Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ Will your elected Oro Valley officials take charge tomorrow evening?

 

The Town Council meeting on Wednesday, January 6th will be very telling as to who actually governs Oro Valley. Is it the Town Manager/Staff or the elected officials, your Town Council?

There are two topics on the agenda that are worrisome
1. General Plan Amendment: One of the topics to be voted on is a General Plan amendment (GPA) converting a commercial corner into a residential one (either high density or medium density) on the SE corner of First and Tangerine. This vote should have occurred by December of 2020, but, due to an oversight by the Town Manager and Town Attorney, the topic was not listed as a “public hearing.” (The Mayor attempted to take some of the blame, but that was just a courtesy.)

The Town Manager and Town Attorney are responsible to post a legal agenda, while the mayor and the Agenda Committee are responsible for forming the agenda. Usually, after a public hearing, there is a council discussion and a vote. The December 30th Special meeting regarding this GPA allowed only for a discussion and no vote.

Look to the General Plan for guidance
So now we come to the January 6th meeting. The Kai General Plan amendment is posted as discussion and possible action (i.e. a vote.) Rather than listen to the recommendations from the staff as to whether or not to approve this GPA, why not look at the General Plan for guidance, as that is a valid document that states the recommendations of the citizens.

We know that Councilmember Solomon gives no credence to the General Plan as he voted to amend it during the same meeting in which it was approved (November 2016).

Bottom line: This property on the SE corner of First and Tangerine is one of the prime commercial corners in Oro Valley. The citizens desired it to be commercial. Our elected officials need to do their job and represent the citizens, not the Town staff, not the special interests.

2. Employee raises: This is another troubling item on the agenda. Town Manager, Mary Jacobs wants to give the employees a 3% raise. There was no employee raise in the FY 2020/21 budget for obvious reasons. Does Jacobs think that all the COVID issues are in the past because this is a new year?

The pandemic still continues. Many people in the private sector are unemployed or have had their hours cut drastically and some risk being evicted. Businesses are still closing. Yet, no Town employee has missed a paycheck or day of work and many worked from home. No Town employee has had to suffer like those in the private sector. But Jacobs wants to give a 3% raise to these employees. Will she ask for another raise in the FY 2021/22 budget as well?

Mayor and Council members: TAKE CHARGE of Oro Valley. Say NO to the General Plan Amendment and the requested raise.

Observations on the Town Staff and the Green Shirt members

Town Staff makes major decisions without Town Council or citizen input
At last Wednesday’s Town Council meeting (September 18th) former Oro Valley council person Mike Zinkin gave a speech during the "Call to Audience" portion of the meeting. Although he was not there to speak about golf, he had to wait an hour for his chance to speak because “The Green Shirts” had packed the room again and they dominated the "Call to Audience."

You can watch Mike’s speech below. It was about the Town Staff’s encroachment over the past ten years into the governance of Oro Valley. According to Mike, this has resulted in the town staff, rather than the elected Town Council, asserting too much control in Town decisions.

Below are just a few of Mike’s observations:

• The El Con purchase had no oversight by the prior council and we’re now experiencing the complications of that lack of oversight.

• The last General Plan, approved by the citizens, had a sentence removed from it by a staff member. As a result of that sentence being removed, the potential for a 5-story building was planned along First Avenue. The General Plan previously stated that not even a 2-story building was allowed to be seen from First Avenue. Staff removed that sentence. The council had no say in it. The people had no say in it.

• Despite the intersection of Moore and La Canada meeting only 2 of 9 criteria for a Signal Warrant Analysis, a roundabout is being installed that costs twice the amount of a traffic light.

• A “house” is being built on Tangerine (west of La Cholla) that contains a 10,000 sq. ft. basketball court with a bedroom stuck in the corner. Staff says that’s residential.

• Staff extended the Troon contract for 6 months without Town Council approval. They extended that contract into a new fiscal year. It was never budgeted, in violation of Town Policy #6.

• Staff has no experience in municipal golf. Their “experts” are Troon -- and Troon has a dog in this fight.

Indeed, Zinkin is correct
The staff is not elected by the citizens. The Town Council is supposed to make the decisions and the Town Staff is supposed to execute the decisions. But for years we have had a situation whereby the Town Staff makes recommendations to the council. This serves only to allow the “lazy” members of council to not have to take the time to “get into the weeds” but rather make their decisions based on whatever the staff recommends.

Adults behaving badly
On a separate note, as you watch the video, look at the behavior of the two women in the “Green Shirts” who are seated directly to the left of the podium. Watch what they do in the first 10 seconds or so after Mike’s name is called. For the record, the woman with the blonde hair is Jennifer LeFevre, founder of the green shirt crowd.

When Mike's name is called, LeFevre makes a face and rolls her eyes. She then said something that was clearly rude because she immediately covered her mouth in embarrassment, obviously worried that the microphone might have picked it up. (Reading her lips, it appears that she said, "Oh sh--").  The woman sitting next to her then whispered something to her, at which point the two of them gave Mike the "once-over" and made another face, seemingly ridiculing something that he was wearing.  (We had a technical difficulty with the video.  It does not show the part with the women whispering and making a face.  You can watch it on the Town website under Meetings and Agendas - Archived Videos - Town Council Regular Session - Sept. 18th Video - 1:04 time stamp on the video).

These are the people of the “Green Shirt” crowd. They have exhibited junior high school behavior at every town meeting we've attended or watched online.

For the record, prior to the council meeting, Mike was officiating a football game between Wilson School and La Cima Middle School. The game finished at 5:50 and he headed straight for the 6:00 PM council meeting to speak at the all to Audience. He did not have time to stop home and change clothes.

Editorial ~ Strategic Plan vs. General Plan

FROM THE TOWN DOCKET: January 11-12. Strategic Leadership Plan update – Town Council Strategic Planning Retreat will identify budget priorities for the next two fiscal years.

The Strategic Plan. This plan is updated every two years via collaboration between the Town Council and senior management staff. The plan is then written by the town staff.

The General Plan. This plan is updated every 10 years with focused community input. It is then sent to the voters for approval. It states their priorities. The current General Plan (Your Voice, Our Future) was approved by the voters in November 2016.

In December, we asked Town Manager Mary Jacobs why she felt it important that the town council and staff engage in this strategic planning exercise. One reason she mentioned was that the 2016 General Plan was out-of-date. We disagree. Creating the General Plan was a massive effort. The Town spent 3 years, thousands of staff hours, and more than $300,000 on this effort. Hundreds of everyday residents were involved.

What we do recognize, however, is that there are certain strategic issues that were not considered during the planning process. LOVE has discussed three of these issues: (1) The closing of brick and mortar stores and the potential impact on sales tax revenues; (2) The strategic implications of CAP water restrictions on Oro Valley’s water plans; and (3) Whether Oro Valley should use its precious water resources to annex more residential, water using, areas. Thus, we do agree that a strategic discussion is appropriate at this time.

What follows is a direct quote from the December 2018 Town Manager’s Executive Report regarding the Strategic Plan sessions.

“Staff will be preparing background information for you to review prior to the session as well. The final plan will provide me and my team with your expected priorities and outcomes to be accomplished over the coming two fiscal years, and will help inform our deliberations as we prepare the FY 19/20 budget in the spring.”

There are two areas of concern:

(1) Staff will be controlling the information since they will be providing the Town Council the information for their review.  The problem with this is that it's in the staff's self-interest to grow Oro Valley in order to create work for themselves and guarantee their long-term job security.

(2) The General Plan is only two years old. It is not out-dated. It is a document that was compiled after 3 years of gathering input from the citizens and it advises the Town Council of the citizens expected priorities and outcomes.

The Town Council needs to guard themselves against allowing this Strategic Plan exercise to get in the way of the General Plan. One of the platforms during the campaigns of Winfield, Barrett, Jones-Ivey, and Nicolson was adherence to the General Plan. If the purpose of the Strategic Plan is to advise the Town staff what the Town Council’s priorities will be for the next two fiscal years…it is imperative that those priorities should not be in conflict with the General Plan.
---
What do YOU think the Town Council should focus on for the next two years? What are your priorities? You may email your suggestions to Patrick@gettingbetterallthetime.com in order to have your comments included during the Town Council’s Strategic Planning Meeting on January 11-12. (Patrick Ibarra is a consultant from Glendale who facilitated the December 18th town meeting to gather community input on the Strategic Plan).

Tucson Association of Realtors spreading Town Council election falsehoods

A LOVE reader sent us this screenshot of an email that is being distributed by The Tucson Association of Realtors (TAR) and the Realtor Political Action Committee (RPAC).

The contents of this email are a blatant lie and there are only two possible explanations for this:

• They received inaccurate information and didn’t bother to verify its authenticity before spreading this false information

• Or they are deliberately putting their own spin on the story in order to instill FEAR in their members in an attempt to drum up donations and votes for Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters

Did TAR interview the challengers? No! So how do they know the challengers stances on this issue? On what basis did they draw the conclusion that the challengers “have promised to impose a building moritorium [sic] in Oro Valley if elected?” Did a mole attend one of the challengers Meet and Greets and then inaccurately report back what transpired at that meeting?

Fortunately, we have an accurate report of the challengers’ positions on development. Below are direct quotes from the 3-part article, “LOVE interviews mayoral candidate, Joe Winfield” published on June 5-6-7.

In Part 1 of the interview, Winfield stated:

“In addition, I want to moderate growth. I would approach that by simply putting a moratorium on any amendments or rezonings and letting our community take a breath on the amount of development that has been occurring. I’m not suggesting that we don’t need development or that development would need to stop, but that we would comply and follow the current land use and zoning.”

Winfield suggested only a moratorium on General Plan amendments and rezonings. He never promised a complete moratorium on all building. He said “moderate…take a breath…follow the current land use and zoning.”

First of all, a moratorium is just a temporary halting of an activity, in this case, a temporary halting of General Plan amendments and rezonings. That is a far cry from imposing a complete moratorium on all building.

Does Winfield’s measured approach sound like something that would “have a dramatic impact” on the entire community?

In Part 2 of the interview, Winfield stated:

“I would hope to have made a difference in terms of the development of our community. Admittedly, much of the community is already developed so I don’t know that you’ll see a significant difference but I would hope that there would have been some moderation in development and the type of development.”

Does that sound like a complete building moratorium to you? Does that sound like it would lead to a dramatic impact?

Melanie Barrett’s thoughts on development

“Seek development that is responsive to residents wishes and responsible in design…[slowing] the current pace of developments.” [Introducing Melanie Barrett, LOVE, May 22nd]

Joyce Jones-Ivey’s thoughts development

“Responsible growth that preserves our town’s scenic beauty…Adhere to the guiding principles of the General Plan.” [Introducing Joyce Jones-Ivey, LOVE, May 24th]

Josh Nicolson’s thoughts on development

“Frequent General Plan amendments and rezonings…Right now it seems like developers are getting their way and there’s a group of citizens who aren’t being listened to at all. I believe elected officials have a moral obligation to do what’s best for the community as a whole and for the long-term prosperity of Oro Valley.” [Introducing Josh Nicolson, LOVE, June 11th]

As you can see, TAR and RAPAC are using fear tactics and spin to drum up support for their cause. No one should take them seriously. After all, they can’t even spell moratorium, the very subject of their email! They misspelled it four times!

TAR and RAPAC have a right to support the incumbents but they need to cease and desist with their lies and fear-mongering.

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ Is Democracy dead in Oro Valley?

Webster defines democracy as:

“Government by the People; especially: rule of the majority.”

The International City-County Management Association (ICMA) has a Code of Ethics, consisting of 12 Tenets. Tenet 4 is:

“Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people.”

Do the actions of the current mayor and council meet the definition of democracy? Are they serving the best interests of all the people?

Exhibit A. The Golf courses
In June 2014, the Town paid for a statistically valid survey asking residents what amenities they desired in their parks. The results showed that the top 3 items requested were (1) playgrounds and play structures, (2) ramadas and picnic areas, and (3) paved walking paths.. Out of 34 possible options, golf came in at number 33 (with 63% of respondents stating that golf was “not important.”)

Despite this, just six months later, in December 2014, the Council decided to purchase 45 holes of golf. The overwhelming amount of input from the People was NO, yet the Council majority (Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters) voted to purchase the golf courses anyway.

If there was any democracy in Oro Valley, would the Town Council chose to purchase a golf course just six months after the citizens asked for play structures, ramadas, and picnic areas? This purchase was supported by Greg Caton, the Town Manager at the time. So much for ICMA Tenet 4, and Government by the People.

Exhibit B. The voter-approved General Plan
In 2016, the Town Council forwarded to its residents a new General Plan. Developed with approximately three years of resident input. This plan, Your Voice, Our Future [YVOF] was placed on the ballot for voter approval. And although YVOF was approved by the voters on November 8, 2016, the Town Council voted to amend the Plan just 8 days later on November 16th. And they have continued to amend the voter-approved plan at every opportunity. Government by the People?

Exhibit C. Ball fields
In 2017, members of the community came to the council asking for ball fields for the children. They said that they were “desperately needed” and the Town Council agreed. But instead of looking for available resources to fund these fields, the Council instead asked the residents to impose a secondary Property Tax on themselves to fund these ball fields. This was a $17 MM bond that would have cost taxpayers $28 MM including the interest. The Residents overwhelmingly rejected the tax. Interestingly, the Council continues to brag that they have saved $2 million in the budget. Well then, why not put that $2M towards building those “desperately needed” ball fields?

Exhibit D. Undesirable development
The residents have told the Council repeatedly that they do not want postage-stamp sized residential lots and the continued blading of the desert. They have told the Council that they desire to save their mountain views and preserve the desert environment. What does the Council do? They repeatedly ignore the wishes of the citizens in favor of the developers/builders who financed their campaigns. Is this democracy?

Exhibit E. The Town Budget
The FY 2018/19 Town Budget is over $20 million higher than the previous fiscal year. There are NO ball fields included in it. There is, however, a $6 million bond of which $3 million will be used to improve the GOLF COURSES. Does this sound like adherence to the ICMA Tenet 4? Does this sound like Democracy?

Sadly, there is ample evidence that democracy does not exist in Oro Valley. On August 28th, the voters of Oro Valley will have an opportunity to replace four members of this council and return democracy to our Town.

Mike Zinkin has a Bachelor’s degree in history and government from the University of Arizona and a Master’s degree in Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education from California State University, Northridge. He was a commissioned ensign in the United States Navy Reserve. He was an Air Traffic Controller for 30 years. He and his wife moved to Oro Valley in 1998. Mike served on the Oro Valley Development Review Board from 2005-2009 and the Board of Adjustment from 2011-2012. He served on the Town Council from 2012-2016 during which time he was named a Fellow for the National League of Cities University, he was a member of the National League of Cities Steering Committee for Community and Economic Development, and a member of the Arizona League of Cities Budget and Economic Development Committee.

Reliable Sources Tell Us…

One of our sources sent us the following information after reading last week’s postings about the Planning Department submitting false information in their staff reports and Power Point presentations related to rezoning requests. Apparently, this is not the only questionable thing that they have done. Read on…

The 2005 General Plan (Focus 2020) contained a "Special Area Policy" regarding the property that is now being graded for a 5-story retirement community called Nakoma Sky (assisted living, independent living, and hospice) located at Lambert Lane and First Avenue behind the Home Depot Plaza.

The 2005 General Plan had the property designated as Medium Density Residential with a Special Use Policy that no 2-story homes could be visible from First Avenue. The idea was to hide all the 2-story homes behind the hills so they could not be viewed from First Avenue.

The Planning and Zoning Administrator (Bayer Vella) removed the policy from the General Plan sometime around 2015. This was a voter-approved document. In other words, a staff member arbitrarily amended YOUR plan WITHOUT consulting even with the Council. Removing the Special Area Policy allowed for the approval of the 5-story Nakoma Sky along with additional 2-story buildings along First Avenue.

A policy change made by the Planning and Zoning Administrator can only be appealed to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decision. However, because this change was never noticed to the public (transparency?) nobody knew when the 30-day period began.

It costs $250.00 to file an appeal with the BOA and the only argument the applicant can present is to try and prove that the decision was without merit. The BOA decision can only be appealed to the Superior Court.

Without removing that Special Area Policy, there could not be a 5-story building.

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

Editor's Note: This is another example of the Town playing fast and loose with rules…always to the benefit of developers and at the expense of the residents. It’s also another example of why Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers Hornat, Snider, and Waters need to be voted out of office in this year’s Town Council election as they are the ones who approved the rezoning to accommodate the 5-story building.

When developers (rather than the citizens) are at the top of the Oro Valley Organizational Chart, this is what you get:

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ Who tops the Oro Valley Organizational Chart?

When one looks at the attached organizational chart for the Town of Oro Valley, the answer is obvious....the RESIDENTS are at the top of the chart. But is this really the case?

The evidence states otherwise

• Town Council ignores results of Parks and Recreation Survey

The residents replied to the Town's statistically valid survey regarding park amenities and advised that golf was the second to last of their desires, but the Council majority voted to purchase 45 holes of golf just 6 months after the survey was released.

• Town Council ignores citizen emails and pleas during council meetings

During the public meetings about the golf course purchase, over 65% of those that attended and voiced their opinion advised AGAINST the purchase. Additionally, over 75% of those that emailed their concerns advised AGAINST the purchase, yet the Council majority disregarded their input and purchased the property.

• Town Council ignores voter-approved General Plan

The Town spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to insure that the new General Plan (Your Voice, Our Future-YVOF) would be comprised entirely of the desires of the residents. Less than two weeks after the residents ratified the new plan, the Council amended it. In fact, less than 13 months after the YVOF was ratified, the Council amended it three more times.

• Town staff ignores a 7-0 council vote and an agreement made between a developer and a citizens group

In May 2015, the Council passed the La Cholla Major General Plan amendment, 7-0, with the stipulation that there be NO direct access to Canada Hills Drive from the new development (as was agreed upon during meetings between the developer and a La Cholla area citizens group), BUT the staff later rewrote the policy giving the authority to decide the final design to the Town Engineer. When this was brought to the Town Manager's attention, no corrective action was taken.

• Town Staff violates Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance

The Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance was written to give consideration to residents living adjacent to a proposed development, to give them a say in protecting their views, their privacy, minimizing traffic, etc.

The Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance states that “a minimum of two (2) neighborhood meetings are REQUIRED” with the following exception: “One (1) meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope and NO RELEVANT PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.”

At the first Miller Ranch neighborhood meeting, The Lehman Academy and residents living on Sunkist Road both expressed concerns about traffic and access to the residential areas. These concerns have not been addressed, yet the staff has decided that there will not be a second neighborhood meeting. They are now violating the terms of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance.

• Town prioritizes Community Center over other needed items

Residents are concerned about the traffic situation at the intersection of Moore Road and La Canada. However, the Town decided instead to prioritize a traffic signal in front of the Community Center without performing a signal warrant analysis. Where is the regard for the concerns of the residents?

Who’s at the top?

Does the top of the chart state "Staff?” Does the top of the chart state "HSL Properties?” Does the top of the chart state "Developer" or "Builder?” Does the top of the chart state "Campaign Contributor?"

NO, the top of the chart states RESIDENTS. Do you feel like you are at the top of the chart?

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ It’s Time to Take Back Oro Valley

Let’s begin with some history of the 2016 General Plan: Your Voice, Our Future
The Town began to allocate funding for the development of the State-mandated General Plan beginning with the FY 2013/14 budget. Several hundred thousand dollars were set aside to hire people to assist with development of the Plan. Councilmember Hornat and I were designated as Council Liaisons for this effort.

A multitude of Town residents volunteered to help ensure that the citizens were given ample opportunity to provide input to the Plan. Coffees were held and tables were set up at the Farmer's Market and at Town events in an effort to reach as many citizens as possible. Councilman Hornat and I attended over 15 staff meetings as the General Plan developed. During those meetings, we worked to ensure that the town staff did not have an inordinate amount of influence over the new General Plan. As council liaison on this project, I wanted to ensure that the Plan was derived from public input – not council and staff input.

Voters approve new General Plan in November 2016
The General Plan, now called Your Voice, Our Future (YVOF), was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council following two public meetings. The Council placed it on the November 2016 ballot and YVOF passed by a large majority of those who voted in that election. The people were told that YVOF was a guide for all elected, appointed, and town employees to inform them that this is what the citizens desire for OUR TOWN.

The new developer-friendly Town Council amends the plan just two weeks later
On November 16, 2016, the new council (ALL of whom were financially supported by developers and builders during their election campaigns) was sworn in and they immediately voted to amend the new General Plan that was not even two weeks old! You can read the details HERE.

While it had been reasonable in the waning years of the 10-year General Plan for the Town Council to amend it using the argument, "The General Plan is almost 10 years old; times have changed; demographics have changed; values have changed,” those arguments were not valid on November 16, 2016 when the Plan was LESS THAN TWO WEEKS OLD.

More General Plan amendments on the agenda for the December 6th Town Council Meeting
Now YVOF is a year old. Nothing has changed. It is still fresh. However, at the December 6th Council Meeting, there are 4 proposed amendments to YVOF including a related rezoning.

The Town spent untold hours over 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to obtain YOUR thoughts on how the Town's land should be utilized. Now, once again, your wishes are in jeopardy of being overthrown by a Council that is beholden to developers and builders.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK ORO VALLEY. Let your voice be heard. Email the mayor and council with your thoughts on these General Plan Amendments or speak during the Public Hearing portion of tomorrow evening’s Town Council Meeting.

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

Editor’s Note: A new citizens group has been established
The landslide defeat of the $17 million dollar Naranja Park Bond (71% to 29%) has energized the group "Axe the Tax" to reorganize into a new group called, "Take Back OV."

Visit their website HERE

You can also LIKE "Take Back OV" on Facebook to receive updates in your Newsfeed.