Pusch View Golf: "In For a Penny. In For a Pound."

In for a penny. In for a pound.” 

The expression "In for a penny, In for a pound" means that if you have already committed to doing something, you might as well go all the way and fully commit to it, rather than holding back. That is exactly what the Oro Valley Town Council did last week.

Council approves "Hole 7" bridge replacement...“

Faced with a staff created "emergency," last week the council approved a bridge that will cost  $390,000 for the Pusch Ridge 9-hole golf course. This is the same course they narrowly (4-3) voted to keep operating in February.  As we reported last week, the "emergency" was created by town staff's failure to personally inspect the facility before the council decision to keep the course open. It was a complete mess-up on the part of Town Manager Wilkins and his staff. 

Council rejected staff’s solution

The approval of the bridge replacement is a rejection of the staff’s less costly recommendation in two respects. First, the staff had recommended that the bridge be removed and a walk around through the wash and up the hills be implemented. In addition, the staff wanted to also replace some irrigation piping in doing this. However, the Council approved replacing the bridge. There will be no replacement of irrigation.

Second, staff had recommended that the funds for this project be taken from the general fund of the town. However, the council approved taking the money from the "community center" fund, which has separate sales tax funding. Town staff projects that the balance of the community center fund will be $1 million at the end of the fiscal year after this expenditure.

Staff insisted. If you want this bridge you must replace it... not repair it.

The reason the council approved replacing the bridge is that there is no way for town staff to determine what it would cost to repair the bridge. This is because the “bargain" that the town got when it purchased the golf courses in 2016 didn't come with any documentation on the construction of that bridge, or any other bridge on that course, or the irrigation that exists on the course today. So there was no way for staff to determine if the supports would work with a repaired bridge. 

Staff rejected the recommendations of residents who spoke at the meeting. According to staff, none of these considered the fully installed cost or the strength of the supports.

$390,000 in the "blink of an eye" won't come so easy in the future....

The town has been spending a tremendous amount of money on parks. It has been flush with cash since it bonded $25 million in funds for parks and received tens of millions of federal dollars for other uses. Those days are past. The 2025 budget will show some of those leftover monies but the majority of town funding will have to come from ongoing revenue sources. And we expect budgets will get tighter as time goes on.

- - -

Naranja Park Construction Activity To Ramp Up

Construction activity at Naranja Park will increase during calendar 2023

According to Oro Valley Public Works Director Paul Keesler, reporting to the Oro Valley Town Council on January 4, grading and preparation work on Naranja Park is nearly done. Town staff invested late November and December in creating a redesigned concept of the park. They were instructed to do so by town council because the cost of building the park was far exceeding the funding that was available.

Park design includes all initially envisioned amenities... some deferred to "pay as you go"

The latest design is shown in the panel below right. The design includes two new fields, a splash pad, and a “skate track/pump track.” It also includes other structures that the town will build on a “pay as you go” basis. These are two added fields (fields 7 and 8), basketball courts, pickleball courts, and two restrooms. In addition, the latest design does not include an originally proposed enclosed operations and maintenance center.

One major design change
There is one major change from the previous park design. The “skate park/pump track”will be located on the northern portion of the park. The dog park will remain where it is now. The council had agreed  upon this change in locations because it reduced the total cost of the Naranja Park project.

Some design work yet to be done

The “skate park/pump track” has yet to be designed. The splash pad has yet to be conceptualized. Council had  instructed staff to scale back the original design for these two amenities because of their proposed cost.

"Pump Track/Skate Track" liability is non an issue

According to Council Member Solomon, speaking at the January 4 council meeting, some residents have raised a concern of potential liability to the town of having a “skate park/pump track.” 

The town outside attorney informed the council that there is a State statute (A.R.S. sec 33-1551) that holds harmless from liability the owner of a property that is used for recreation as long as it can be demonstrated the owner did not engage in “...willful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct that was a direct cause of the injury to the recreational user.” The statute also states that “a recreational user or educational user accepts the risks created by the user's activities and shall exercise reasonable care in those activities.”

...as long as the town exercises diligence in designing, constructing and maintaining the track

Town Parks and Recreation Department Director Diaz-Trahan stated at the January 4 meeting that the town will fulfill its responsibilities in this regard by engaging a professional designer and making sure that the track is built by a professional. Once constructed, the town plans to maintain the track to design standards, provide ample “at-risk” notice, and secure the area with fencing. According to Diaz-Trahan, there are risks in everything recreational but these steps should mitigate the risk.

- - -

Guest View: Mike Zinkin – Finance the “Needs” instead of the “Wants”

I hope you have been reading recent LOVE postings regarding the spending of the $25 million parks bond. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Why weren’t the Naranja Park plans value-engineered prior to bonding for them?
A motion was passed during the October 5, 2022 Council meeting to have staff “bring back a plan with value engineering ideas that are reflected in the comments that have been made this evening and update Council through regular Council reports of those ideas.”

This sounds like a great idea but why wasn’t this done prior to the demand for the bond? Why borrow money before you value engineer your plan? Why have the staff report via “Council Reports” which are not public (unless one does a records request) rather than delivering the staff report in a public meeting?

The town council needs to amend their park plans
The four council members who were just re-elected campaigned on items that were not yet vetted or value-engineered by the Town staff – and the Town cannot afford those promises. Is this why they rushed it through without any design or cost estimates and had a ribbon cutting ceremony in May to celebrate the expansion of Naranja Park? If these council members are responsible, they will amend their “wants” and work within the Town’s pocketbook.

Originally, the $25 million was to be split between the Community Center and Naranja Park. However, due to unexpected cost increases, there is now not enough money and the Community Center is still not ADA compliant.

Where is the requested staff report on ADA compliance at the Community Center?
As I’ve previously reported, a motion passed 7-0 on April 6th for staff to advise the most effective way to make the Community Center ADA compliant and to make it a priority. It is now more than six months later. Where is the report? Now we are $25 million in debt, with no real plan except to ensure that the pet projects of the splash pad and the pump track are funded.

Community Center is forecast to lose $4 million this fiscal year
Looking at the financials for August 2022, the Community Center Fund (CCF) is forecasted to end FY 2022/23 with a loss of $4,663,936. The Council that has bonded for $25 million with no real engineered plan, decided to ignore community input (the Parks and Rec survey), and instead establish their pet projects and live with a CCF forecast of over a $4.6 million deficit.

The council needs to follow the original plan
The council needs to follow the original plan and split the $25 million between the Community Center and Naranja Park. This town needs a new police station, an ADA compliant Community Center, and re-piping reclaimed water to eliminate the use of potable/drinking water on Town properties (parks and golf courses). But the majority on council want a pump track and a splash pad. I consider this to be an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.

---
Mike Zinkin and his wife have lived in Oro Valley since 1998. He served on the Oro Valley Development Review Board from 2005-2009, the Board of Adjustment from 2011-2012, and the Town Council from 2012-2016. He was named a Fellow for the National League of Cities. He was a member of the NLC Steering Committee for Community and Economic Development and a member of the Arizona League of Cities Budget and Economic Development Committee. He was an Air Traffic Controller for 30 years. Mike 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.

Guest View-Charlie Hurt: A Disturbing 2023 Budget Picture When It Comes To Spending On Naranja Park

Oro Valley voters will be receiving ballots for the 2022 (primary) election for Mayor and three town council members in early July. It is likely that all council seats will be determined based on this election. LOVE plans to keep you informed regarding each candidate. In this regard, we’ve offered the pages of LOVE to each candidate. 

We’ve asked that they submit guest views. Council candidate Charlie Hurt has provided the following “Guest View”. 

- - - 

A disturbing 2023 budget picture

Oro Valley now has a budget for next year. I love budgets and I love to peel back some layers of the onion here to see what we really have. For the most part, this is a simple, straightforward budget. However, if we start looking at some of the items that make up the budget, we see what for me, is a disturbing picture.

As an example, examine the projected expenditure for Naranja Park. Skipping over the fact that until now Parks and Recreation investment has operated with a pay as you go mandate, the costs for the improvements are not known. The bonding, in this case $25 million for Naranja Park, received minimal public scrutiny, emerging as yet another closed door decision. 

 
There is no budget for the Naranja Park refurbishment… costs are really unknown

The Council study session on this issue was illuminating. The Town Engineer, Paul Kessler, noted that he had no way to determine what the costs for the re-imagining of Naranja Park might be (and should not be faulted for his lack of knowledge since he had received no estimates or proposals). The Town Manager weighed in that there could be a $5 million cost overrun. There was no discussion as to why the $5 million cost overrun was determined. Could it be more? Bottom line: how much will a splash pad cost? Unknown. How much will a pump track cost? Unknown. 

This is a recipe for financial disaster along the lines of classic over billing and cost over runs. There are no firm or even soft estimates or projections for the costs. Yes, there is a plan but there are no costs associated with those plans. The public needs to know what the costs are, in detail, for the Naranja Park refurbishment. 

Do we need more amenities in our parks? Yes. But we need to do so with eyes wide open. 

We need to follow the wishes of the residents of Oro Valley who indicated, for instance, that splash pads and pump tracks tracks were rated below 50% in the statistically valid survey. Now they are priories. Why? We need to recognize, as did the respondents to the Town survey, that a higher priority is to maintain and enhance what we already have in our parks.

Going into debit without asking Oro Valley residents was and always will be the wrong thing to do. 

Now that we have this debt, we as residents, need to make our voices heard as to a budget for the Naranja Park expansion. Budgets need priorities—residents need to be willing to come forward and make their priorities known. That is what Oro Valley needs. We do not need a group of officials telling us what we need; we need Oro Valley residents telling Council what we need and what to do.
- - - 
Charlie Hurt is a candidate for Oro Valley Town Council in the upcoming primary, August 2. He has lived in Oro Valley for 16 years. He is a former member and chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission and a former member and chair of the Water Utility Commission.

DeSimone: Oro Valley Is A Town of "OK"

Not a "Town of Excellence" when it comes to maintaining Naranja Park

The Town of Oro Valley calls itself a "Town Of Excellence." Oro Valley resident Chris DeSimone disagrees. It a "Town of OK".

DeSimone is host of the weekday morning show: Wake Up Tucson. He expressed this view in his remarks to council in March.  He reemphasized it at last night's Oro Valley Town Council meeting.

In March, DeSimone pointed to what he termed “the poor conditions of the fields at Naranja Park” after use on a holiday weekend. At that time, Mayor Winfield directed the town manager to look into it. She responded with a three-page memo that explains this and other matters.

DeSimone read portions of that response at last night's meeting.

Town Manager Jacobs: "The playing fields at Naranja Park are not in the condition we would like them to be"

In the memo, Jacobs identified two reasons why the Naranja Park fields are not in good condition at all times: First, “Naranja [Park] fields are over used... The condition of the turf is largely a function of overuse and lack of down time for remedial work.” The fields were overused because they were fully booked on the holiday weekend to which DeSimone referred. It is the town that does the booking.

Second, the fields are difficult to maintain. They are difficult to maintain because they are built on a sand substrate. When the turf is punched through, the sand comes up. (See panel right)

Jacobs: Problem of overuse will be solved with two new fields

According to Jacobs, the problem will be solved with the addition of the two new fields that are being built at the park.  

We fail to understand the logic of this because these fields will be also be sand substate based. In addition, the added fields will also bring added visitors, which is what the town has stated it wants to do to drive economic activity.  More fields=more use= more visitors.

Two  staff were assigned to maintain all town parks facilities on a "fully booked" weekend

DeSimone also complained about garbage that was left on the field after the holiday weekend. According to Jacobs, that “weekend was a very busy weekend for Naranja Park and Oro Valley as a whole. Every sports field throughout our Parks and Recreation system was booked.” Two staff were on duty to maintain all of the towns facilities over that weekend. Despite that, “we were unable to address all facilities and events to the standards we expect.”

Jacobs offers no solution other than saying that our towns are parks are very popular.

The solution, of course, is to schedule less use of our parks on those very busy weekends or to employ the staff needed to maintain the fields in busy times.

New fields and high standards means more cost

The town of Oro Valley has embarked on a plan to substantially increase its Naranja Park sports facilities. The town is spending millions to build new fields. The Naranja Park fields and the Naranja Park facility will need to be maintained at a very high level to meet Oro Valley's historically high standards. This will come at high cost.

- - -

Naranja Park... Building Over Time... Meeting Resident Needs

Naranja Park: A long time in coming
The Oro Valley Town Council approved a plan to develop Naranja Park on November 6, 2013.  This happened after eleven years of wrangling on the part of six town councils and hundreds of residents and non residents on what to put there.

The goal was always to build a regional park out of the 213 acre site: A former crushed rock, sand, gravel, hot-mix asphalt, and ready-mixed concrete facility owned by CalMat.  The town acquired the land in purchases in 1996 and 2000. (Source: 11-7-2017 Town of Oro Valley press release)

There had been thirteen years of thoroughly vetted and eventually rejected grandiose master plans. The amounts of $154 million and $48.6 million were bandied about to pay for what was proposed.  The voters rejected a $48.6 million bond in 2008. The idea of what to put there lay in wait. The, in 2012,  the town opened the archery range that is visible from Naranja. 

In 2013, the town council agreed to move forward with a "pay as you go" plan of $2.3 million.  The town was to bring utilities to the site and to construct: A dog park(1.1 acres) with separate areas/entrances for small and large dogs with a grass interior with dirt perimeter and a ramada in each area; two multi-sport (300' x 200' each) with turf borders and lighting; and a chip-sealed, striped and lit parking lot.

Groundbreaking was on November 27, 2014.  It was a start. Finally, an industrial eyesore was going to be something beautiful.

Then, in 2017, the town got off track again... asking residents to approve a property tax to pay for a bond of $17 million ($28 million in total cash flow) to fund ball fields at Naranja Park.  70% of the residents rejected it. Read more on that here.

  Naranja Park: Its come a long way

Today, Naranja Park has four multi-purpose (soccer) lighted fields, two dog parks, the archery range and a newly opened kids play area.  The play are features a climbing tower and rope climb (both pictured at left), zip lines, a ramada, picnic tables and seating areas. 

There is also a grass centerpiece which, unfortunately, looks like it needs some work as it is quite lumpy. The town has added paved roads and pave parking lots.  It's a work in progress.

Naranja Park: Building it the right way

Naranja Park is being created over many years, involving today's generations in what will be their park, rather than being built at one time based on the wants of one specific generation.

There's a difference in results. Look at the plans in the panel that follows (click to enlarge) These are what what has been proposed over the years.

Imagine if the town built the Naranja Park that was dreamed in 2001. There would be no soccer fields. Instead, there would be baseball and softball fields, fields that are now nicely provided at Kreigh Park. There would be no dog park. There would be no archery range.  

Imagine if it had built what was imagined in 2007. There would be a community center and tennis courts, both of which were opportunistically purchased by the town when it bought the El Conquistador golf courses in 2015.  

The 2015 plan is different from what the town proposed in Prop 454.

And , if the town had moved in any of these directions, it would have been saddled residents with significant bond debt that would last yet another twenty years from now.  Instead, the town has taken a steadier approach, incurring no debt.

Let's hope that the town stays the course because things are shaping up nicely.

---

Visit the town site to learn more about Naranja Park.

The Solomon Chronicles. Part 1. Favoritism.

With the Town Council election on the horizon, LOVE will be presenting a series of articles entitled, “The Solomon Chronicles,” highlighting the abysmal record of Councilmember Steve Solomon who is running for re-election. This weekly series will highlight his 4-year record of incivility towards Oro Valley residents and his interdependent relationship with local developers. This series was written by a LOVE contributor and contains a synopsis of previous LOVE articles plus new information.
- - -

April 5, 2017 Town Council meeting
A $17 million bond for sports fields at Naranja Park was on the agenda, however, there was no Public Hearing scheduled for this item. As you continue reading, keep in mind that Solomon was in favor of this bond.

With no Public Hearing scheduled, two residents who wanted to speak on this issue, chose to do so during the Call to Audience. Most likely, neither were aware that you are not allowed to speak during the Call to Audience regarding an item that is on the agenda.

The first person to speak (Oro Valley resident, Karen Stratman), was opposed to the $17 million bond and the secondary property tax to pay for it. She stated that if ball fields were wanted by our residents, then they should have been a priority rather than the Town purchasing 3 golf courses.

Solomon calls a Point of Order
Ms. Stratman was quickly interrupted by Councilmember Solomon who called a Point of Order, stating that she was not allowed to speak on an agenda item during the Call to Audience. Solomon addressed the Town Attorney stating that, “She specifically mentioned the bond issue that’s on the agenda.”

Although he was correct that discussing an agenda item during the Call to Audience is not allowed, it’s what happened next that revealed his true intention in stopping her speech…and it wasn’t because he’s a stickler for enforcing Parliamentary Rules.

Solomon’s True Intentions
The next person to speak (Oro Valley resident, Ben Baker) was in favor of the $17 million bond. He opened his speech by instructing the council on the best way to convince people to vote to approve the bond, including giving specific examples of how to entice residents into voting YES.

Solomon was silent. He never interrupted this speaker. He never called a Point of Order and Mr. Baker was allowed to present his entire speech unimpeded, despite speaking on the same agenda item that Solomon had just prevented Ms. Stratman from speaking on.

Why was Solomon not consistent in asking the Town Attorney to enforce the rules? One can only conclude that it was because Mr. Baker was in favor of the $17 million Naranja Park Bond (as was Councilmember Solomon) and Solomon wanted to make sure that that speaker’s voice was heard!

This is Councilmember Solomon in action. To him, Parliamentary Rules should only apply to those who disagree with him. If you agree with him, he’s just fine with suspending the rules for you. Councilmember Solomon has never understood the simple fact that he is supposed to be a councilmember for all and not just for those who agree with him.

Appointed his crony to Planning & Zoning
Solomon also voted to appoint Don Cox to the Planning & Zoning Commission despite the council receiving letters of concern from multiple residents about Cox’s repeated inappropriate and unprofessional behavior while serving past terms on P&Z. Cox had already been reprimanded twice by the Town Attorney for his inappropriate behavior and for violating the rules for Board and Commission members. (NOTE: Cox was a vocal supporter of Steve Solomon during the 2016 election and formed a PAC that endorsed Pina-Rodman-Solomon for election. Quid pro quo?)
- - -

The Solomon Chronicles: Part 2. “Voting Record” will be published next Wednesday.

Editorial ~ The Sign Tamperer. Part 2. “The Smoking Gun”

Part 1 was published on Monday. Please scroll down to read it if you haven’t already done so.

Crime Scene Investigation
The photograph that was published was an overhead shot. A few days after it was published, three Oro Valley residents (including a former law enforcement officer using binoculars) walked the site of the “crime” and could not find a camera attached to either a pole or a building that could have taken the picture from the angle at which it was taken (from above and to the right of the sign).

A security camera on the old Sports Authority building was aimed at the parking lot, not at the area with the sign. This camera was tested nonetheless and found to be inactive. So what happened to the “surveillance” camera? Who put it there, when, and why? It appears to have been removed right after the picture was taken. This leads us to wonder if this “crime” was a staged event.

The Smoking Gun
Also of interest is who filed the complaint. The person who made and posted the sign should be the one who filed the complaint since they are claiming that the sign was their property. This means that the OVPD now knows the identity of the person who deliberately posted many of those same signs directly in front of Axe the Tax signs in an effort to block them from view. This is a Class 2 misdemeanor under ARS 16-1019. Why hasn’t the OVPD issued a citation against them?

Collusion?
Axe the Tax dealt with sign issues for weeks…stolen signs, signs found thrown in a wash, signs bent in half, signs covered by “Why Ax Kids Sports?” signs deliberately placed directly in front of them.

In these instances, the State Statute does apply since these signs were paid for and placed by a PAC. (Axe the Tax PAC).

It’s suspicious that the OVPD turned this “non-story” into front page news and that they pulled this stunt just one week before the election, just in time to make the last issue of the Explorer before election day. Was the OVPD (via marching orders from the mayor) colluding with the Yes on 454 folks to damage the character and credibility of Axe the Tax supporters in a last ditch effort to garner more votes for their $28 million dollar “desperately needed ball fields?”

After all, similar stunts have been pulled in past Oro Valley elections. Remember the “Lou Waters was assaulted by a ream of paper” story that they pulled out during the 2015 Recall Election in order to smear the character of the challengers? That case went to court. Waters lost. We have to wonder what ploys they will conjure up this year in order to tip the scales in their favor for the Town Council election in August.

It bears repeating
We will end Part 2 of this article the same way we ended Part 1. This whole thing smacks of political maneuvering and LOVE does not take kindly to our police being involved in politics.

Editorial ~ The Sign Tamperer. Part 1.

With another Town election coming up in August as the mayor and three Town Council members run for a third term, LOVE would like to report on a campaign problem that is likely to rear it’s ugly head again in a few short months.

Background
Back in early November 2017, many of you saw the photo on the front page of the Explorer of a person who was allegedly seen tampering with a “Why Ax Kids Sports?” sign near the intersection of First and Oracle. The caption accompanying the photo indicated that the “OVPD is asking for the public’s help with a criminal damage investigation.” This seemed a little excessive considering that the sign was not an official campaign sign protected under Arizona State law, but rather, would be considered the equivalent of a Yard Sale sign.

Who’s the Boss?
After you read this article, ask yourself these questions:

• Why is the OVPD putting this much time, effort, manpower, and taxpayer money into investigating the equivalent of someone tampering with a homemade “Yard Sale” sign?

• Does this merit a 3-month long (and counting) investigation? Why are they going to such great lengths to find the “perpetrator” when no campaign laws were violated? Don’t our police have more important things to do?

•Who’s orchestrating this?

• Would the police launch a “criminal damage investigation” if someone had tampered with a Yard Sale sign? Would they post a picture of the person on the OVPD Facebook page AND on the front page of the Explorer newspaper asking for the public’s help in finding this person? Of course not. So why did they do it in this instance?

• Why are they maneuvering to keep the Police Report from the public?

OVPD Withholds release of Police Report
LOVE wanted to report on this story back in November, but in order to report the whole story, we needed to obtain a copy of the Police Report. One of our LOVE readers has been trying to obtain this report since November. The OVPD initially said that it couldn’t be released until the investigation was closed. When the case was finally closed in mid-January and the LOVE reader attempted once again to obtain a copy of the report, the case was suddenly reopened because “new information has been obtained in furtherance of the investigation.”

It’s suspicious that new information was obtained which bars the release of the report just as the report was about to be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Someone does not want that file to be released.

After waiting patiently for more than three months, LOVE has decided to report on what we know at this time. We’re also reporting on it now because the repeated delays in releasing the Police Report have become a story all on its own.

Why is this story important?
The etiology of the complaint is an important piece of this investigation. The owner of the “property” must be known and identified for any item to be considered “property” under law. Additionally, no complaint is valid or actionable by law enforcement unless a complaint is filed by that “property” owner. Once a complaint is filed, it is required to be disclosed upon any request under Federal FOIA and Arizona Public Records law.

During the Naranja Park Bond election, numerous “Why Ax Kids Sports?” signs were illegally placed directly in front of campaign signs that had been posted by the Axe the Tax PAC. Axe the Tax filed a complaint with the Town. When contacted by the Town Clerk about the illegal placement of these signs [a Class 2 misdemeanor under ARS 16-1019] the Yes on 454 PAC claimed that these signs did not belong to them.

Being that there was no “Paid for by…..” disclosure statement on the signs, it appeared that they were placed by an individual who was not associated with any political action committee. Therefore, it was assumed that they did not belong to the YES on 454 PAC.

Irresponsible Allocation of Town Resources
Since no campaign laws were violated, the amount of time and effort being spent on this investigation is disproportionate to the “crime” that was allegedly committed. The question remains…why? This whole thing smacks of political maneuvering and LOVE does not take kindly to our police being involved in politics.

Part 2 will be published on Wednesday.

The Surprise of the Prop 454 Election (Part 2)

Yesterday we expressed our surprise on the Prop 454 Election vote. We were surprised that 71.4% of the voters rejected the proposal to fund an acceleration of the construction of Naranja Park. This rejection exceeded the 58% no vote in 2008, when voters opined on a much more expansive Naranja Park bond proposal.

So, we ask:  Why was the 'no' vote more resounding this time around?

Here's our analysis:

Prop 400 had something for everyone. Prop 454 did not. 

Council Member Joe Hornat observed during a council meeting in 2015 that the only way to get voter bond approval for Naranja Park was to include something for everyone. Prop 454 was not that. It was a limited purpose bond. It was a bond that focused on one part of the resident population, families with children who play sports and a handful of senior softball players; and on the building of infrastructure. That's it. On the other hand, Prop 400 had goodies for many, including a theatre for performing arts and a community-type center. Even with that, it was rejected by the voters but not by as large a margin. 

Prop 400 was an "all or nothing deal" for Naranja Park, whereas Prop 454 impacted only the timing of Naranja Park development 

No compelling reason was presented to support accelerating building the fields at Naranja Park. The current council had formulated a plan to build the park on a "pay as you go basis." That presents no visible burden on the voter. Besides, sometimes, as we tell our kids, you will just have to wait for that new smart phone!     

The "AXE" PAC made a difference 

There were two PAC's participating in this election. There were none in 2008. Perhaps the "Axethetaxov" PAC was more effective than the "Yes On 454" PAC in reaching the voter. This despite the fact that "Yes on 454" outspent the "AxetheTaxov" Pac by 15:1! Big money special interests bet on a win in 2017. There were no special interest donations in 2008. Perhaps voters were turned off when they learned that the "Yes On 454" PAC got 76% of its money, some $35,000, from the development community. This is the same development community that has poured hundreds of thousands into the election of current council members. Of even more significance, however, was that the "Yes On 454" PAC received less than 1% of its donations from the public, including from the very people who would benefit from the approval. Of further interest: No sports organizations donated to the PAC. In fact, the Yes PAC returned a $250 donation that they received from Little League Baseball. 

'No' on Prop 454 Voters were far more energized 

There were 2,184 more votes in total cast in 2008 than in 2017. The decrease in the number of votes cast is directly related to the 3,100 fewer votes cast in favor of the bond. On the other hand, there were more 'no' votes in total in 2017 than in 2008: 11,565 and 10,669 respectively. 

Those are some of our initial thoughts. 

Please write us (see comment form on right panel) to let us know what you think.

---

Naranja Park Bond Fails

As of 11 PM Tuesday evening (election night), the results of the Naranja Park Bond were as follows:

YES   4,504 votes    28%

NO   11,565 votes    72%

Our thanks to our readers who took the time and effort to submit Guest Views on this topic and our sincere gratitude to all of our writers, reporters, and researchers for working so diligently on providing us information on this topic. We couldn't have reported the facts without you!

You can read all of the election results HERE.

Reminder: Tuesday, November 7th is Election Day!

The information below was taken from an article that previously appeared on LOVE.

Last chance to have your voice heard on the $28 million dollar Naranja Park Bond

If you are planning to vote in person on Tuesday on the $17 million dollar Naranja Park Bond (that will end up costing Oro Valley homeowners a total of $28 million), please keep the previous grossly oversold misadventures of the Town of Oro Valley in mind:

A LEGACY OF FAILURE

Oro Valley Marketplace ~ Cost to Taxpayers

$23.2 million in sales tax revenue “shared” with developer Vestar for Oro Valley Marketplace for what was promised to be an upscale and unique mall but turned out to be a discount chain store mall with a 47% vacancy rate.

Community Center and Golf Courses ~ Cost to Taxpayers

$1 million to purchase the Community Center and Golf Courses from developer HSL
$1.2 million transferred from the General Fund Contingency to the Community Center Fund
$350,000 transferred from the General Fund into the Community Center Fund
$4.3 million in sales tax revenues since 2015 directed to the Community Center Fund
$50,000 to hire consultants to make recommendations to improve town-owned golf and restaurant operations

Total Cost: $30 million dollars

Expect the Naranja Park Bond to be another grossly oversold misadventure. We hope that Oro Valley voters will be smart enough to not get fooled again by all of the pie-in-the-sky claims of those who stand to gain from taking YOUR money.

UPDATE: Naranja Park Bond Campaign Finance Reports

Since LOVE’s last report on the campaign finances of “Axe the Tax” and “YES on 454,” the following donations to both PAC’s have been reported to the town:

Additional contributors to YES on 454 include:

$1,100 from individuals contributing more than $50.00
Zero from individuals contributing $50.00 or less

Once again, there are no contributions from the parents or coaches who are crying about “the desperately needed fields.”

$2,500 from Diamond Ventures
$2,500 from Southwest DVI Properties (another Diamond Ventures entity)
$100 from Tim Overton, Banker at Vantage West Credit Union
$1,000 from William Walker, Owner WLB Engineering

TOTAL $6,100

NOTE: WLB is the development group that represents landowners in the majority of new home and commercial developments in Oro Valley. They frequently appear before council to request land use changes (to the voter-approved General Plan), rezoning requests, and grading waivers to accommodate their residential and commercial developments. (e.g. Big Wash General Plan Amendment, LaCholla Major General Plan Amendments, Estates at Capella, Saguaro Viejos, Sanctuary at Silverhawke).

Of note also is that Oro Valley Little League Baseball donated $250 which was later refunded back to them. Was this because all the “big league players” donated so much money that the Little League group didn’t feel a need to contribute to their own cause?

Additional contributors to Axe the Tax include:

$417.22 from individuals contributing $50.00 or less
$482.52 from individuals contributing more than $50.00*
$96.80 from Toggle Enterprises, LLC

TOTAL $996.54

*Three of the individuals are Oro Valley residents and one is from Tucson.

You can read the previous LOVE article on the campaign finances of Axe the Tax and Yes on 454 HERE

Mayor Hiremath's View of Sports Tourism In Oro Valley

Mayor Hiremath discussed Oro Valley's sports tourism objective in his 2017 "State of The Town" Speech.  In these remarks, Mayor Hiremath defines Prop 454 as an economic development initiative. The following is excerpted from his speech.
---
“Earlier this year, members of the community—including youth sport parents, athletes and Oro Valley user groups—asked Council to take action to construct additional sport fields at Naranja Park. While the Town Council adopted a 2015 Naranja Park Master Plan, our pay‐as‐you‐go approach to phased development was progressing too slowly to keep pace with user demand. So, after many conversations with user groups, stakeholders and a design firm, a proposal that meets the community’s request was presented, along with a plan for financing.

The proposal is a partial build‐out of the Master Plan, and includes only the elements that the community and park user groups have identified as being in greatest demand. The project would be funded through the issuance and sale of $17 million in general obligation bonds to be repaid through a secondary property tax, which sunsets after 20 years.

By law, Town Council cannot impose a property tax—only the voters can. So, this November, Oro Valley voters will decide on Prop 454.

I’m not going to advocate that you vote for or against this bond. But I am going to advocate that you learn the facts of Prop 454 so that you can make an informed decision on Election Day. Please visit the Town’s website to learn what’s included in the project and what it will mean for Oro Valley taxpayers. The fact that this item is even on the ballot for voter consideration is a direct result of Council’s willingness to adapt to the community’s needs. Whether or not it passes will be entirely up to the voters.

And in case you hadn’t heard: Major League Soccer has arrived in Oro Valley!

Thanks to our ongoing partnership with FC Tucson, the Hilton Resort and Visit Tucson, Major League Soccer rolled into Naranja Park in 2016 with Sporting Kansas City and Columbus Crew. And earlier this year, the New York Red Bulls used our fields for practice, and put on a free scrimmage game against FC Tucson.

I am pleased to announce that Major League Soccer will once again return to Naranja Park in 2018!

And here’s some news hot off the press: I’ve just learned that the finish line for the 2018 Tucson Marathon will now be right here, in Oro Valley.

Whether you’re a sports fan or not, it’s important to remember that these major events are coming to Oro Valley because we have invested in the development of recreational facilities that are of such high quality, they meet the standards for national competition, and when they aren’t in use for competition, our residents have daily access to those very same, world‐class facilities.

More importantly, sports tourism is a 9 BILLION dollar industry nationwide. These events bring thousands of athletes and guests into our hotels, restaurants and shops, where their sales tax and bed tax dollars are invested right back into the Town of Oro Valley.

That translates into financial resources to fund Town services and amenities. This is why the Town of Oro Valley continues to invest in economic development opportunities that support our businesses and attract visitors, all while simultaneously improving quality of life for our residents.”

Source: "2017 State of the Town" Speech
---

Prop 454: It's All About Sports Tourism

The term "sports tourism" has been bandied about in Oro Valley.  It is used when people refer to the Aquatic Center; the tennis courts at the El Conquistador Country Club; and now Naranja Park-Prop 454.

By now you should have read enough on LOVE's pages to know exactly what Prop 454 is. Our shorthand version: It is a property tax to pay for a bond whose proceeds will be used to accelerate the development of Naranja Park.

The effort to convince residents to vote "Yes" is funded entirely by the development community. This funding includes the "usual suspects" who funded the campaigns of current council members. The driver behind the effort, as unveiled on LOVE, is Mayor Hiremath. From personal experience, we know that he does not always tell you everything you need to know in order to make an informed decision.

So, what if this accelerated development isn't really about us, the residents having an opportunity to use these parks. What if it's really about making Oro Valley a sports tourism destination. In other words, it may not be about the "kids" at all. It may be about "...takin' care of business."

In October of 2014, the late Bill Adler opined his thoughts on sports tourism in Oro Valley at a council meeting. We thought you would want to hear his words.  Bill was a 'patriot' for Oro Valley. He believed that town government should be about serving residents above all else.

In speaking of the plans the town had constructed for Naranja Park, Bill pondered:

"Is the objective [of Naranja Park] to serve people who live here or is the objective to create an economic development incentive to create revenue. I think these are two different things."

We know what sports tourism means to Oro Valley. We have an aquatic center. It is used by a handful of residents at a fairly high cost per season. It is also used for swim meets. And, of course, there the annual Oro Valley Triathalon is staged there. For the ordinary Oro Valley citizen, however, the aquatic center has no direct value.

So what of these improvements at Naranja Park?

Will they too be used by only a handful or residents and sports teams?

We don't know. We can, however, look to other communities. The town of Westfield, Indiana spent millions on sports fields so that they could become a "sports tourism" destination. Residents are disillusioned because they can't use the fields unless they are part of an organized effort. In addition, the facility has fallen far short of revenue projections such that the town has had to support it to the tune of $6 million out of pocket in one year!  Read about their dilemma. Losses like this when added to the losses of the Oro Valley Community Center money pit would be disastrous!

So, vote as you wish; but just be aware the "things are not always what they appear to be.

Tomorrow: Sports Tourism In Mayor Hiremath's own words
---

A Message from Axe the Tax regarding Naranja Park Bond Campaign Contributions

Lets take a look at who’s really supporting this cause.
There are signs all over town proclaiming “It’s for the kids.” There are “Why axe kids sports?” signs. There are “454 4 kids” signs that are designed to pull at your heartstrings by being designed to look like they were painted by the children.

At Town Council meetings earlier this year, kids were rounded up and sitting in council chambers wearing their sports uniforms. Many parents and coaches spoke up in an emotional plea to give the kids a place to play; a place in Oro Valley to call their own.

But how many parents and coaches contributed to the Yes on 454 PAC? How many parents contributed to the “It’s for the kids” campaign?

Sadly, not one of these parents has given more than $50.00 to the Yes on 454 campaign. In fact, the total amount of under $50.00 donations amounts to…..wait for it…..just $50.00. If the parents of all of these children gave a combined total of just $50.00, how important can sports fields possibly be to these parents?

Even more enlightening is the amount of donations from developers and businesses that most likely hope to profit, in one way or another, from the building of this park.

The list of contributors to Yes on 454:

Now let’s look at who funded the Axe the Tax PAC.
Here’s the breakdown of donations to the Axe the Tax PAC. These aren’t “get off of my lawn” curmudgeons. These aren’t people who hate kids. These are people who advocate using a pay-as-you-go approach to the build-out of Naranja Park.

These are people who understand the real drivers behind Prop 454…that the $17 MM bond is just Phase I and more than half of it ($8.2 million) is for the building of the infrastructure for the future Event Center (which isn’t included in this bond and is covered over in gray on the map that the Town released.) The Event Center is slated for construction with a second bond in the future.

The list of contributors to Axe the Tax:

Axe the Tax Chairman, Jim Horn, stated it best in a recent press release:
“What surprised us though was the lack of donations by parents to Yes on 454…But with all the talk of ‘desperately needed park improvements’…well, the parents sure didn’t put their own money behind it. All the special interest donations make you question if its really ‘all about the kids’ or whether these major contributors are trying to influence Council votes.”

The Watchdog Report: August 2017 Community Center Financials

The Community Center financials are now posted for August 2017. The good news is that we are doing better than last August. Unfortunately, the numbers are still nothing to celebrate.

End of month balance
The Community Center Fund (CCF), the fund that was set up to collect ALL the revenues and pay ALL the expenses, ended the month with a NEGATIVE balance of -$94,456. This negative balance takes into consideration the cumulative sales tax revenues of $341,949 collected so far this fiscal year (July 1 through August 31, 2017).

Sometime during this fiscal year, this fund must also pay the $120,000 annual loan payment to the General Fund. The fund has also budgeted another $77,680 in capital outlay. Apparently making the facility ADA compliant is not in the cards for this fiscal year either because that will cost about $400,000. So this is another year where the Town's disabled citizens must utilize the loading dock to enter the Community Center. This continued lack of ADA compliance should be an embarrassment to the Town.

Revenues, Expenses, and Losses
Total revenues through August 2017 are $127,803 higher than at the same time last year, BUT the total expenses are also higher at $88,324. Even with this trend, the total losses in the CCF are $176,433 for July and August. If it were not for these losses, we could build out Naranja Park without asking for a bond and secondary property tax.

Total losses attributed to golf for August 2017 are $239,805, which is more than the cost of a Little League field. The total losses attributed to food and beverage (the Overlook Restaurant) through August 2017 are $25,701, which is equal to the cost of some playground equipment or a ramada. (Items the citizens requested in the June 2014 Parks and Recreation survey).

Show me the money

The Town’s contracted Golf Study recommended that the Town spend $7 million dollars to transition the Pusch Ridge course to a 12-hole par three course and transition the remaining 36 holes of golf to 27 holes.

With the continued negative balance in the Community Center Fund, where is this money going to come from? Where is the money needed to make the Community Center ADA compliant going to come from? Where is the mandated $120,000 annual pay back to the General Fund going to come from?

The “Cohesive” Council needs to make a decision
So as you can see, even though the numbers are better this August than last August, there is little reason to rejoice. As a result of the very unwise vote by 4 members of the current Council to purchase the Community Center and Golf Courses, the existing Council has to make some tough decisions and they need to do so ASAP. Pushing a Property Tax on the homeowners of Oro Valley is not the answer, and as we’ve stated previously on LOVE, it amounts to punishing the taxpayer for the sins of the council.

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 in 1969. He worked as an Air Traffic Controller for 30 years. He and his wife moved to Oro Valley after retiring in 1998. Mike served on the Oro Valley Development Review Board from 2005-2009, the Board of Adjustment from 2011-2012, and the Town Council from 2012-2016. During his time on council, he was named as one of 23 Leadership Fellows 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.

Behind the Scenes of the Naranja Park Bond

How many times have we heard from the Town Council and the Town Staff that it was the Oro Valley Sports Alliance and the parents of youth athletes who came to them requesting that they find a way to fund new ball fields?

This assertion was made by various council members during multiple Town Council meetings beginning in February 2017. It was stated again during the Town’s slide show presentation at the September 13th Naranja Park Bond Open House. One of the slides shown stated the following:

"When did the community make this request?

At the February 15, 2017 Council Meeting, members of the community – including youth sport parents, athletes, and Oro Valley user groups – asked Council to accelerate the development of additional sport fields to meet user demand.”

Your recent water bill also included a flyer from the Town entitled, “Prop 454/Naranja Park Bond 2017.” That flyer states:

“The community spoke and we listened.”

Rumors began circulating that there was much more to the story
Rumors have been circulating for months that it was actually the mayor who initiated this plan rather than the Oro Valley Sports Alliance and the parents of youth athletes. According to the rumor, the mayor wanted to build a sports complex and event center at Naranja Park but he wanted the initial request to come from the athletic community in the form of a request for ball fields. Once that was on the table, the plan would be altered to include a sports complex and event center.

Residents were told that the request for new ball fields was first brought to the council’s attention in February 2017. However, LOVE was recently presented with some new information that shows, once again, that the town is not telling you the whole truth.

Oro Valley Little League Website reveals the truth
On December 15, 2016, Oro Valley Little League (OVLL) President, Ben Weege, wrote the following on the OVLL website:

There are new developments regarding the possible construction of baseball fields at Naranja Park. The town council recently reached out to our league and community requesting signatures in support of the project. This turn of events is very exciting news, as so many volunteers have worked tirelessly to help make baseball at Naranja a reality.

OVLL now asks for your support. Mayor Hiremath told me personally that the Council is also exploring the addition of soccer fields as well, so let’s get to work! Signatures from residents of Tucson and other surrounding communities are valid and highly encouraged. (A link to a petition site was included.)

On December 28, 2016, Ben Weege wrote the following update on the OVLL website:

Mayor Hiremath has requested Oro Valley Little League’s signed petitions preferably by January 3rd so that they might be available for the town council’s next meeting January 4th.

So according to the Town, it was the youth athletes, coaches, and parents who reached out to the Town Council. According to the president of the Oro Valley Little League, it was actually the Town Council who reached out to the Little League. Additionally, the mayor also chose the deadline for when the petitions should be submitted. (NOTE: Of the approx. 10,000 signatures obtained on the petition, only 168 of them were from residents of Oro Valley!)

Our Gang
An Oro Valley resident recently referred to the Town Council as “The Gang who can’t spend straight.” Apparently they’re also “The Gang who can’t get their stories straight.” It looks like it was the mayor and council, rather than the OVLL, who initiated the action that led to the $17 million dollar Naranja Park Bond and the secondary property tax to fund it.

You can read the above-mentioned postings from Oro Valley Little League website HERE

Guest View: Ally Miller ~ Bond Notice and Disclosures to Voters

This posting is a clarification and expansion of Supervisor Miller’s earlier email that was posted on LOVE last Tuesday. This is being provided to help our readers more fully understand the issue. Although this information pertains to Pima County bonds, the information provided ties in to the upcoming Naranja Park Bond Election in Oro Valley.

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

After the 2015 Pima County Bond Election which included 7 bond propositions, I realized that reform was needed of State Statutes governing the bond notice and disclosures to the voters. These disclosures are provided via the Publicity Pamphlet for bond elections. I worked with State Representative Vince Leach to draft the legislation to update Arizona Revised Statute 35-454. Representative Leach ran this bill twice and it was killed by the lobbyists who didn’t support improved transparency to the voters.

I identified 3 deficiencies in the existing Statutes governing disclosures to voters:

1. Interest rates are not calculated at the maximum rate
The "estimated" bond payments provided to the voters weren’t shown at the maximum interest rate that voters were being asked to approve. In the upcoming Oro Valley Naranja Park Bond election, the estimated payment is calculated using a 5% interest rate. However, voters will actually be approving an interest rate up to 7%. The proposed amendments to the statutes would have required the payment to be calculated with 7% interest and disclosed to the voters.

2. Project Lists and Maps are Non-binding
Most voters believe that maps and project lists are binding. They are NOT. The town will be held to the “Purposes” only.   In the upcoming Oro Valley Bond Election, the purposes are listed as: Parks, Open space and recreational bonds. Any spending that falls within those categories is appropriate and legal to spend the monies on.

The 2013 Audit of Pima County Bonds clearly shows how monies can be moved around as well as showing projects which were canceled altogether.

You can access the link to the Pima County Audit HERE

Go to Appendix D, Table 8, “Project Changes: Reasons for changes in bond proceeds allocated to projects or changes in project timing, May 1998 through May 2012” towards the end of the document (Pages 52- 57). This is the list from the auditor showing all the monies that were moved into or out of bond projects. You will see many projects that were never done due to millions of dollars that were moved to other projects.

For example, you will see on the last page of Table 8 that the money from a previous Pima County NARANJA PARK project ($2.9 million) was taken away due to “Proceeds moved to cover costs in another project.”

3. Operations and Maintenance Costs are not included
Voters often don’t think about additional costs that come with Bond Projects. Operations and maintenance costs are not part of the disclosure to voters. My bill would have required a statement that primary tax rates could increase as a result of bond passage. Operations and maintenance costs typically start out low and increase over time as projects age.

I believe transparency to the voters is critical and that knowledge is power. I am hoping this bill will be presented at the state legislature again. In the meantime, I believe it is important for elected officials to provide the information to you so that you make an informed decision when you vote.

Ally Miller is a Pima County Supervisor in District 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Editor’s Note: As noted in the article, the $3 million dollars that was transferred from a previous Pima County Bond from Naranja Park to another park appears to be the type of bait and switch that Supervisor Miller was referring to in her email of last week, published on LOVE, entitled, “Ally Miller Cautions Voters on Naranja Park Bond.”

Ally Miller cautions voters on the Naranja Park Bond. The Devil is in the Details.

We recently received an email from Pima County Supervisor, Ally Miller, with her thoughts on the Naranja Park Bond. Ally has worked with State Representative Vince Leach on bills to clean up the laws for Publicity Pamphlets sent out to voters because they are misleading. Unfortunately, lobbyists have twice killed these bills.

Below is a portion of that email:

……………………

Below are some of the things that I noticed in the Publicity Pamphlet for Oro Valley’s Naranja Park Bond. These are the issues that everyone should understand and question.

1. PURPOSE: “Parks, Open Space and Recreational bonds”

These monies can be used on any parks, for purchase of open space, and any recreational purpose.

The list of amenities and all the renderings listed are nonbinding. The PURPOSE stated above is the only binding use of these funds.

If you want clarity…it must be stated in the PURPOSE.

2. Voters are approving up to 7% per annum Interest Rate.

The calculations were done using a 5% per annum interest rate. Ask the Town for the calculations at the 7% interest rate that voters are being asked to approve. 2% will make a huge difference. (My bill would have required them to show the calculation at the maximum interest rate).

3. They list the average cost per year for a homeowner with a $250K home as well as the estimated cost over 20 years. However, for the 20 year cost, they simply multiplied year-1 times 20 years.

This assumes that your valuation stays at $250K for the entire 20 years.


One of the things that Chuck Huckelberry (Pima County Administrator) does to garner support for bonds (and I will use a Parks and Recreation bond to illustrate) is that he will list every park in the county and list $1 million for each park. This sounds great to voters. They think, “My park will get some improvements. You’ve got my vote.”

Then after the election, he uses all the bond money for one park. Voters are outraged. An audit is ordered but of course it passes with flying colors. Why? Because the audit is focused only on the bond PURPOSE listed in the Publicity Pamphlet.

Allyson Miller
Pima County Supervisor

You can read the Naranja Bond Publicity Pamphlet HERE