Bits and Pieces

Catalina Foothills group opposes Oro Valley annexation efforts

During the public hearing on Oro Valley’s Path Forward General Plan, this past Wednesday, Tom Pugh, speaking on behalf of the Catalina Foothills Association, urged Oro Valley officials to stop pursuing annexation efforts involving nearby unincorporated areas. Pugh said the association represents more than 1,700 homes and does not want to become part of Oro Valley. He stated that letters expressing those concerns had previously been sent to the Town and asked Council to respect the wishes of residents living in the Catalina Foothills area.

Unused Preserve funds redirected to pond irrigation and ADA trails
The Oro Valley Town Council voted Wednesday to use about $150,000 in unspent fiscal 2025-26 Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve funds, plus $50,000 from next year’s allotment, for plant and turf irrigation in the pond area as part of the pond restoration project. Council also approved use of a $136,210 Arizona State Parks grant for ADA trails in the same area. Supporters said doing the irrigation work now, while the pond is being built, would be more cost effective and would make it easier to complete other improvements later. 

Council approves Stonegarden Grant funds for police night vision equipment
Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council unanimously approved participation in the Operation Stonegarden grant program, authorizing the Police Chief to enter into an agreement with the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to receive up to $38,808 for equipment. The funding will be used by the Oro Valley Police Department to purchase night vision goggles to support regional law enforcement efforts, including coordinated deployments with U.S. Border Patrol aimed at reducing human trafficking, smuggling, and related criminal activity. The grant is reimbursable and tied to specific federal requirements, with the equipment intended to enhance officer effectiveness in targeted operations.

Town extends agreement with Pima County for animal control services

Also Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council approved a one year extension of its intergovernmental agreement with Pima County for animal control services, continuing the current arrangement from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. The agreement does not include a direct contract payment amount. The service model is based on Pima County retaining licensing fee revenues and covering remaining costs through its own general fund, with no change to the existing terms. The extension allows Pima County to continue enforcing local animal control ordinances and providing sheltering and care services within Oro Valley. During public comment, one resident urged the Town to seek stronger enforcement response provisions for neighborhood complaints involving pet waste and animal control issues.

Town terminates contract legal services to consolidate under Town Attorney 

The Oro Valley Town Council approved termination of its contract with Mesch Clark Rothschild for Town Attorney services, following the establishment of an in house Town Attorney position, currently held by Steven Zraick. The change reflects a shift to consolidate legal services under a single office that reports directly to Council. According to the staff report, maintaining both a contract attorney and an in house Town Attorney created potential confusion over roles, raised ethical concerns about who provides legal advice, and could result in unnecessary costs. The contract termination was made by mutual consent and allows the Town to streamline how legal services are delivered going forward.

- - -

Bits and Pieces

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.

Animal control agreement with Pima County extended another year

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.

- - -

“Barking” Up The Wrong Tree?

On tonight’s Town Council Agenda (2/20/19) is a submission for a potential ordinance pertaining to excessive noise caused by animals (barking dogs) and birds. There will be a Public Hearing on amending the Town Code (Chapter 18, Articles 18-1 and 18-8, Excessive Noise caused by animals or birds).

The Executive Summary for this agenda item states:
“At the request of Councilmembers Piña and Rodman, the Legal Services Department undertook a review of the Town's Animal Control Code, specifically, relating to the article addressing excessive noise caused by animals and birds.

Excessive noise caused by animals or birds can be very disruptive to the peace and health of the Town’s residents. As such, the Town has a compelling interest in controlling such noise. In order to provide effective enforcement of the excessive noise section of this code, it is necessary to further amend the code to further define excessive noise by animals as well as the punishment for violating this section of the code. It is further necessary to add a section outlining the legal process which addresses enforcement of this updated code.”

The Town already has Noise and Nuisance Ordinances

Town Code 10-1 – Miscellaneous Offenses

Article 10-1-4: Noise – No person shall negligently make, cause, or permit unreasonable noise.

Article 10-1-5: Nuisances – It is unlawful for any person to maintain a public nuisance… anything which interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood or by any considerable number of persons…

Town Code 18 – Article 18-8: Excessive noise caused by animals or birds

Article 18-8-1: Civil Infraction - It is a civil infraction for anyone to own, possess, harbor and/or control any animal or bird which frequently or for continuous duration howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other sounds, if they are clearly audible sounds beyond the property line of the property on which they are conducted and they disturb the public peace, quiet, or comfort of the neighboring inhabitants.

LOVE wonders why we need a new ordinance or an amended ordinance if the above ordinances were already being enforced…or were they? And if they weren’t, will a new or amended ordinance make any difference?

Councilmembers Pina and Rodman may have violated Council Policy #2
Council members are not allowed to issue directives to a staff member, however, according to the Executive Summary (above) it was Councilmembers Pina and Rodman who asked the Legal Department to review the Town’s Animal Control Code.

The possible violation of this council policy (and others) will be discussed in a separate article that will be published tomorrow.
---