After lengthy discussion, the OV Council approved (6-1--KC Carter"no") to go ahead with a "modified" police substation at the OV Marketplace. To hold costs down, the Emergency Operations Center is not part of the initial expenditure.
As for the Municipal Operation Center, the Council voted unanimously to continue to operate in the modular units but hold off on any additional building for at least one year.
Perhaps the most sensible thing we heard was from citizen John Musolf. A couple weeks ago, six police jobs were scheduled for layoffs. With John's assistance, funds were cut or transferred and it appears the six positions were saved.
At the meeting, John addressed the council twice and indicated, he'd rather see buildings go rather than jobs. It now appears, although curtailed, the substation will go ahead and there will be no layoffs.
How could this be? I guess if we asked John, he'd say it comes down to "creative accounting."
16 comments:
The police department has over $300k in a fund that comes from confiscated drug money. They have been using it like a slush fund. That's how they made the $22k recruitment video several months after the hiring freeze was in effect. They should be using it to save taxpayer dollars instead.
I long for the day when our police department is more in line with other communities with our demographics and population.
If I recall - OV Police are at apx 50% of town budget vs. 28% for other towns.
As for the Marketplace substation; I guess someone has to patrol the empty stores.
Will someone please answer the following question (statement):
During all of the hoopla relative to the OVM, was it not proffered that said entity would be 'giving' a sub-station to the OVPD? Now, realizing that this was most probably a 'reward' for the Economic Development Agreement of $23,000,000 as granted by Town (along with the 'puffing' of other 'credits'), and now, if in fact this was the case (as I remember it), the proposal perhaps having been put on 'hold' pending the outcome of the 'Turken vs. Gordon' case which should end or clarify EDA agreements, and, because we the TOV having been putting the Vestar 'share' in escrow/trust, IS THIS DECISION PERHAPS PREMATURE AT THIS TIME?
What happens if 'Turken vs. Gordon' (presently in the Court system) goes against Turken thus perhaps freeing up the 'impounded' funds, forcing the Town to 'hand over' the money? Wouldn't Vestar then be responsible for it's share of the original 'bargain'? There are other stipulations presently in the Arizona Constitution's 'Gift Clauses' which appear to allow for 'types' of EDA's under certain terms and conditions; what if the result of the Turken v. Gordon simply defines absolutely, that EDA's ARE acceptable 'IF'..., and, Vestar does agree to the 'IFS'? Or, if the Court's decision
goes against Turken but does, in fact, define absolutely certain responsibilities necessary for EDAs to be granted, would it be too late for Vestar and the Town to backtrack if Vestar INSISTS on fulfilling the requirements necessary?
I personally am not inherently against a type of PD substation within the above named complex, but I would like to know the 'whys' and 'hows' of it all. Both of these are big, big
questions.(I regret that I was not at the Council meeting when this issue came up as I was out of the area, so, perhaps my questions are redundant).
I know the above might be complex, but.....
ANYBODY?
Zev--- Not to over simplify anything, but Vestar agreed to give Oro Valley a facility for a cost of $1.00/year.
The fact remains that the cost to operate, man, furnish and keep this site that is "down the street" from the MOC makes no economic sense.
My point on the initial posting was that six police officer positions were saved. Now there evidently is money to keep the six positions PLUS the cost for this facility.
To me, the question is not the CityNorth litigation outcome, but "what's the advantage of this facility to OV?"
Just to add to Art's comment, the police substation is not part of the Vestar EDA, but a separate lease entered into by the Town and Vestar. The Turken v. Gordon litigation should not have an effect on the substation, or maybe only a tangental effect, as the arrangement is not written into the EDA.
Cyclone1:
While not specifically written into the EDA agreement, as there is a clause that, under certain terms and conditions, under the Arizona Constitution, EDA's might be granted if (as I read it) [something of equal value is awarded the community], is this, in our situation, any kind of a factor whatsoever? No legal expert am I, but, in essence, this is how I might interpret the 'gift'. Now, IF there was (is), in fact, an unrelated agreement for a lease in the amount of $1.00 per year for the purpose of granting the OVPD a space for a substation, how does that scenario play out in the most recent 'approval' of an OVM substation? Is this lease 'agreement' yet valid? What are the cost breakdowns AND, please, separate and list the rent in actuality.
I do not mean to complicate this issue any further than it is complicated now, but what ARE the facts. Do we get a sub-station for $1.00 per year with no strings? If so, than this could be a great deal (as it is said).
OR......
$1.00/year = quid pro quo?
Art, to simplify, what exactly would be the ADDITIONAL costs necessary to operate this facility after the 'one buck per annum' is tendered?
Zev--- Let me answer you this way. I watched the live video of the meeting, and watched it again.
There were many questions asked by council, but, in my opinion, very few answers.
I would invite anyone else who either participated in the discussion or watched the proceedings to respond to your question.
As best as I could determine, Chief Sharp indicated the annual operating costs would be $17,000. That does not include any of the upfront costs to man or furnish the facility.
Without the Emergengy Operations Center, I believe the number I heard as to costs was around $250,000.
It also appears that Vestar will soon have the "shell" ready for occupancy and Oro Valley has 90 days to occupy, or the lease can be canceled.
That may be the best solution I've heard.
The item can be watched on the streaming video on the OV web site.
Anybody have better or more detailed info, please comment.
Thanks, Art, I have a difficult time getting the 'video' on my computer; going to have it checked out. No matter, I think a lot of questions need to be addressed - rent seems outstanding, total operational and furnishings cost questionable, need is another question. Is it that if the TOV has a police presence within the OVM that therefor Vestar can disclaim any responsibility for security within the compound. Can a public entity, in this instance the OVPD, be responsible for the patrolling of a private enterprise on private property? If the patrolling IS left to the PD, then what of the TOV liabilities therefrom?
Again, anyone?
Art, with new web site got streaming video up and running - now will watch
meeting.
Zev--- Glad to know you'll have access to watching. Hopefully, you'll get more out of the discussion than I did. To me it sounded like a lot of "gibberish," with little substance.
Supposedly, Vestar will have private security, but I still see no advantage of having a police presence at their private mall PLUS being at the MOC "down the street."
Has the council, other than KC forgotten we're still in an economic downturn?
How can the council see fit to layoff ANY town employees when they decided to keep the six police officers, and now thinking about funding this substation.
If it was up to me, I'd tell Vestar what they could do with their magnanimous offer of having the police "baby sit" their mall.
Paraphrasing the lyrics of Johnny Paycheck's 1977 song---"Take this "shell" and shove it!"
The police can listen to three different forms of music all night long when they open their substation.
Country music blares out of the speakers in front of Wal*Mart, 60's music spun in front of Dick's, and soft rock near the Olive Garden. The combination of these three types of music makes for a interesting "wall of sound" all night long.
I've called the police twice but there is nothing they can do. An employee of Wal-Mart told me he feels sorry for the nearby residents and laid the blame on Vestar.
Fear, I believe that a 'noise issue' at OVM was discussed at a Town Council meeting some time ago relative to construction goings-on.
If memory serves me correctly, it was revealed that the OVPD (yes the very same PD that needs all of the staff and stuff that costs the Town a bundle)cannot enforce a complaint that has to do with a civil violation. Sooooo, I recommend that those of you who are affected by the noise you describe file a complaint with the Town Manager's office with a copy to Zoning and the Town Attorney; perhaps that'll work. Ironically, because of a sound issue relative to the residents across the highway, and because the State is using Federal funds for the work on expanding Oracle Road, we get an obnoxious sound barrier wall in order to 'protect' those people who reasonably should have known when they bought those houses, along with the developer(s) who built them, that there would most probably be some road noise down the road. Here's to the Town along with their developer buddies in keeping a scenic corridor scenic (slurp, I'm having an afternoon cocktail - cheers).
Note:
While the following 'story' has little to do with the ACTUALITY of this stream's intent, I thought it would be an interesting 'relative':
Several days ago, as I drove through the OVM, I noticed a somewhat worn, older RV parked at the end of one of Wal-mart's parking aisles. I mentioned to my wife that it appeared that someone was preparing for a longer stay than would have been a normal shopping period of time. Today as I passed that same aisle, I not only saw a motorcycle parked along side the RV, noticed that the front window was covered with a not so temporary looking 'drape', but I also was privy to witnessing a Direct TV dish on a stand being situated and aimed next to the RV by what appeared to be a professional 'installer'.
Upon my arrival back home, as it appeared to me that their was no policing of this property, I called the manager of Walmart who was very polite, agreed that issues such as this one had come up a few weeks ago, that this could not be tolerated, and promised that he would take care of the matter by 'evicting' the intruder (my words).
Would this be the same walmart that I complained about the RV and over night campers to, and the manager on duty told me that it was the philosophy of walmart that they would allow people to temporarily set up camp as long as they were not obstructing the flow of vehicle and ped traffic through the parking lot? Yet I see multiple no trespassing signs situated in the parking lot.
This was just last week on Tuesday.
ezek, the manager I spoke to did what he said he was going to do - immediately got rid of the RV with a motorcycle beside it along with a Direct TV dish having been just installed on a stand by a 'pro' next to it. His communication to me was that this Wal-mart was not going to accept RV overnights.
However, it was my understanding that there is supposed to be security within the compound; WHERE IS IT? The OVPD cannot be utilized to patrol private property.
If we all stay 'on it' like a 'neighborhood watch' We, the people, can do a lot.
Post a Comment