could give our employees their step and merit increase and a 2% raise, which is what is going on in the general public. I'm guessing that that would save us half million dollars. What would you do with that? You give it back to the people. Green parks in the winter time. Maybe do something with SACCA. Do something with Procter-Leiber.  There is all sorts of things we could do to give back to the community."  Perhaps even fund some of the ideas Council Member Burns put forth, as follows.

Council Member Burns observed: "I'm voting against the budget today and I have two main reasons why." First, "I personally believe that a budget is a policy document and more importantly a reflection on our values....I had only one budget request and that was for the town to provide programs for disabled an flow income individuals," asserted Burns.

"Our town does not have any program for disabled or low income individuals." This, despite, the fact that, according to Burns, "...24% of students at CDO use subsidized lunches, 22% at Copper Creek, Wilson 17%."  He concluded, "Oro Valley Is a very wealthy town. Yet I believe we ignore those that need the help the most."

Burns' second reason for not supporting the budget is that the budget does not discuss how the town is going to be funded in the future.  Council Member Burns asserts that Oro Valley has a defacto property tax because many of the town's assets have been financed by the county.  Burns asserts that Oro Valley would have better control of these funds it it assessed its own property tax.  However, Council Member Burns is not advocating for an Oro Valley  property tax.

Council Member Burns concludes that the best time to have this conversation about funding is when discussing the 2015 General Plan since there are so many future items being considered for investment but no identification of the sources of the funds for these investments.  "I don't think that relying on the county bond fund to fund our capital needs is the way we should go."

Be sure to take a moment to watch Burns' eloquent remarks.

Council Member Garner also voted "No."  When asked why, he provided three reasons:

• There is nothing in the current budget that addresses the needs of the citizens as much of the budget increases were due to employee raises and benefits that in the long term will cost the Town fiscally. 
• The salary study was flawed from the outset with much of the results suspect as many comparisons were done using cities and Towns much larger than Oro Valley. This salary study was never fully vetted to the public until much later in the process and was never going to appear until the issue was pushed to have it part of a budget study session. 
• There continues to be wasteful spending throughout the budget to include items such as being paid overtime for hours paid instead of hours worked as well as many areas in the budget where department spending continues to rise with little to no explanation.

The common thread among the three "No" votes is that each of these council members studied the budget in detail. They then compared the spending to a "citizen-centric" standard.

Compare their response to that of Council Member Snider. She voiced what appeared to be, a response for the majority:

"I don't mind new ideas. I have a problem with grandiose suggestion coming when we make a motion to pass the budget.  We could have had these conversations earlier and I would invite you to bring these ideas forward but give the council and staff an opportunity to vet these ideas. Let us debate them."

Apparently Snider had not heard Burns' remark that he had brought his ideas forward but that they were never considered. Or Zinkin's comment that the numbers Town Manager Caton had provided at the prior council meeting had been misleading. Or had not considered Garner's and Zinkin's educated evaluation of the salary study.

More to follow on Snider's response will follow in a future posting: "Management By Happenstance" or "Who Runs Oro Valley?"
---
(Because of the holiday this week, we will post our regular Tuesday feature, "Heather's Corner",  tomorrow.)
---

Oro Valley Town Council Majority-4 Approve Massive Increase In Oro Valley Spending Cap

Oro Valley's Majority-4 town council members voted to approve the largest budget cap in Oro Valley history. It is $107.1 million.  It is 14% greater than last year's budget.   The "yes" voice votes of Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters were registered at last week's council meeting.  Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin voted against this cap.

We have previously written regarding this budget.

Caton Chart Understates Proposed Wage Costs By $2.9 Million

There was little new information presented at the council meeting.  A chart presented by Town Manager Caton did not include the substantial increases in earnings per person for Oro Valley employees.  The chart (right) understates the 2014-15 personnel cost by $2.9 million.

According to this chart, as revised for the understated budget dollar amount,  direct pay per employee was $67,352 in 2008-09.  It is $80,117 in the 2014-15 budget.  That is an increase of almost 20% in an economy where wages have been stagnant, even decreasing during those years.

During the "public hearing" portion of the meeting,  Oro Valley resident John Musolf voiced his concern that this budget is outrageous.  He entered into public record some of what he had wrote in John's Place, last Wednesday.

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler has frequently advocated for an additional revenue source for the town.  During the hearing he said he was pleased with the relative health of the town. "It is clear from the graphs that the future is tenuous.  We're not going to achieve any significant surpluses. It is clear from the projections. So, I don't know where the money is going to come from to continue improving the town."

Generally at council meeting, Council Member Waters makes the motions to approve something and Council Member Snider second the motion. For this discussion, the roles were reversed.  Was this because Council Member Waters appeared overwhelmed during the night's proceedings.  "Must be a product of my getting up at 5 am" he joked at one point.  At 9:06 pm, Waters quickly arose to second a Council Member Snider motion to approve the cap.

After making this motion, Council Member Snider celebrated the budget:  "I think this budget shows innovation... I want to thank the staff... I think that this is a great budget. We are the envy of the State. We have a balanced budget with a slight surplus. It is nimble enough to allow us to adapt to changing conditions."

Two other views of this budget cap were presented.

Mayor Hiremath feels that this budget presents strategic spending at a time when the country remains in a recession.  The Mayor does not believe that the money should be returned to the public as a "dividend", such as reducing or eliminating the utility tax.  Rather, Oro Valley should spend this money on more services.

Council Member Zinkin, on the other hand, considers the budget to be overspending, ramifications of which will last well into the future.  Watch their remarks.

Tell us what you think.  Do you think the budget represents wise strategic investments or do you think it represents overspending?
---

It's Time For Harmony In Oro Valley

Council member Mary Snider presented a 10-minute chastising of Council Member Mike Zinkin at last week's Oro Valley Town Council meeting.    Snider, essentially blaming Zinkin for all the ills of Oro Valley, cherry-picked passages from a letter written to the town on which we reported last week.  The letter was from the attorney that investigated the very old, but recently filed complaint on Zinkin by town employee and economic development director Amanda Jacobs.

In our opinion, this inquiry far exceeded it's scope. Rather than focusing solely Jacob's allegation, it also focused on anything else Zinkin was alleged to have said.  It also cost the town over $8,000.  This is almost as much as the $10,000 the town spent on defending the serious harassment and bias grievance leveled against the Majority-4 and others by Betty Givens, then town human resources director, in 2011. 

Snider  started her performance, and it was definitely that,  by saying that she had to speak out as a woman.  She did this while sitting in her council seat, where she is first, a council member. That she is a woman is irrelevant.

Her remarks were written, we assume, with the help of her co-recall conspirators.  She was "making it personal" as suggested by Council Member Waters in his memo in January, which we published Friday.

The comment that Zinkin made to Jacobs occurred while he had been in office for less than two months. We also wrote about the complaint.  We even published the entire conversation.  It was a conversation in which Jacobs attacked Zinkin with truly foul language.

We repeat the findings of this inquiry:

"Nearly all of the inappropriate conduct alleged by Employees A, C, and D took place many months ago, in most instances more than a year ago. The Town responded appropriately by counseling the Councilmember orally and in writing, and by implementing protocols that minimize direct interaction between the Council and employees."

You would think that the case would've been closed from a reading of the report.

No.  Rather than letting this pass, Snider, and her recall buddies, decided that she had to just keep picking at Zinkin.

We were sitting in the back of the room.  We had come to the meeting to observe some of the early presentations, one of which was update on the activities the Oro Valley Historical Society.  We will publish more on this in Friday's "Bits and Pieces."

We were taken aback when Snider launched into her 10-minute "get Zinkin" diatribe.    Council Member Zinkin sat quietly. He listened patiently.  He did not react.  He did not respond.    He demonstrated great restraint and patience.

We, on the other hand, were frankly sickened by Snider's use of  her position as a council member to attack another council member.  We know that you are sick of hearing about this recall.  We are also sick of the fact that this robs all of us in Oro Valley of harmonious leadership.  So, we spoke on your behalf.  

We rarely speak at Council meetings.  In fact, this was our second time.  We felt, however, that no individual should be so brazenly attacked when the real issue is that the majority-4 of this Council apparently lack the civility and the leadership skills to bring Oro Valley town together.  Instead, at a time when the town is trying to come together to build a general plan update, the majority-4 have split us apart!

Rather than react to all of Snider's negativity, we chose to focus on this single issue: The issue of bringing harmony to Oro Valley.  That was the theme of our posting on Friday.  It continues to be the theme of our posting today.

"I just want to say: Can we all get along? " (Rodney King: 2/22/10)

It is time to get along, Mayor Hiremath. You are our leader. Please lead us.

Watch our remarks.  Let us know what you think.
---

End of Zinkin Recall: Now It's Time To "Let Oro Valley Excel"

Last night, we reported that the effort to recall Council Member Zinkin failed to gather sufficient signatures to force a recall election. There is more to the story, of course: A story in which Mayor Hiremath and two sitting council members, plus the spouse of a third council member, lead an effort that, despite their 9th inning heroics, failed.

Hornat With Recall Petition

Yesterday morning, Council Member Joe Hornat was at Fry's soliciting recall signatures.  When asked by a passerby what the recall would cost the citizens of Oro Valley Hornat replied: "I don't know but whatever it costs its worth it."  What a flip, disrespectful answer to an Oro Valley citizen.

Where was Hornat supposed to be a at 9AM?  At a meeting at Securaplane with one of their largest customers.  Hornat was supposed to be there to represent the town.  Rather than that, Hornat chose to stand at Fry's trying get signatures.

Frys, by the way, has a policy that prohibits such activities on its store properties.  At some point. late in the day, they told the recall people to leave.

This is a victory for the citizens of Oro Valley. The citizens will see their duly elected representative fulfill the term to which they elected him. It is a victory for Mike's spouse and his family, who have endured months of witnessing Zinkin vilified.

It is a victory for the citizens of Oro Valley that was earned against the odds:

• Mayor Hiremath put the weight of his position in front of this effort in a late December hit piece on Zinkin that he had published in the local advertising circular;
• Shortly thereafter, Hiremath appeared in front of town hall in a TV4 press interview, extolling the need for the recall. It was a press interview that was, at best, biased against Zinkin.
• Hiremath's political machine, led by the spouse of his campaign treasurer, was behind the group that sponsored the recall.
• Council Member Hornat extolled his support of the recall on a number of occasions.  
• Council Member Snider stated that she supported the recall. She went even further stating that she was personally offended by a word Zinkin used.  We observed that she should not be on council if she is that offended by so little that happened so long ago.
• Then, there's the strage last minute filing of a complaint on Zinkin by Town Economic Development Director Amanda Jacobs.  Jacobs dredged up a complaint regarding a now 20-month old incident; an incident in which we observed that if anyone was abused, it was Zinkin.
• The group took out large advertisements supporting the recall in the local advertising circular. One ad was given special placement by the circular. It appeared next to Zinkin's "rebuttal" of Hiremath's hit piece.  As of January 31, the group had not yet paid for these ads.  Generally, in the advertising business, you pay for an ad in advance!
• The group used a web site that had been created in reaction to the results of the 2012 election, when Council Member's Garner, Burns and Zinkin were elected in the primary.  This site rants about Zinkin.  We have been told that their rhetoric is relentless.
• The group had a number to call that had a recorded message comparing Zinkin's alleged "sins" to those of the "crack-smoking Mayor of Toronto."  
• The recall group gained the complicity of the leaseholders of the Saturday Farmers Market to provide them space for getting signatures; and this leaseholder called the police to have Oro Valley resident John Musolf removed for trespassing because John was carrying a "We Need Zinkin" sign.
• Even though we argued that the recall group was not a civic group as allowed in the Farmer's Market lease clause 21 (c), Town Attorney Sidles wrote to us that such a group was a "quintessential" example of a civic group.  There is no reference in any literature that a recall group going after one individual is a civic group, Tobin. The Girl Scouts are a civic group!
• Council Member Waters spouse paid particular attention to us at a friendly gathering to break ground at Naranja Park.  She referred to the fact that we took pictures of the recall tables and of those who participated in the recall effort.  Yes we did. Those responsible for this effort should not be anonymous.  They should be held accountable.
• The Oro Valley Police Officers Association wrote a complaint of great length to Oro Valley's human resources director because Zinkin dared to even question police overtime.
• Retired police officers solicited signatures at friendly poker games!
• And let's not forget the "Dirty Trickster," always lurking in the shadows.

We reported on all of this . We reported the facts to you. 

All that weight against one person. All that weight against a retired guy who gets maybe $10,000 a year to do a thankless job; a job that he does to the best of his ability.  All that weight against Mike's wife Ramona and the Zinkin family.  

All that weight focused on one individual.  And you made them fail.  You, the registered voter of Oro Valley, doomed them to fail by not signing the petition.

Yesterday was, indeed, a great day for Oro Valley.

Now, its time to bring Oro Valley together, Mr. Mayor:  "Let Oro Valley Excel!"
----

Not All On Council Agree That "The Budget Is Fine" for 2013-2014

---
Council Member Mary Snider announced at last week's Oro Valley Town Council Meeting that "The budget is fine."  Apparently, there is nothing in the budget with which she does not agree; except for the "need" to increase the town's contribution to the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce.

Her opinion, however, is not shared by all council members. and residents.

Oro Valley Town Manager Caton has, on several occasions, noted the significant time and effort expended in creating the budget. He and his team have used the General Plan and the Strategic Plan as the guide for creating this year's plan.  The plan's core themes are:

• Investment in town employees
• Investment in infrastructure and town assets
• Investment in technology
• Economic development as a key strategy to achieve a healthy financial environment
• Support of quality-of-life programs and services for the community
• Revenue enhancements and expenditure reductions.

"As our economy is still very fragile, we are seeing signs of steady, slow growth and the budget reflects the changing market," Caton noted at last week's meeting.  Caton is confident in the future: "In the coming fiscal  year, we are conservative in our revenue estimates but we are seeing returns on these previous year investments specifically including the areas of special events, annexation, economic development, and business activity."  Caton is proud that Oro Valley has received national awards for its previous budgets.
---
No one doubts the effort nor the intent of the budget.  Still, even the most well-prepared budget requires thorough independent inspection on behalf of the residents of Oro Valley.
---

Council Member Zinkin identified more than $429,000 in potential savings in this year's proposed budget, savings which, he believes, should be added to our Parks, Rec and Cultural Service program for over-seeding our parks in the winter; establishing a dog park; installing water fountains along the CDO Trail, and increasing cultural services

Council Member Snider spent time rebutting Council Member Zinkin on all items on which Zinkin spoke.  Apparently, there there is nothing in the budget with which she does not agree. 

Council Member Garner recommended considering leasing a police evidence facility as a means of reducing cost, the purchase of hybrid police vehicles to reduce fuel costs, and stated:  Garner advocates managing the Oro Valley Police Department in a "...very efficient way."

"All I'm driving for is efficiency" in Oro Valley spending, he noted. "Let's manage. Let's get efficient. Let's look at things that do in this community so that we can be #1."

Council Member Snider also spoke on her survey of take home cars, all of which support the use of take home cars for police officers.  For example, she noted, all Sahuarita Officers have take home cars.   Previously, she had said that Oro Valley should not be compared to other cities and towns when it comes to public safety issues.  Commissioner Garner noted: "I would have no problem with the [Oro Valley} take home policy if Oro Valley would acknowledge that this is a benefit....then compensation would be adjusted accordingly."

Council Member Burns has "...some major problems with this budget...mostly because I don't think that it fits with the vision of what Oro Valley is or what it wants to become. I don't think that we are making the proper investments to develop arts, culture, or recreation.... Our parks and recreation are woefully inadequate...families are a woefully under-represented in this town when it comes to services and I think that this needs to change."  

Burns recommended that the Chief of Police report to the town manager and not to the council; thus  removing discussion of the police budget from the political realm. 

Council Member Hornat said he supports the town salary and wage survey only because the town manager thought it should be in the budget.  Otherwise, his experience tells him that it will be of no benefit to the town. He supports doing a Naranja plan as long as it focuses on return on investment.  "Sometimes you have to spend money because you have it." "I'm not ready to take a chance" on reduced police staffing.  

Oro Valley resident John Musolf commented on a substantial sum in the budget for a police evidence facility. Chief Sharp stated, at the study session of April 24, that a consulting study, dated in 2007, justified the facility.  John, and others, feel otherwise.

On May 15, it is likely that town council will approve the town manager's recommended budget  as submitted.  We base this conclusion on the nature and depth of the questions offered by Council Members Hiremath, Snider, Waters and Hornat.  It is clear that the are supportive of all spending in the budget.  As they are the majority, this budget will pass.
---

Mary Snider: "Attack Dog"

---
Mary Snider saw fit to address a letter to the Explorer written by  Oro Valley resident and former Council Member, Conny Culver, during this past Wednesday's council meeing.  Mayor Hiremath simply let her do so.

The letter discussed the fact that the meeting's 17 item consent agenda included many items which were not "routine", involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending. These items, most of which were "pulled" and discussed in the 5-hour marathon meeting, should have been listed as "regular agenda" items.

Conny discusses some of the items. Two of these were items J and K, regarding approving spending on law enforcement officers for outside (or Oro Valley) task forces.  Snider selected this item and noted that in 2005, when Culver was a Council Member, she voted in favor of a similar measure.

Snider's comment, addressing a specific Oro Valley resident was "out of order". Worse that that, it was off-point to what Culver had written since Culver's letter was about what should be or not should be on a consent agenda. It was not about whether a specific measure should or should not be approved.

Mayor Hiremath allowed Snider to make this comment, which he should not have.  He should have rebuked Snider for getting "off-course".  He should have enforced the "rules of order".  He did not do so.

There was another instance in this meeting where Mayor Hiremath failed to act to insure decency among the participants, this one involved Council Member Hornat and the town's director of Parks and Recreation. We will discuss this in a separate posting.
---