FOPRG to Honor Rick Messina
“The Friends of Pusch Ridge Golf partnered with the El Conquistador Golf team to create a tranquility garden at the top of the fourth hole in honor of Rick Messina, our beloved groundskeeper, who we lost last summer. Many generous Friends donated succulents of all varieties that have been planted, while others contributed funds for colorful pots and flagstone. Our community is abundant with thoughtful and generous humans.” (Source: FOPRG Newsletter)


2024 Oro Valley External Financial Audit in Process
According to Town Finance Director David Gephart: “Our auditors were here the first week of this month for fieldwork, and they finished up on Thursday afternoon. There were no real findings or issues; just a couple of minor follow-up items we’re working on with them. We’re in the process of drafting our [annual report] and look forward to completing and wrapping up that process for the last fiscal year.” (Source: Budget and Finance Commission Meeting, 10-15-24)

Winfield to Deliver Oro Valley’s 23rd Annual State of the Town, Oct. 31
“Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield will deliver his sixth State of the Town Address on Thursday, Oct. 31, 2024, at El Conquistador Tucson, a Hilton Resort. The luncheon, a ticketed event hosted by the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, will begin at 11:30 a.m. Mayor Winfield will reflect on the Town’s successful initiatives, projects, and partnerships over the past year—including the celebration of Oro Valley’s 50th anniversary—while sharing his vision and optimism for the Town’s future.” (Source: Town of Oro Valley Media Release)

Update on the “Shot Clock”
Several weeks ago, we discussed the state-mandated shot clock on zoning requests that the town must implement by January. That article was based on a study session with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This past Wednesday, at the Oro Valley Town Council meeting, the council emphasized the need for a clear definition of when an application is deemed “administratively complete” to ensure consistency. The council raised concerns about the new timeframe potentially limiting the ability to address resident feedback thoroughly, while also considering a six-month cap on applicant-requested extensions to avoid indefinite delays. Additionally, council members noted that changes to legal protest requirements under the new law might increase the number of rezoning cases requiring a council vote, potentially amplifying resident input. As the January implementation deadline approaches, the council aims to refine these amendments to maintain a balanced rezoning process that meets state requirements and local needs.

Things to do this weekend

Well, it's getting cooler thank goodness. Tonight, there’s a Parents’ Night Out at Steam Pump Ranch, where kids can enjoy games and crafts while parents take the evening off. Might be fun to take a movie at Steam Pump Ranch tomorrow night at 6 o'clock. "The movie will be shown on the lush lawn at the ranch and attendees are welcome to bring blankets and chairs. This event will feature the 1993 Halloween themed family comedy, Hocus Pocus and a few spooky crafts for the kiddos." It is free to all. And Sunday there's a concert sponsored by the southern Arizona arts Council (SAACA).  It runs from 4 to 6 PM and we think it's at Riverfront Park. (unfortunately the website does not list specific location.)  Enjoy!

State Mandated Rezoning “Shot Clock” Could Speed Up Oro Valley Rezoning Requests If…

Today, a rezoning request in Oro Valley could drag on indefinitely. The OVCN request is an example
For the past two years, the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (OVCN) has been working on a rezoning request that has seen multiple revisions. Their original proposal, which included a full sports complex, sparked strong reactions from the community. Since March 28, 2022, there have been 48 separate articles reporting on their plans, and although the details have changed, OVCN has never backed away from including some kind of sports facility on the property.

What has added to the frustration for many residents is the involvement of town staff in this process. While town staff may not be directly guiding OVCN’s plans, they have been advising the church throughout the various iterations of their proposal. In some instances, a senior member of the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) staff reportedly reached out to local residents, asking what would be needed for them to support the project.

This level of involvement goes beyond what most expect from town staff, who should be neutral arbiters, not advocates for a project. The continuous revisions and prolonged negotiations have allowed the rezoning process to drag on with no clear resolution in sight.

One would hope the new State madated “Shot Clock” Law would fix this
The recently passed Senate Bill 1162 adds a “shot clock” for rezoning applications. Under the new law, Oro Valley will have to decide whether a rezoning application is complete within 30 days. If it isn’t, staff must provide detailed feedback, and once the application is resubmitted, the town has just 15 days to confirm it is complete. After that, the town has 180 days to approve or deny the application. Extensions are allowed only for extenuating circumstances or at the applicant’s request, but even then, they are limited in duration.

This could be a game change for a town like Oro Valley, where rezoning requests have often become lengthy, drawn-out affairs
Rezoning requests can sit in the queue only to be revised again and again as developers and town staff craft and modify proposals based on two neighborhood meetings, one or two Planning and Zoning Commission reviews, and a Town Council hearing. The OVCN rezoning is just one example of how long the process can take—and that particular case hasn’t even made it to a Town Council hearing! The two years it took to develop a council-approved revitalized plan for the Oro Valley Marketplace is another example.

Loophole: It won’t be a game changer if every revision is defined to be a new submission… a restart of the “Shot Clock”
The loophole in the law is that the term “submission” is not explicitly defined in the bill. Typically, in zoning and regulatory contexts, a “submission” refers to an initial or revised application that includes all the required documents, forms, and information necessary for the application to be reviewed.

In the context of SB1162, it appears that a “submission” would be any application that is presented for review, whether it’s the initial proposal or a revised one following feedback. The law requires the municipality to determine if the application is “administratively complete,” which implies that any major revision requiring resubmission could potentially restart the clock if it is deemed a new “submission.”

It will be up to the Council to close that loophole
In Oro Valley, a rezoning request goes through a process that typically involves two neighborhood meetings. Each neighborhood meeting generally results in a revised version of the proposed rezoning request. Then, there are one and sometimes two meetings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which usually lead to more revisions. Finally, there’s a hearing in front of the Town Council. Every one of these hearings generally results in some sort of change. If each change is defined as a new submission, then the clock starts again.

It will be up to the Council to decide what constitutes a submission. If every revision is considered a new submission, then the timeline for a rezoning request could drag on indefinitely—just like it does now.

Code change will be approved by council by year end

Town staff will present their version of the updated code the Planning and Zoning Commission in severa months. Then, they will present a version to the council for approval before year end.

- - -

Guest View: Mike Zinkin – Is the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) just another Disingenuous Ordinance?

 

Chapter 27.10 of the Town Code established the ESLO
Its purpose states that: “The environmental sensitive lands (ESL) regulations implement the Oro Valley General Plan by conserving natural, scenic, hillside, and cultural resources. This has been accomplished in a comprehensive manner by accounting for environmental, archaeological and historic resources, economic development, and housing policies.”

Just as we saw in the Town’s Water Ordinance, the words mean nothing. Just as the Town preaches for its citizens to conserve water while at the same time wasting millions of gallons on golf courses, the Town preaches environmental regulations that help destroy the environment.

Town West is using a sentence in the ESLO as a vehicle to circumvent the General Plan and increase water waste.
Town Code Chapter 27.10.F.2.c.iii.h is titled, “Mixed Use.” It states that: “Residential uses that are functionally integrated, including access, nonvehicular circulation and amenities, with commercial or employment uses may be approved within commercial zoning districts.”

The Marketplace is a commercial district, therefore the ESLO potentially allows for residential use. Apartments are a form of residential use. The key words are may and potentially. This is what staff calls an ask. The decider is our elected body (the Town Council). Of course, our current Council has chosen to “kick another can down the road” by continuing this application to a future date.

Apartments and Hotels use much more water than retail and restaurants
Every store and restaurant has restrooms, and the restaurants also wash a lot of dishes. They use water... potable/drinking water. Now let’s use the ESLO and change the businesses and restaurants to apartments and hotels. Both of these entities have multiple bathrooms, showers, and dishwashers.

One can only imagine how much more water is utilized by the apartments and hotels when compared to commercial businesses and restaurants. Yet this is allowed under the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. That’s correct -- the ordinance that is supposed to conserve natural resources is being used to exponentially increase the use of natural resources.

Is this disingenuous? Why can’t our elected leaders understand this?

- - -
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: Mike Zinkin – The Hypocrisy of our Town Leaders regarding Water Conservation

 

The Town of Oro Valley town codes require smart water use

Let’s look at the Town of Oro Valley’s Water Code. It is Chapter 15 of the Town Code which can be found on the Town’s website.

• Chapter 15-18-1 states: “The intent of this article is to conserve and protect the Town’s high quality, safe and reliable water supply for the current and future needs of the community.”

• Chapter 15-18-2 (which was amended in Oct. 2021) states: “…waste, excessive use, or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that conservation of water be exercised in the interests of the Town of Oro Valley and for the public welfare.”

• Chapter 15-18-3 states: “It shall be unlawful at any time for any customer of the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility to knowingly make, cause, use or permit the use of water provided by the Town for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, irrigation or any other purpose in a manner contrary to any provisions of this code.”

• Chapter 15-18-4 discusses potable water and the ramifications of a potential declared shortage. Paragraph E states: “Priority for potable water demand shall be designated as follows:

Highest Priority -- Residential indoor domestic use and fire protection.

Second Highest Priority -- Commercial/institutional/industrial uses.

Third Highest Priority -- Public and private landscape irrigation sites, including golf courses, athletic fields and parks.

Remember, we are talking about potable water, not reclaimed water. Potable water is drinking water.

Hypocrisy: Town wastes 55 million gallons of potable water on two parks and a golf course
The Town Code discusses water conservation and the importance of potable water use. However, our town continues to waste potable water on Riverfront Park, Jim Kriegh Park, and the Pusch Ridge Golf course.

In a 12-month period, the Town used for irrigation purposes 10,586,000 gallons at Riverfront Park and 9,973,000 gallons at Jim Kriegh Park, while at Pusch Ridge it used 34,608,000 gallons. Pusch Ridge utilized over 30% more water than both parks combined.

Questionable use of bond money
So what is our Town Council doing? They are spending bond money to replace -- as a past Council majority would say, “our beautiful tennis courts,” -- with post tension courts, install another splash pad at Naranja Park, and reconstruct and expand the Community Center parking lot.

How about spending bond money for the future of the entire community? And how about we stop over seeding the parks, close the Pusch Ridge course, and supply Jim Kriegh and Riverfront parks with reclaimed water?

Do something for the future of the entire town.
- - -
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.

Town Resident Wins Town Code Change

Town staff can approve minor build setback variances

The Town council approved a resolution last week that allows towns staff to approve minor setback variances on properties. The term "minor" is a variance that is less than 10% of the required setback. 

The measure was proposed in response to a case on which LOVE reported in August. You can read about that case here. The Board of Adjustment rigorously had applied state code to reject an appeal for a 2.5 foot variance for  a garage on an historical property. The vote was 3-2.

Applies to individual residences only... not developer homes

The resolution applies to properties that are owned by individuals. So, the measure can not be applied by developers in creating new homes. Staff will make decisions on an individual basis, according to Town Planner Hannah Oden and would only approve such if there were not objections form abutters or other nearby neighbors.

According to Oden, the staff approval process puts Oro Valley in line with several other Oro Valley communities and with the county. It is also in compliance with state law. Also the individual applying for the variance can appeal a staff denial of the request to the Board of Adjustment.

(click to enlarge)

Unanimous support and approval

During the public hearing, there were no objections raised. Oro Valley homeowner Tracey Alexander, who is the owner of the home whose request was denied by the Board of Appeals, spoke in approval, thanking town staff for creating a "common sense" solution. Council members Solomon and Barrett also opined in favor of the measure. 

The measure passed unanimously.

Increases staff power.. Leaves Planning and Zoning Commission and Council out of the loop

The council decision does increase the power of staff to make Planning and Zoning decisions that impact your lives without seeking Council approval. As we wrote last week, staff can now approve, with little to no public input, the pre grading of land in Innovation Park. Grading was never allowed unless use was known and council had oversight. 

The measure did not consider making a setback variance request something that goes through the town's normal process. First, it goes to staff for review. Next, it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Finally it goes to council for final decision.

Our codes are there for a reason

In addition, this new resolution, though in line with what some other Arizona jurisdictions and allowed by state law, circumvents the intent of the original ordinance. This view was expressed by one resident in an email to some council members.

"Our Codes are there for a reason. They are there to protect the Citizens and to ensure that everyone is treated equally... If an individual desires to be treated differently, and request a variance to the code, their avenue is to go the Board of Adjustment. This is a Board of fellow citizens whose decision to allow for the requested is based on State Law." 

The problem with that in the case of a minor setback request, one that appears to make great sense, is that the criteria fo Board of Adjustment approval are very strict when applied exactly as written.

---

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Town of Oro Valley vs. First Amendment. Part 2.

In Part 1 (published yesterday) I relayed the background of what transpired shortly after I distributed LOVE flyers to attendees just prior to the start of a Town Council meeting a few months ago. Today, in Part 2, I will share the letter that I sent to the Town Clerk along with some follow-up thoughts on this latest chapter in Oro Valley politics.

My letter to the Town Clerk

Mr. Standish,

On a recent visit to the Town Hall, there was a sign in the window that read:

NOTICE

Distribution of handbills in Town Meetings prohibited

OV Town Code 10-9

I have reviewed the Town Code (Article 10-9 Handbills) and I have a few questions as some of the laws stated in this Article do not make sense and some are contradictory.

10-9-1: INTENT AND PURPOSE:
This section states that it is written "To protect the people against the health and safety menace and the expense incident to the littering of the streets and public places by the promiscuous and uncontrolled distribution of advertising matter..." I agree that littering the streets could be considered a menace, however, how would handing out flyers to individuals at town meetings who willingly accept them be considered a health and safety menace or promiscuous and uncontrolled distribution?

It goes on to say "To preserve the people's constitutional right to receive and disseminate information." This does not make sense. How is the town preserving our First Amendment right to distribute handbills at town meetings by preventing us from engaging in that right?

10-9-4: THROWING HANDBILLS IN PUBLIC PLACES PROHIBITED
This section states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to deposit, place, throw, scatter...any...handbill in or upon any public place within the town."

With regards to handing a flyer directly to a person, it says, “it shall not be unlawful for any person to hand out or distribute…any…handbill in any public place to any person willing to accept such handbill.”

10-9-7: DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS WHERE PROHIBITION PROPERLY POSTED
This section states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to distribute, deposit, place, throw, scatter...any...handbill upon any premises” if a notice is placed prohibiting this action.

Although the town has now posted a sign prohibiting the distribution of handbills, it would be impossible to enforce the distribution of a handbill to a person since Section 4 states that it is not illegal to do so if the person is willing to accept the handbill. Additionally, placing a handbill "upon any premises" would appear to include only leaving it on a counter (premises) but would not include handing it to an individual (person).

As you can see, Section 4 and Section 7 are confusing, ambiguous, and contradictory. As such, Oro Valley residents should be allowed to distribute handbills to individuals prior to the start of town meetings since, according to the Town Code, this does not appear to be an illegal action.

I am requesting that the town answer the questions in red (above) and also advise on the contradictory statements in the Town Code.

Respectfully,

Diane Peters

It’s Orwellian
Reading OV Town Code 10-9 invoked a comparison to modern day Russia where the State now controls the majority of media content. Obstructing people from something as simple as distributing handbills plays in to this kind of behavior by preventing citizens from having a voice in public matters. The words “promiscuous and uncontrolled distribution” are Orwellian in disposition.

What separates America from authoritarian regimes around the world (such as Russia, Venezuela and China) is our First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition.

Conclusions
What conclusions should we draw from the Town’s actions? Are they merely enforcing an old code or is there something more insidious going on? Why suddenly post the notice now, 15 years after its inception? Coincidence? I think not. The town felt no need to post this notice after a Hiremath supporter was handing out “I LOVE OVPD” stickers during a council meeting over a year ago.

Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project slated for the LaCholla-Naranja-Lambert-Shannon area. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Town of Oro Valley vs. First Amendment. Part 1.

Background
At a Town Council meeting a few months ago, I distributed LOVE flyers to residents as they began taking their seats. I received some looks of trepidation from the mayor and council when they entered the room to take their seats. However, no one tried to stop me from distributing the flyers because I had a right, under the First Amendment, to distribute and disseminate information to the public.

The flyer I was distributing is at right (Click on the flyer to enlarge it)

The worried looks on the faces of the mayor and council indicated that they would most likely scramble to find a way to prevent me (or anyone else) from distributing flyers at future meetings. I suspected that if there was already something in the Town Code pertaining to this practice, they would resurrect it and make it known. If there wasn’t anything currently in the Town Code covering the distribution of flyers, they would instruct staff to add it to the code.

So it came as no surprise to me when I visited the Town Hall recently, to discover that a notice prohibiting the distribution of handbills had now been posted at the entrance. It reads:

NOTICE

Distribution of handbills in

Town Meetings prohibited

Oro Valley Town Code 10-9

Research revealed that this article/section was added to the Town Code in March 2002. I moved to Oro Valley in 2003 and in all these years, I’ve never seen this notice posted at the Town Hall. It appears that the Town Council decided to resurrect this law in an attempt to prevent citizens from engaging in their First Amendment rights. As such, I recently followed up by emailing a letter to the Town Clerk (with copies to the Town Manager and Town Attorney).
---
Part 2 (including my letter) will be published tomorrow.

Oro Valley Adopts International Energy Codes

---

Last week, by a 6- 1 vote, the Oro Valley Town Council approved the family of international building codes as Oro Valley's code.  It includes the international energy codes (IECC).   Most council members did so without even reading all of the 700 plus pages that comprise the changes to Oro Valley's code.

One council member was unsure that the town staff had read all of the international and IECC code.

"I clearly do not have the time to go through these codes.  [Town staff] obviously are still trudging through them yourselves," noted Council Member Bill Garner.

Council Member Mike Zinkin noted that there were many things in the 700 pages of code that were not health and safety related.  He was referring to new energy restriction requirements.

Council Member Joe Hornat noted: “The energy thing causes me some grief.”

Council Member Garner spoke: "I’m still having heartburn and trouble over the … sustainability issue."

The "heartburn" some council members were having is this: For some, the code should focus solely on health and safety; and not mandating energy-related compliance.  For others, mandating energy-related compliance is something they feel the have the right to do based on the "general welfare" clause of the US Constitution.

In the end, only Council Member Zinkin voted against adopting the 700 pages of changes.   Two council members, Garner and Hornat, voted to approve the codes, after getting "assurances" from town staff that the code changes did not apply to existing structures.

Addressing town staff Garner noted: "Is there any way for there to be assurances for the public at least so that if something is found within the code that [town staff] weren't even aware of, that there could be some provisions written in there that there could be an appeal process that you can formally document as part of this motion..."

The response from town staff was that the code has a list of things that do not require permits and that pretty much covers anything that you are just replacing.

There was no appeal process added as part of the motion that carried.

So, you ask, why does all this matter?  Why are we so concerned?   Why should you be concerned?  After all, these regulations supposedly only impact new construction.  Let the new homeowner or those who chose to add a room suffer the burden of undue regulation.

It matters to us for two reasons. One, we will all be residents of Oro Valley, whether we own an existing home or a new home.  It is simply morally wrong to require owners of newly-built structures to suffer what some consider over-regulation and an intrusion on their property rights, while we sit idly by because the regulations do not impact us.

Second, the Council did not approve an energy element amendment to the general plan on December 11, 2012.  Yet, in one evening, without any voter approval, the IECC energy elements were added to Oro Valley code.  Town staff, supporters of the IECC codes, introduced the "energy amendment" as a code update.  And your council, trusting of town staff, and without actually doing their diligence, went along with it.

Rather than getting it right, the Oro Valley Town Council simply got it done.

Lazy. Embarrassing.  Far less that we deserve from our elected officials.
---

Oro Valley Council Considers Revising Town Codes

---

There are a number of important items on tonight's Oro Valley Town Council a meeting agenda.  The agenda includes includes a major change to the building code; presentation of the Oro Valley five-year fiscal forecast; adoption of the proposed $93.9 million budget for 2013-2014; approval of the public participation plan for the town's general plan update; and discussion of what to do with the $197,000 that remains in the Oro Valley Library fund. These funds are no longer needed for the library since  Pima County now runs a library.

Any one of these items is worthy of  an entire Council meeting.   

• Has the Council really completed discussion on the $94 million budget?  There and been two public meetings.  Are we to assume that the Council had done sufficient diligence to warrant approval? 
• Then there is the hundred pages worth of code changes, purported "updates" to the code.   Some of these have far reaching impacts on you.

"In it, 'big brother' Oro Valley sets minimum requirements for anything you can think of.  You need to put  carbon monoxide detectors in your home.  Changes will require arc fault detection in all rooms,  require that electrical outlets be put in large foyers,  increase the insulation factors in ceilings and walls, increase the insulation factor in duct work,  require automatic timers for pool heaters, require covers for heated pools, and require high-efficiency lamps for permanently installed fixtures.   

The changes require a permit for pool repairs unless the repairs do not involve electrical, mechanical and plumbing; the cost is less than $1K in a 12 month time period.  

Isn't all this worthy of detailed inspection and discussion? 

• And what of the $197,000?    It seems like some on council want to spend the money before the end of this fiscal year. Otherwise it will be carried into next year.   Why not simply transfer into the contingency fund?
• Has sufficient time been spent discussing the public participation plan?   The last time we heard about it he was just being introduced two weeks ago.

We don't know how long tonight's council meeting will run. We are more concerned with the diligence with which each item is going to be considered by Council. It it possible for Council to give thoughtful consideration of so many important items in one meeting?

---