Town overstates the case when it comes to Golf and the Community Center
The Town of Oro Valley recently issued a press release celebrating the 10-year anniversary of its acquisition of the El Conquistador Country Club—now the Community and Recreation Center. While the release praises growth in memberships, expanded amenities, and the development of golf and recreation programming, not all residents share in the enthusiasm.
From the start, the purchase sparked division. Critics questioned the cost, especially the use of a half-percent sales tax to support what some view as a facility serving a limited segment of residents. Over the past decade, the Center has required millions in improvements—from parking expansions to bridge replacements, irrigation system upgrades, and the recent installation of an elevator. And while golf rounds are reportedly up, and operations have reached a break-even point, capital expenses still rely on public subsidy. The facility disproportionately benefits residents living nearby and active users of golf, tennis, and fitness programming, leaving others to wonder if the investment truly reflects town-wide priorities. Celebrating 10 years is fair. But calling it one of the “Town’s most beloved amenities” may be overstating the case—especially for those who continue to question its cost, limited accessibility, and opportunity cost.
Last night, the Oro Valley Town Council approved a one-year extension of its intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Pima County for animal control services. The current agreement expires June 30, 2025, and the extension would carry it through June 30, 2026. Under the IGA, Pima County enforces Oro Valley’s Animal Control Code, covering issues such as rabies control, licensing, leash laws, and sheltering of stray animals. Since FY 2022, the agreement has been funded primarily through licensing fees collected in Oro Valley, with Pima County covering the balance through its general fund. Staff estimate the arrangement saves the Town about $50,000 annually compared to providing the service independently.
Wilkins says budget holds the line while addressing key priorities
Town Manager Jeff Wilkins told the Mayor and Council at Wednesday night's council meeting that town revenues are flattening while costs continue to rise, requiring “a lot of strategic choices” over the next two years. He emphasized that his team worked line by line with departments to keep the 2026 Town Manager’s Recommended Budget flat, while preserving essential services, supporting public safety, and making targeted investments in the workforce and community priorities. Wilkins acknowledged the difficulty of these decisions and noted the inclusion of a new police officer position, a modest reduction in staffing elsewhere, and a continued focus on critical infrastructure. He reminded the public that the budget process remains open, with three more meetings—including two public hearings—still ahead.
Lawsuit over Rancho Valley Vista sewer damage continues... questions linger
The legal case (C20242358) between Pima County and Pulte Homes over sewer damage near the Rancho Valley Vista lift station is still ongoing. The dispute focuses on whether the damage was caused by poor soil preparation during construction or by an alleged 84,000-gallon water discharge in December 2021. Pulte has countered the County’s claims and is seeking reimbursement for repair work it says became necessary as a result of the leak.
While the Town of Oro Valley is not a party to the lawsuit, the town is the water provider. Town Water Director Abraham presented findings at a February 2024 Council meeting suggesting that an 84,000-gallon water discharge in December 2021 may have caused sewer damage near the lift station at Rancho Valley Vista. However, questions have since been raised about the accuracy and completeness of that presentation. Specifically, the water bill shown to Council at that time was from September 2022—not December 2021—and showed minimal usage. Some observers are now questioning whether the key water bill from the time of the alleged leak even exists or was ever issued, raising doubts about the basis for the discharge claim.
- - -
