Editorial ~ The Voting Record of the Oro Valley Town Council “Majority-7” (Part 2.)

This is the second of a 3-part series presenting the voting record for the new Oro Valley Town Council. Part 1 was published last week, covering their voting record from November-January. If you missed it, you can read it HERE

This week we present the record from February-April. Four meetings were held and all votes were unanimous.
……………

February 15, 2017

Over 100 youth sport parents and Oro Valley user group representatives were in attendance requesting that Council take action to construct additional sports fields at Naranja Park.

Five representatives of the group spoke in favor of this issue. Council directed staff to return at a future council meeting with a plan to finance additional sports fields in response to this community request.

Authorizing an increase in water rates.

All motions passed 7-0.

March 15, 2017

Amending the Steam Pump Village PAD to permit an indoor self-storage facility.

Only one person spoke in support. Five Oro Valley residents and two business owners spoke in opposition. Oro Valley resident, Diane Bristow, pointed out that it did not meet the majority of General Plan requirements. You can read the arguments she presented HERE.

Despite this, Solomon motioned and Rodman seconded to approve it “based on a finding that the request conforms with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan.”

Motion carried 7-0.

All motions passed unanimously including one 6-0 vote when Councilmember Hornat left the room. (There were no discussions on four agenda items this evening).

April 5, 2017

Adopting the OV Main Streets Concept Plan.

Discussion, direction, and possible action from Town Council regarding the funding and construction of additional sport fields and related improvements for Naranja Park.

All motions passed 7-0 (There was discussion on the above two items).

April 19, 2017

Funding and construction of additional sports fields and related improvements for Naranja Park. PUBLIC COMMENT.

Thirteen residents spoke in favor. (They were all involved in sports either as coaches or from having children who play Little League, etc.) Two residents spoke in opposition.

Mayor Hiremath motioned and Pina seconded to place this item on the May 3rd agenda and directed staff to come back with a question for council consideration to place this item on the November 7, 2017 ballot.

Motion carried 7-0 (with discussion). All motions this evening passed 7-0.

Part 3 will be published on Wednesday, August 23rd.

Editorial ~ The Voting Record of the Oro Valley Town Council “Majority-7” (Part 1.)

This is the first of a 3-part series where we will present the voting record for the new Oro Valley Town Council beginning with their first council meeting on November 16, 2016 and ending June 21, 2017 (the last meeting of the fiscal year which ended on June 30th). There were many more votes than what is presented below, but in the interest of space, we have expounded only on the most important items.

A total of 12 meetings were held. With the exception of one vote, all votes were approved unanimously; the majority of them with little to no discussion. (So much for their claims of being “independent thinkers.” They really should call themselves “The Rubberstamp Council.”)

November 16, 2016

The three new council members (Rhonda Pina, Bill Rodman, Steve Solomon) were sworn in.

Regular Agenda Items

Amending the GP land use map at Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Highlands Drive from neighborhood commercial/office to medium density residential for 17.8 acre property. Major General Plan amendment.

Of note is that during the 9/2/16 meeting, this agenda item was moved to tonight’s meeting at Mayor Hiremath’s suggestion. Applicant Paul Oland of the WLB Group agreed. That way, the new council would be seated when this vote was taken and there would be no discussion on the item. With former Councilmembers Burns, Garner, and Zinkin no longer there to speak for the citizens, this Major General Plan amendment would be easily approved.

Also of note, the new General Plan was just approved by the voters on 11/8/16. Just 8 days later, they are looking to amend it.

A portion of former Mayor Paul Loomis’ speech that evening:

“What I do want to highlight is that you’re amending the General Plan even before the vote has been certified. Past policy was to not allow amendments in the year of revisions or for a year after voter approval.”

Despite this well-reasoned plea by non other than our former mayor, Rodman motioned to approve. Waters seconded.

Motion carried 7-0 with MINIMAL discussion.

Allowing the use of ESL flexible design option for a modified review process for above property.

Rodman motion to approve. Snider seconded. Motion carried 7-0.

Conceptual site plan for Alterra at Vistoso Trails subdivision. Half-mile east of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Moore Road.

Waters motion to approve. Solomon seconded.

Motion carried 7-0. NO DISCUSSION.

Proposed grading exception for the Sanctuary at Silverhawke subdivision near NE corner of First and Naranja. (East side of First at Naranja traffic light).

The rolling hills are 19-20 feet high from the intersection. Town Code does not allow grading in excess of 6 feet. Applicant requested to grade 12-15 feet in order to build a straight access road into the development.

Solomon motioned to approve. Hornat seconded.

Motion carried 7-0. NO DISCUSSION.

All motions carried 7-0.

December 7, 2016

Don Cox’s appointment to Planning & Zoning Commission (Consent Agenda)

NO DISCUSSION despite the council receiving letters of concern from multiple residents about his repeated inappropriate and unprofessional behavior while serving past terms on P&Z.

Approving conceptual architecture and landscape plan for 8000 sf commercial building at El Corredor, NE corner of Linda Vista and Oracle.

Both items approved 7-0 with NO DISCUSSION.

Regular Agenda

Tonight’s agenda contained 7 items. Six of them passed 7-0.
(Hornat was opposed to El Con HOA using golf course property for a shed.)

January 4, 2017

Meeting was over in 6 minutes! Two motions made. Both carried 7-0.

January 18, 2017

Agreement between TOV and RTA for a pedestrian and traffic signal on LaCanada at the entrance to the Community Center. (Consent Agenda, Item D.)

Finally, we have some discussion!

Councilmember Pina asked about the $500,000 price and if there were cost overruns, what would be the impact to the town? Paul Keesler (Director of Community Development and Public Works) responded that there are 3 things that can cause a project to go over.

1. During the bidding process, once the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is authorized by the town council, if the lowest bid comes in over $500,000 the town is not required to make up that difference. The RTA would have to increase the budget with approval from their management board or the project could be canceled. Chances are with an RTA project, particularly a safety project like this, they’re not going to cancel it, so on the off chance that the bids come in high, the RTA covers it.

2. Once the contract is signed and the contractor has begun work, if some unforeseen condition arises which could push it over the budget, the IGA makes accommodations for that. If it’s within 10%, the RTA staff can approve it. If it’s over 10%, it would go to the RTA board to get approved for that overage.

3. The only time the town is on the hook for this is if during the project, we add an element not anticipated by the town such as a sidewalk or extra street lights.

Vice-Mayor Waters asked what kind of light will it be.  Paul Keesler responded:

Originally it was going to be a HAWK signal just for pedestrians. But we also have a sight visibility issue with people coming out of the Community Center having a hard time seeing the traffic coming north. Rearranging the landscaping didn’t help so the Town went back to the RTA and got this budget approved for not only a pedestrian crossing but also a traffic signal.

Motion to approve by Pina. Seconded by Snider.

Motion carried 6-0. Mayor Hiremath was absent.

Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding future Community Center elements.

Town Council directed staff to hire a consultant to review options available for the CC restaurant facility and the configuration of the golf course, and to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP), solicit bids, and return to Council with the information received from those requests.

Approving the final plat for the Sanctuary at Silverhawke, residential subdivision located at the NE corner of Naranja and First.

Motion carried 6-0. NO DISCUSSION.

All motions carried 6-0.

Part 2 will be published next Wednesday, August 16th.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Oro Valley Town Council repeatedly gets Hoodwinked by “The Deal Makers.” Part 2.

This posting is Part 2 of our 2-part discussion of "The Deal Makers." We published Part 1 yesterday.

---

Next hoodwinking scheduled for November 2017
Our Town Councils over the past 10 years have repeatedly shown that they are easily fooled and manipulated by “deal makers” and as a result, they have not been good stewards of your taxpayer dollars.

Timeline

2006: Oro Valley Marketplace was grossly oversold to the Town and the taxpayers as an upscale shopping experience. In return for sharing $23.2 million dollars in tax revenues with Vestar, we were promised a unique upscale mall with signature shops and boutiques. What did we get? A generic strip mall and discount big box stores.

2014: The Community Center and Golf Course deal was grossly oversold to the taxpayers and as a result, the Mayor and Council’s often touted 5-year plan to turn a profit has now become a 6-year plan. This “great deal” has already cost us taxpayers over $6 million dollars…and counting.

2015: Vestar convinces the Town Council to allow the addition of illuminated signs on the backside of the buildings at OVM, insisting that this would be the catalyst that would spark retail interest. Once again, the expected results were not achieved. (Only two new businesses have opened in the past two years, 22 empty storefronts still remain along with about a half dozen undeveloped dirt lots).

A 47% percent vacancy rate
Also of note is that, according to Vestar’s Oro Valley Marketplace website, there are currently only 25 businesses in operation despite being just three months away from the 9-year anniversary of the mall’s opening (October 2008). That’s 25 open businesses and 22 empty storefronts -- in other words, nearly half of the retail space remains vacant. In fact, there are two buildings that are completely unoccupied (Bldg. 1930 containing four units and Bldg. 12115 containing six units).

Town Council Irresponsible Decisions ~ Cost to Taxpayers

• $23.2 million in sales tax revenue “shared” with developer Vestar
• $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 golf and restaurant operations

Total Cost: $30 million dollars

Beware of the Deal Makers
Keep all of this in mind as the next group of “deal makers” is setting us up for the next hoodwinking; the proposed $17 million dollar Naranja Park Bond, which will actually cost Oro Valley homeowners $28 million dollars in principle and interest payments via a 20-year long secondary property tax.

Expect the Naranja Bond to be another grossly oversold endeavor. Don’t get fooled again!
---

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ The abject favoritism of the OV Town Council. Part 1.

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a pattern of favoritism on the OV Town Council whereby there seems to be one set of rules for residents (and even council members) who are supportive of the mayor’s plans for the town and another set of rules for the residents and council members who are critical of his ideas.

In a recent two-part article, “The Great Bond Caper,” I addressed the difference in how the Town Council waffled on applying Call to Audience rules during the April 5th Town Council meeting; strictly applying the rules to one resident (a critic) while waiving the rules for another resident (a supporter). In that case, the rule in question was: ”any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda.”

Today’s article will address the rule that states…”Per Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures, you must address the Council as a whole.”

When partiality supersedes objectivity
The mayor and council waived the above rule during an October 2016 council meeting when Steve Solomon (a friend of theirs who has since become a council member) specifically called out then-Councilmember Mike Zinkin, accusing him of spending more on travel than what his travel budget allowed. Solomon specifically called out “Mr. Zinkin” four times during his speech. No Point of Order was called at any time. (As usual, Solomon was incorrect in his assertions and this will be discussed in Part 2).

This raises the question: Are these rules a mandate or is enforcement at the whim of the mayor? I am in the process of obtaining clarification from the Town on this question. If it turns out that enforcing the rules is at the mayor’s discretion, then the next logical question would be: Why does the mayor enforce Town Council Parliamentary Rules for his critics while waiving them for his supporters?

Solomon’s Hypocrisy
Solomon’s speech that night raises another question as well. Why was Solomon so concerned about Councilmember Zinkin’s travel expenses (all approved by then-Town Manager, Greg Caton) yet he never criticized the Town Manager for approving them?

Even more telling is that after Solomon became a council member in November 2016, he said nothing when, just two months later, Mayor Hiremath and Interim Town Manager, Danny Sharp, spent over $3000 for a one-day trip to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting in Washington, DC just so the mayor could receive a “2017 Public Leadership in the Arts Award.”

They arrived in Washington, DC on January 18th at 7:00 PM and they left DC on January 19th at 1:00 PM. They were in DC for less than 24 hours. What benefit did Oro Valley taxpayers derive from this $3000 trip?

Mayor Hiremath’s trip expenses were as follows:

Airfare        1048.46
Hotel           528.85 (for one night)*
Meals          87.50

TOTAL     $1664.81

*NOTE: Mayor Hiremath cancelled his original hotel room (Hilton Alexandria Old Town) when he found another room (Hilton Homewood Suites) closer to the event location. The cancelled room was NON-REFUNDABLE at $209.39. The new hotel room was $319.46, bringing the Grand Total for a one-night hotel stay to $528.85.

Getting closer to the venue would make sense if the mayor was staying there for a week and needed to go to that venue every day, but he only had to go there one day and for this he stiffed the taxpayers an additional $209. The mayor should reimburse the town. After all, that’s what they would have expected Mike Zinkin to do. (This will be explained further in Part 2)

Interim Town Manager, Danny Sharp’s trip expenses were as follows:

Airfare        1048.47
Hotel           313.07 (for one night)
Meals          87.50
Taxi             45.18

TOTAL      $1494.22

Grand total to the taxpayers for Mayor Hiremath to receive an award in Washington, DC was $3,159.03.

Is it lonely at the top?
What was the necessity of having the Interim Town Manager accompany Mayor Hiremath on this trip? It served the town of Oro Valley no purpose to drag the Town Manager along on a purely ceremonial junket. If the mayor hadn’t invited Danny Sharp to accompany him and he hadn’t cancelled his original hotel room, the Grand Total would have been just $1345.35. It’s funny how Steve Solomon never complained about or questioned any of these unnecessary expenses.

Part 2 of this article will be published on Wednesday.

Heather’s Corner: When Mom Meets The Underbelly of Oro Valley Politics

Last week at the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Forum, Mayor Hiremath listed four things you should expect from your Mayor.  The fourth was that the Mayor should be "somebody who cares for you. And I am that individual."

Is he kidding?  

Heather writes today about her personal experience and how Mayor Hiremath and his majority colleagues never exhibited even one ounce of caring for her and her neighbors' needs.
---
In this elections season, I think it is important to share with you my one experience with the current Oro Valley Town Council Majority-4.  I'm just a regular ol' Oro Valley housewife/stay-at-home mom of two.   It's safe to say I did not know much about the Oro Valley Town Council when I needed their help.  Franky, like most people in my situation, I was busy with my own bubble of motherhood. And, I thought to myself: They are my council. Certainly they will help me.

But I know now that during that experience, I spent hours of time away from my children, money out of our own pockets, and a considerable amount of grief to do someone else's homework. In the end, we were somberly taught a lesson in inequity.  You see. I expected the Oro Valley Town Council, and the Majority-4 specifically, to protect my interests.

I was wrong about them. I was wronged by them.

I want to tell you my story.

There was a beautiful sloped hill and protected riparian area on a lot next to the home we purchased. The lot wasn't without challenges, but to the layman's eye, it was apparent that a home could be built. Enter the builder. He believed it necessary to destroy almost the entirety of the slope and protected area to build a comparable "castle."

We protested at the Board of Adjustment and failed. This was our first experience with codes and procedures, but not so for the builder, who spoke of hardship with a magic tongue. It was sobering, but we would not give up! We had one more opportunity to state our case to the "Knights of the Round Table," (Town Council) and this time we'd be prepared!

We hired an army of architects, experts, and engineers to refute the arguments of the builder and we prevailed! The lot encompassed a 4500 sq. ft. buildable envelope, of which to masterpiece a castle of all castles, all without destroying the slope and subsequent home to a family of bobcats. We would bring forth this information to the "Knights" and they'd rule in our favor-victory for all!  It would be a win-win.

But that's not the ending of this story.

Four of the knights were unthwarted by our work and hard efforts. They did not give consideration to the army's evidence. They ignored the findings of their own town scholars and staff. And the builder, well, he destroyed that beautiful hillside and all that went with it, but, all for not.

This mom met politics.  Developer 1 Citizen 0.  End of game.

I can't respect those who show blatant disregard to information, factual evidence, or expert findings, when it doesn't support a developer, business, or revenue-providing-entity for the town. Sometimes the individuals' interests need to override. Sometimes the underdog needs to win too.

I support the new candidates. May they be "knighted" with values and fortitude that appreciate us all as individuals while still maintaining appropriate relations with businesses and developers for the town as a whole.
---
Heather Nenadovich has lived in Oro Valley a total of five years. She has a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Arizona. Her husband is Canadian so she is a hockey fan by default and so are her two very clever children. When not being a mommy, she enjoys hiking in Catalina State Park, hand building pottery, and gardening. Her favorite things about living in Oro Valley are the towns recognition of art and culture, their commitment to preserving nature and the Christmas parade. (Also anything from GMG Chinese Bistro.)

Guest View-John Musolf: "Transparency Lost"

---
I made a "Call to Audience" presentation at last week's Oro Valley Town Council meeting. I reported that Oro Valley Town Clerk Bower was participating in political activity while representing the town.  She was quoted in a the local advertising circular in support of House Bill 2419.

As we previously reported,  this bill, sponsored by Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, would allow a government agency to charge $20 per hour after the first eight hours required to fulfill an information request. The bill would not require that agencies charge for requests for the first eight hours. As we wrote in this publication, this bill would curtail Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")  requests by requiring cost prohibitive time charges. It would have a “chilling” effect on filing FOIA requests that may exceed 8 hours.

Two town clerks were interviewed about HR 2419 for the article to which I previously referred.  Jocelyn Bronson, the Marana Town Clerk, said she doesn’t feel the municipality needs such a law in place.  Oro Valley Town Clerk Julie Bower said the bill would be helpful in deterring broad and unfocused public records requests.

Bower said she is in favor of the bill.  I quote:  “For the most part, the vast majority would not be affected by this, because most records request are very specific and they don’t take us very long to process,” Bower continued. “But there is an opportunity for abuse because we get a lot of requests from the same people, and they are overly broad requests that take hours to fulfill. I think this bill could maybe address that a little bit."  She further reported that three requests in January took more than eight hours to produce.

I made these three requests.  The requests were for emails that were sent or received by the Mayor and the six council members for a specific time periods.  I made this request to assess whether council members were using town assets to plan, discuss or coordinate the recall of Council Member Mike Zinkin. The request was not a broad. It was unfocused. It was not abusive.

One of the emails we found was one from Council Member Waters advising a strategy for communicating the position to remove Zinkin.  He said: "Make it personal."   A fews weeks later, at a council meeting, Council Member Snider did just that.  His use of the town's email for this purpose was a misappropriation of town assets. It was also proof that he, too, was involved in the recall.

My FOIA email request has brought to light other “questionable practices” described in other emails that the Mayor, council members and town employees engaged in which we will discuss from time to time in future LOVE postings.

Perhaps Town Clerk Bowers should worry less about curtailing FOIA requests and attend to her job of simply fulfilling these request, as she is legally required to do.
---

Thursday Special: Zinkin Did Nothing Wrong...The "Explorer" Did

---
Generally, we don't post on a Thursday nor do we ever refer to "Explorer" articles. Today, however, we are going to make an exception. This is because yesterday, the "Explorer" got it wrong and we plan to set the record straight.

The Explorer headline screams: "Mayor Hiremath accuses Councilman Zinkin  of fiscal mismanagement in Oro Valley."  The headline is a mark of sloppy journalism.  The headline in no way reflects the Mayor's remarks.

Watch and listen the Mayor Hiremath's remarks.

The Mayor comments on a budget recommendation that Zinkin made regarding asking the employees to have some accountability for their own medical premiums; a practice that is common amongst most businesses today.

The Mayor then diverts the discussion to comment on Zinkin's use of town funds for two activities:  One is a trip to a major convention where Zinkin represented the Town; the other is trip to Gilbert to study how another town, similar to Oro Valley, operates.

Here are the facts that the Explorer failed to research and report:

Council Member Zinkin sought and received input from Kevin Burke, assistant to the Oro Valley town manager.  He asked if it was proper for him to use his Council Member travel funds for a trip to Washington DC to attend a meeting the National Leagues of Cities and Towns. On February 5, Zinkin received the following reply :

"Historically, NLC participation has been a positive way for the Town to contribute to the national dialogue regarding municipal governance. Participation in this organization is a legitimate use of Council travel and training funds and has not raised concerns from the community in the past."  

Town Manager Greg Caton and Town Finance Director Stacey Lemos were copied on this message.  They had ample opportunity to opine if they disagreed. They did not.

Zinkin had felt conflicted about spending funds on this meeting.  He had written to Burke: "I have been really torn and conflicted about my appointment to the League's Committee on Community and Economic Policy and Advocacy. On one hand I guess I should be honored to be selected, on the other hand, it is a lot of money."  He concluded, after receiving this communication from Burke and after discussing with the League, that attending the conference was a proper to use of his travel allowance.   Zinkin did nothing wrong.  In fact, he did everything right!

In deference to Mayor Hiremath, we will not surmise the intent of his comments. We have concluded that the Mayor did not do his homework.  Instead, Mayor Hiremath chose to "shoot from the hip."

Regarding the Gilbert trip, which most certainly cost next to nothing, Council Member Zinkin and Council Member Garner invested their time to travel to Gilbert.  Their goal was to identify areas of Gilbert town operation that could be useful to Oro Valley.  They were looking for best practices on the wise assumption that Oro Valley doesn't know everything.

The Explorer got it wrong. Mayor Hiremath did not accuse Council Member Zinkin of fiscal mismanagement.

Mayor Hiremath got it wrong.  Zinkin obtained counsel from Oro Valley town professionals before attending the National League meeting.  Both he and another council member visited Gilbert on Oro Valley-related learning.

Neither the Explorer nor Mayor Hiremath did their homework. They both "shot from the hip."

So, we did their homework for them.
---

Is It Time For Oro Valley To Have A City Charter? (Part 1)

---
"Arizona's charter cities have rights that keep state lawmakers from interfering with decisions made by voters and their councils on strictly local matters."  This is from a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court last year. (Source)

"The Arizona Constitution also gives cities the power to adopt their own charters. And... when it comes to issues of local concern, that constitutional right trumps state statutes."

There are 19 charter cities in Arizona. Tucson is one.  Others include Yuma, Mesa, Peoria, and Glendale,  Scottsdale is a charter city.  They created their first charter in 1961, when they were really just a small town of 27,000 residents:

"The [Scottsdale] City Charter is the basic document that defines the powers and functions of the city. It serves as the foundation of government for the city, but leaves the details of operation to local law. The City Charter sets forth the governance structure for and defines the qualifications and role of the elected officials - the Mayor and six Councilmembers. In broad strokes, the Charter also establishes the authority and responsibility of the city officers - the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk, City Magistrate, City Manager, and City Treasurer. Any amendment or modification to the city's charter requires a public vote."

"The actual governing of the city is defined by the charter rather than by state, provincial or regional or national laws. A charter gives a city’s residents that flexibility to choose any kind of government structure allowed by law." (Source) 

Oro Valley does not have a city charter.  As a consequence, the State can interfere with the town's decisions.

Oro Valley is a town with a population of 42,000 headed toward 50,000 in just a few years.  It is no longer a little "burg".  It is, in fact, a growing city.

Is it time for Oro Valley to have a city charter?
---

Council Meeting Preview

---
Tonight's Oro Valley town Council meeting includes a six month update on town finances.

Some highlights from the report that is included in the posted town council meeting packet:

• The General Fund is the fund into which sales tax and utility tax revenue comes and from which, spending on town operations flows. "The financial condition in the General Fund has improved significantly over the past several fiscal years. This is due in part to a recovering economy, but more importantly, from structural changes made to the budget to reduce expenditures through such means as vacancy savings, transferring library operations to the Pima County Library District and partnering with the Regional Transportation Authority to expand transit services while reducing costs to the Town."  
• The Bed Tax Fund is the fund that pays for the aquatic center. Its revenues are a bit more than last year at $333,000.  Bed tax spending is below plan, primarily because the town no longer funds TREO.  

Other topics to be discussed tonight include discussion of and vote on:

• A Planned Area Development (PAD) exemption for signs in Rancho Vistoso (meeting item 2). The requested exemption is for unlit signs that provide directions to local businesses. The Conceptual Design Review Board is recommending approval.
• A Conditional Use Permit for public art at the Town Center. The art will include "...two bronze sculptures of native reptiles, to be located between Shops C & D" in phase 1; and in phase 2: "... a bronze sculpture of a javelina or a pair of white-winged doves, to be located in the civic area."
• A Conditional Use Permit for drive-thru's for CVS' pharmacy and for Paradise Bakery.  These retailers will be located in Town Center, which is on the the east side of Oracle Road, at the First Street intersection. The Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department is recommending approval conditional use permits.

This should be one of the Council's quieter meetings.

---

Bits and Pieces

---
The Town of Oro Valley is soliciting bids for a town attorney.  The individual will not be a full-time Oro Valley employee; rather, the person will be a sub-contrator to the town serving at the pleasure of council.
---
The FAA is travelled to Oro Valley this week to meet with Securaplane. The inquiry is in relation to fires occurring on Boeing DreamLiners. (KVOA Report).  There is no report that Securaplane's product has anything to do with the fires. Securaplane has announced plans for a new facility in Innovation Park.
---
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 6:30 - 8 p.m., the Town of Oro Valley will hold an open house-style neighborhood meeting in Council Chambers, 11000 N. La Cañada Drive. The meeting is in reference to an intersection safety study at the intersection of Moore Road and La Cholla Blvd. The purpose of the study is to develop short- and long-term strategies to improve safety.(Oro Valley press release)
 ---
If you'd like your name to be included on the "Friends of the Pool" plaque inside the Oro Valley Aquatic Center, then Friday, Feb. 1 is your last chance to donate! When the Oro Valley Aquatic Center opens its doors on March 8, 2013, a special plaque inside the facility will list the names of all individuals and organizations who became "Friends of the Pool" by donating $250 or more. While "Friends of the Pool" donations are always gladly accepted, those wishing to have their name included on the plaque must donate by Feb. 1 (Source: Oro Valley press release)
---

Guest View-Don Bristow: "Mayor Shenanignans"

---


Did the Mayor and some members of the Oro Valley Council violate the Arizona’s Open Meeting Law or just display a lack of ethics? At the January 16, 2013 Council Meeting, the last agenda item covered the reappointment of Mr. Gil Alexander, an honorable town resident, to the Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB). However, the Mayor had already sent a letter to Mr. Alexander stating that he would not be reappointed to the CDRB. In his letter, the Mayor stated that the Town Council made this decision. During the Mayor’s heated discussion at this meeting, he stated it should have said Council Liaison (not Council). Three of the Council members indicated that they were not aware of this letter or the denied reappointment until it was brought to their attention by Mr. Alexander.   Councilmembers Hornet, Waters and Snider remained silent during the heated discussion regarding awareness of the letter and the reappointment action.

The Town codes clearly state that Board members are to be appointed by Council and Mayor. Mr. Alexander had followed the proper procedure requesting reappointment to the CDRB; therefore, approval or disapproval should have been made by the Council and Mayor.  The January 16, 2013 Council Meeting was the first time Mr. Alexander’s reappointment was on the Agenda.  Why did members Hornet, Waters, and Snider support the Mayor’s actions by their silence?  Were they aware of the letter and privately authorized the Mayor’s actions? This is clearly a violation of the Arizona Open-Meeting Law. If they were unaware, why didn’t they state that or express concern for the Mayor’s action? Why did Vice-Mayor Waters, who is the Council liaison to the CDRB, second the Mayor’s motion, and why did the three of them vote in favor of the motion? These questions reflect badly on the representation Oro Valley residents are receiving from these elected officials.

The Mayor, Councilmembers Hornet, Snider, and Waters did, as usual, vote as a block to deny the reappointment of Mr. Alexander. Their reasons for not reappointing Mr. Alexander lacked substance; one reason being that someone on Council felt Mr. Alexander had no right asking for details of proposals under consideration during CDRB meetings.  The Mayor and his Council allies again showed their inconsistent decision-making.  Recently, these four reappointed a man to the Planning and Zoning Commission; a man who had been formally cited for his unacceptable conduct on the Planning and Zoning Commission

Vice-Mayor Waters angrily indicated he is still nurturing a candidate for the CDRB who will be available to fill a vacancy on the CDRB.  However, Mr. Waters’ hand-picked representative has not yet applied or been appointed. Why is Vice-Mayor Waters so confident this candidate will be appointed? Why should the Vice Mayor be nurturing a candidate for any Board or Commission?

Why do these shenanigans continue?

Don Bristow
---

Town Council Approves $2.1 Million To Fund Burying TEP Wires

---
The Oro Valley Town Council approved the $2.1 million for the burying of TEP power lines. The expenditure is for three projects that will be built on Tangerine and on Oracle Road. (See our previous postings ).  The move preserves the view shed.

The  measure passed 6-1. The lone dissent was from Council Member Burns.  He noted that TEP had made a conscious decision not to bury the lines; that, in doing so, TEP was not operating as a responsible corporate citizen. This was especially troubling because TEP is an enormously  profitable company.  In addition, the company purports to be a positive influence in the communities it serves.

The TEP represented had previously noted that the decision to put the wires underground was made because the Arizona Corporate Commission will not TEP them recoup their costs in its rates.

In contrast to the comments of Commissioner Burns, Mayor Hiremath thanked TEP for giving Oro Valley the opportunity to bury the lines.   TEP is also "contributing" about $400,000 to the project.

The Oro Valley contingency fund will pay for this project.  It has yet to be determined whether this is a loan from the contingency fund, such as was done in funding a portion of the aquatic center overrun, or a permanent withdrawal of funds.  The contingency fund balance will be above Oro Valley required levels (25% of the operating fund) after the payment of the $2.1 million.
---

A Preview Of Tonight's Council Meeting

---
Here's a preview of for of the more interesting items on tonight's agenda of the Oro Valley Town Council
---
Will the Town Pay To Bury The TEP Lines?

The most important discussion tonight is item number 3.  Approval would authorize the under-grounding agreement between the town and TEP for utility service along portion of Oracle and Tangerine Road.   We've already written about this extensively.   We will report the result tomorrow.
---
Will The Council Raise Aquatic Center Rates?

Regular Agenda Item 14 on tonight's Oro Valley Town Council agenda is discussion of an increase in aquatic center fees.  Essentially, the recommended daily rates are double current rates.  For example, an Oro Valley Resident who is a senior currently pays $2.25 for a day.  The proposed rate is $5.00.  There are new membership options that reduce cost. For example, the same senior could buy an annual pass for $255, less than $1 per day.  The yearly rate includes free use of fitness equipment.  There are also proposed monthly rates; and a 30-visit punch pass.

"The recommended fees are structured to provide sufficient revenue to maintain the Aquatics Center General Fund subsidy at the FY 2010/11 level, which was approximately $305,000. When the facility is fully operational next fiscal year 2013/14, the increased costs of the expanded facility will be covered by a subsidy from the Bed Tax Fund of $150,000, with the full year operational budget for the Aquatics Center estimated at $740,000." (source)

---
Will The Council Approve The Extension of "A-Frame" Displays?

Item 12 is an extension of the "A-Frame" program:

"On September 21, 2011, Council approved the temporary use of outdoor displays and A-frames for Oro Valley businesses. On February 1, 2012, Council expanded the temporary use of A-frame signs to include non-profit organizations. As part of the temporary relief, certain fees and administrative reviews are waived and the only requirement is a permit for tracking purposes. These temporary sign relief measures are scheduled to expire February 1, 2013." (source)

The extension would mean that the UPS Store in Rooney Ranch can continue to display its tacky 3 cents per copy sign. We're sure this brings in much profitable business to the UPS Store. Not.

There is no information provided with the request that verifies that, after two years, these signs actually increased business.  We know that the signs didn't do the trick for Down Home Delights and The Loop; and Target and Office Max seem to do fine without them.

So, absent facts, the Council will operate on anecdotal evidence and emotion.
---
Will Gil Alexander Retain His Position On CDRB?

The last item on the agenda, item 15, is the approval or disapproval of current (volunteer) Development Review Board ("DRB") member Gil Alexander to second three year team.  Neither Mayor Hiremath no DRB board liaison want Gil on the Board.  The Council member meeting packet of materials include a letter to Gil from Mayor Hiremath. The letter states that the council had decided not to reappoint him.  The fact is: The council never made such a decision.  Or, if it was made, it was made in violation of open meeting laws since the decision was not made at any form of council meeting.

At issue is the belief on the part of some that Gil's role on DRB precludes him from speaking at town council meetings on items related to DRB reviews.  Also, according to the material included in the meeting packet, apparently Gil questions applicants on details of their plans. This latter item seems to bother Town Planning member David Williams, who, according to the filing, rebuked Gil for this. Williams' position is that detail questions are not what DRB members are supposed to do.

We look for  a lively discussion on this one.
---

Fireworks Tonight At Town Hall?

---
There could be fireworks at tonight's Oro Valley Town Council meeting.  A discussion of four items on tonight's Oro Valley Town Council Meeting Agenda should make things interesting. You might want to attend; or, at a minimum, watch the live feed via the Town Of Oro Valley web site.

First, there's item D on the consent agenda. This would replace town attorney Tobin Rosen with an interim town attorney.   What makes this interesting is that Tobin Rosen is not retiring until January; and that he has agreed to remain on staff to aid in a transition after that point.  In essence then, Tobin Rosen is being relieved of his duties if this agenda item is approved.  We understand that finding a new attorney to replace Tobin will take time.  There is no reason that we foresee why that process can't start immediately, while Tobin is the active Town Attorney.

Second, there is the public hearing on the Innovation Park Economic Expansion Zone fast track approval process.  This is item 3A on the regular agenda.  You should expect discussion of adding a requirement that there be at least one public hearing for all such projects.  The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning staff recommendation as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission includes no such hearing requriement; even though residents have spoken of the need for it at neighborhood meetings and at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on it.  Their pleas have been ignored. So much for the value of community input as perceived by some who work at town hall.

Third, there is approval of two additional monument signs for the Fry's Gas station.  These signs would be located along LaCanada and Lambert Lane.  This is item 4 on the regular agenda.  Talk about overkill.  Does a "Town Of Excellence" really need five monument signs in one area?  Did sign's help The Loop survive? Did signs help "Down Home Delight's" Survive?  The answer, of course, is no.  The Fry's gas station will be a destination store because one can get discounts on gas.  Therefore, people will find it.

Fourth, there is item 6 on the main agenda. This item will change the way Council Members can add items to the council's agenda.

Recall last week we posted how items get on the Oro Valley town council agenda. Three days after this posting, we learned that there are some on council who want to change this process. They want to make it more difficult for you and for you those in the minority on council to get an item on the agenda.

In essence, implementing item 6 would meant that four members of council need to approve an item for addition to the agenda and not two.  The result is that minority members of council will likely not be able to add agenda items.   We don't see a need to change a procedure that is not broken. Its not as if Council Members are requesting to add frivolous items.  It would be best if this change would simply "die a quiet death."

Perhaps there will be some health disagreements among council members on these four items.  Perhaps, some "fireworks".  We will be there. We hope that you are too.
---

Council Meeting Highlights: Aquatic Center Logo Unveiled

---

Oro Valley's New Aquatic Center Logo

Oro Valley unveiled its new logo for the aquatic center at last night's Oro Valley Town Council meeting.  MTCVB  worked with the town to create it.  Economic Development Director Amanda Jacobs noted that the help from MTCVB was greatly appreciated.  The town needed to create the logo quickly so that the logo could used by MTVB to promote the aquatic center at an upcoming international swim.

Allison Cooper, Oro Valley resident and MTCVB Director of Marketing, presented the logo.  Allison noted that the aquatic center logo was designed to be:

• Usable across all media channels
• Easily understood
• Clean and simple
• Timeless
• Contemporary
• Representative of Oro Valley

Also, the town will have a new web site: aquaOV.com for the aquatic center.  (Web site is not yet operating)

Allison also showed collateral material (a mesh bag) to be handed out by MTCVB to swim conference to attendees. The bag has TUCSON SPORTS in big letters in the middle of it and aquaOV.com in small letters at the bottom of the bag. Tucson is predominate on the mesh bag and Oro Valley very small letters.  We do wish it had been the other way around!
---
Last night, in the "call to audience" section, Bill Adler spoke regarding his perception that there has been reduction in the level of service at the Oro Valley Library since it was taken over by the county.  Bill remembers being assured that the services will be the same at the public hearing that was held regarding the transfer of the library to the county . Bill believes that the service has degraded. There are, he notes, no new programs. The web site is more difficult to navigate.
   
Did anyone else actually believe that the level of service at the library would be the same under county control?

Items D, the TREO report, was pulled  from the consent agenda for further discussion.  Councilman Garner noted that the report regarding specifics about Oro Valley were missing from the report.  The report was accepted on a 7-0 vote.

Regular agenda item actions:

• Approval of a liquor license for Wal-Mart by a 7-0 unanimous vote.
• A DUI home sentence resolution was approved for the magistrate court to use.  This may result in a reduction of incarceration costs. 
• By a 6-1 margin (Zinkin dissenting), the council approved reducing citizen input into the construction design process.
• A sign code amendment to add specific fines for sign code violations was denied, 5-2.   As we noted in a previous posting, the town has no means of nor any interest in enforcing these violations. They will consider what to do sometime in the next six months.

Meeting time: 2h 20 mins.

---