"550" State Land Annexation Back on the Table (Part 2 ): Many Unanswered questions

Yesterday we reported on the presentation by consultant Mark Longaker, the State Land Department’s new annexation process, and council concerns about such. Today we discuss other  unanswered questions and concerns raised by the Town Council about whether annexing these State Lands makes sense for Oro Valley.

Where will the water come from?
Several Council members questioned whether Oro Valley has sufficient water to support annexing and developing the State Trust Land. Vice Mayor Melanie Barrett noted the property would rely entirely on CAP water, which could increase rates for all residents. Water Utility Director Peter Abraham said full build-out would require roughly 1,000 acre-feet per year [See bases of estimate after article] and flagged uncertainty after 2026 when the current Colorado River drought-contingency plan expires. He added that the Town’s infrastructure could serve the property, but future CAP cuts could make that service unsustainable.

Is this annexation economically feasible?
Several Council members questioned whether annexation would make financial sense. Councilmembers Jones-Ivey, Nicholson, and Murphy pointed to prior analyses indicating the project would be viable only with substantial commercial/retail development. They observed that nearby Marana centers already meet most retail demand, leaving limited room for new stores. Nicholson added that local sales tax is about 44% of Town revenue, while residential growth alone generates limited ongoing income. Without sufficient retail, the Town could face added service costs without offsetting revenue.

Click to enlarge

Environmental and sensitive-lands considerations
Council members raised concerns about the site’s environmentally sensitive features. Barrett cited the large number of saguaros, ironwoods, and washes mapped on the property and said any plan would likely need a low-density “finger” pattern similar to nearby Marana to preserve natural corridors. Earlier work under an Environmentally Sensitive Lands Overlay (ESLO) identified core resource areas and resource-management zones that would significantly limit where construction could occur.

Are there State Lands on Oracle better suited to the Town? Shouldn't the town identify and pursue these first?
Councilmember Josh Nicholson suggested exploring other State Land parcels—particularly along Oracle Road—where utilities and existing retail make development more practical. He argued those sites could generate revenue without the environmental and infrastructure challenges of the 888-acre tract near Tangerine Road.

Why act now?
Councilmember Murphy questioned the urgency to proceed, noting Marana has shown no interest in the property and there is no immediate development pressure. She favored waiting until financial conditions, water availability, and public sentiment clearly support such an expansion.

Shouldn’t the town first consider the financial prospect and resident interest to annexing this property before opening conversation with the State?

Vice Mayor Barrett and Councilmember Murphy said the sequence in the new State Land Department process should be reversed. They argued that public engagement and an updated fiscal analysis must occur before requesting a Planning Authorization Letter (PAL) or hiring consultants. Both cautioned against spending Town funds before residents are heard and the economic implications are clear, reminding colleagues the last attempt faced strong opposition over density, traffic, and environmental impacts. Members also noted the Town would be navigating an untested, jurisdiction-led process with uncertain outcomes and potential procedural conflicts with the State.

Council wants more confidence that State Land annexation process has really changed and will remain that way

There was no formal Council direction to pursue annexation further. Members agreed that too many questions remain—about the process’s stability, the Town’s water capacity, and fiscal viability—to justify moving ahead now. The topic may be revisited after the State clarifies its administrative approach and there is more evidence from other jurisdictions or updated local analyses.

- - - 

Note: Oro Valley’s current Central Arizona Project (CAP) allocation is about 10,305 acre-feet per year. The estimated 1,000 acre-feet of water needed for full build-out of the State Trust Land would represent roughly 10% of the Town’s total CAP supply. Water Utility Director Peter Abraham said this estimate assumes that the entire area would eventually be developed, using typical Oro Valley per-acre water demand rates for mixed residential and limited commercial uses. He also assumed the property would rely entirely on CAP water—not groundwater—and that current CAP allocation levels remain stable. Abraham noted that nearly all of Oro Valley’s existing CAP supply is already committed to current customers, meaning such an annexation would reduce the Town’s flexibility during future CAP shortages or to support other growth areas.

"550" State Land Annexation Back on the Table (Part 1)

Council talks State Lands… again
The Oro Valley Town Council discussed the 852 acres of State Trust Land west of town. Discussion of annexing this property has been dormant for years because the State Land Department was understaffed. In addition, no council identified a compelling reason to pursue annexation on the state’s terms, since there was no lasting economic benefit to the Town. There was also significant community opposition when the idea was last publicly vetted. (Past LOVE coverage.)

Consultant says: Things have changed
Consultant Mark Longacre of WLB Group, an LJA Engineering company, told the Council that recent changes at the Arizona State Land Department make it worthwhile for Oro Valley to take another look at annexing the 550 acres south of Tangerine Road. Longacre’s firm was retained by the Town specifically to research background information, refresh prior work from about eight years ago, and participate in the October 15 study session—nothing beyond that.

 "The properties currently under consideration for annexation

by the Town of Oro Valley are the two State Land‐ owned sites

indicated on the map below, referred to as Tangerine North

(302 acres), and Tangerine South (550 acres)."

Towns now have more say in permitted uses
In the past, consultants worked directly for the State Land Department, which controlled planning and zoning of State Trust Land it intended to sell. Longacre told the council that the process has shifted in favor the the annexing community. The State now prefers that consultants work directly for the local jurisdiction—in this case, the Town of Oro Valley—to guide entitlement and planning. The State remains involved in an advisory role. Longacre called this a “culture shift” that gives local governments more control over how the land is planned and developed, making it a reasonable time for the Town to reconsider annexation.

Winfield puts on the brakes: What is the change, really—and will it last?
Mayor Joe Winfield questioned the legitimacy and permanence of the State Land Department’s new approach. He asked whether the change is grounded in formal legislation or is simply an internal administrative decision. If it’s merely administrative, a future administration could reverse it, leaving the Town exposed after investing time and money. He noted Oro Valley has seen similar setbacks before, such as the Arroyo Grande effort.

Consultant: administrative—and untested
Longacre confirmed the new process was introduced under the current governor’s administration, not by statute, and he did not know whether it is formally documented or codified. He agreed that this uncertainty poses a risk and suggested seeking written assurances or an agreement from the State Land Department to ensure continuity regardless of future political changes.

No track record yet
Several Council members expressed concern that neither Longacre nor the State Land Department has experience with the new jurisdiction-led entitlement model. With no track record to guide the process, the Town would be navigating an untested system with uncertain outcomes and possible procedural conflicts between the Town and the State.  Longacre admitted that his firm have no direct experience with the new process and have not yet seen it in practice, though he claimed to just beginning a similar engagement with another jurisdiction and does not know whether the approach will endure over time.

Tomorrow
Needless to say, council members had many questions regarding the annexation and its feasibility.  More on their concerns tomorrow.

- - - 

Mayoral Candidate Danny Sharp: “We Need More Rooftops”

Mayoral Candidates Danny Sharp and current Mayor Joe Winfield have different approaches to “Development”

This was noted at the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum of June 28. 

Sharp advocates for the “rooftop strategy”. Winfield does not

Danny Sharp stated at the Forum that Oro Valley needs to bring in on-site retail business in order to grow sales tax revenues.  According to Sharp: “We have to bring in more retail. We don’t have the retail because we need to bring in more rooftops.”

Winfield believes that the General Plan should guide whether variances and general plan amendments should be approved. The Winfield Council abided by the General plan during the past four years. Winfield promised to do so when he ran in 2018 and he did so. Only one general plan amendment was submitted and it was rejected because it did not fit the concept for that area.

The “rooftops strategy” is a revisit to the Hiremath Years

The “rooftops strategy” is a revisit to the Mayor Satish Hiremath years (2010-2018) of leadership. It was his strategy. Hiremath was eager to grow rooftops because he felt it would attract retail business and increase the town’s sales tax revenue. His council, which included current council candidate Bill Rodman and current Council Member Steve Solomon, approved a slew of general plan amendments, converting land into high density residential zoning. His council was so eager to increase rooftops that they approved several general plan amendments before the citizen vote that approved the 2016 “Your Voice, Our Future” general plan was ratified by the Secretary of State.

The “rooftops strategy” added to congestion but did not foster retail business success

As LOVE reported, the Hiremath Council left Oro Valley with a large pipeline of residences to build. As a result, the town’s population has and will continue to grow substantially.  Still, onsite retail struggles in this town before, during and now after the Pandemic. One merely needs to look at the vacancies at the Oro Valley Marketplace and the need for complete revisioning as an example of the failure of this strategy. Indeed, one could reasonably question the feasibility of the “rooftop strategy” in today’s retail world, a world where on-line retailing, a lack of personnel, and huge supply chain issues are plaguing brick and mortar retailers. 

We believe it was the rejection of the “rooftops strategy” that propelled Winfield, Barrett, Jones-Ivey and Nicholson to win the 2018 election, defeating Hiremath and his team. Voters were tired of the congestion that the rooftop strategy has caused.

Sharp will be more aggressive in pursuing growth.

For example, Sharp would have approved the Oro Valley Marketplace revisioning as presented 

Sharp blames Winfield for not approving the Oro Valley Marketplace revisioning as presented to council.

Sharp stated at the Forum: “When people propose projects we need to be sensitive to the fact that this costs them money. We need to be sensitive…We should have told Town West years ago that what they were proposing would not be approved and that they needed to come up with something that fits within the town’s framework.”

What was presented to council was vetted by town staff in detail, vetted at neighborhood meetings, vetted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and vetted at a public hearing before council. This is the town’s process. There was no opportunity for the Council to tell Town West anything because the council can only discuss the project together in public at a hearing after this process has been completed. 

After all this, however, what was presented to council-15 exceptions to code, 75 foot tall buildings, and minimal road setbacks- was “not in character” with the town. Still, the council wanted to shape this project because the Oro Valley Marketplace is a commercial disaster; so they continued the application as opposed to rejecting it.

We believe that it is reasonable to conclude that Sharp would have approved the project as presented because the developer had invested so much into it and because the project had gone through a long process.

Sharp does agree with Winfield in one area. According to Sharp, speaking at the forum: “If [a developer] brings in something that is not in character with the town, we need to find a compromise to get to ‘Yes.’”That is exactly what Winfield did. In June, Town West, the owner of the Marketplace, presented a new plan that is more in line with existing codes and the character of the town . It is a revised plan that both Sharp and Winfield said they would support.

 "The properties currently under consideration for annexation

by the Town of Oro Valley are the two State Land‐ owned sites

indicated on the map below, referred to as Tangerine North

(302 acres), and Tangerine South (550 acres)."

Sharp will vigorously pursue the annexation of the Tangerine State Lands

Both Sharp and Winfield agree that town should annex the Tangerine Road State Lands. This is 852 acres, split into two portions (panel left). Sharp asserts that it should have happened long ago because he worked on it with State Lands when he was interim town manager (June 2016 to September 2017). 

However, as stated by Winfield and as reported in LOVE, the State discontinued conversation with the town in July of 2019 because State Lands was short of staff. They were to continue discussions in November of that year but failed to do so. Sharp would seek to restart these discussions immediately. The town’s annexation plan calls for seeking this annexation in the near term.

…Though not all residents want this annexation

It is not at all clear that residents want the town to annex these lands and open them for development. Annexation and development of these lands met significant opposition from residents when presented at neighborhood meetings.

- - -

Summary: Oro Valley Town Council Special Session – July 24, 2019 – Part 2. Arguments in support of retaining the golf courses.

Public Comment for Retaining the Golf Courses
Below are highlights from the speeches given by residents during the 4-hour long Town Council Special Session on Golf Options. For those who prefer to watch the video, a link is provided at the end of this article.

Some audience members were very disrespectful
Despite Mayor Winfield asking the audience to be respectful and civil (including no applause and no jeering), the audience members who supported keeping 36 holes of golf refused to comply. Councilmember Rodman also applauded after two teenagers spoke in favor of keeping the courses. There were other times when there was disrespectful laughter or grumblings in the audience when residents spoke in support of closing the courses.

There were others who used their 3 minutes to attack the mayor rather than simply stating their position on the golf courses and presenting facts to substantiate their claims.

Arguments for retaining all 36 holes
Highlights from some of the speeches are below. The common theme in the speeches (and in multiple letters submitted to the Town) was fear of a decline in home values for the homes with golf course views, loss of their social life, and threats of litigation against the Town. Our editor’s responses are in purple.

• I paid $30,000 extra for a home with a golf course view. The house next door paid $35,000. The house next door to that paid $40,000 extra. That’s what you’ll find for the 550 homes that are along the 36 holes of golf.

(Many people paid premiums for custom homes on large lots with sprawling desert and mountain views only to have that land later rezoned down to 7000 square foot lots with 2-story tract homes during the Hiremath years. They also complained about the loss of their views and reduction in property values and they were ignored.)

• Grass is environmentally advantageous. It removes pollutants including dust, dirt, CO2, and returns oxygen. Grass also lowers the air temperature.

(When other Oro Valley residents have objected to mass graded developments adjacent to their homes and the resultant loss of desert vegetation that cleans the air and lowers the air temperature, their pleas were ignored and the mass graded developments were approved.  Why should clean air be a consideration for those living along the golf courses but not for anyone else?)

• Hundreds of non-golfers use the courses every day after golfing hours for walking and playing sports.

(People can still use it for walking if it’s turned into walking trails and they can still play sports if it’s turned into a park.)

• We chose our home in Oro Valley to be less and ¼ mile away from two golf courses, a bunch of tennis courts, a swimming pool, and a recreation center. We have 3 grown children who live in Seattle and need a place to come and play golf and tennis in Jan-Feb-Mar-April.

(Your grown children can still come here to play golf. There are plenty of other golf courses in the area).

• Repurposing will increase allergies with the different types of plants that would grow there. I’ve had two dogs with Valley Fever since we moved here. You’re going to start stirring up the ground and more Valley Fever is going to happen to the people and their pets.

(Yes, some people have allergies to desert plants…but some people have allergies to grass! We agree about Valley Fever, but again, thousands of Oro Valley residents have been subjected to “stirring up the ground” around their homes in order to accommodate new residential developments plus the road widening of La Canada and La Cholla. Why should Valley Fever be a consideration for people living along the golf courses but not for anyone else?)

• Two teenagers discussed “all that my sister and I have accomplished in the golf world.” They discussed golf tournaments in which they won or placed second. Closing the golf courses will take away our training facility and decrease property values. What will become of our backyard? Living on the golf course is the number one reason why our parents purchased a home here.

• One woman talked about elderly residents and residents with medical problems who like to sit on their patios and watch the golfers and wave to them. “He would sorely miss not watching the golfers.”

(There are thousands of residents – including elderly and those with medical problems - who sorely miss their desert views, their tranquility, and all the wildlife that once frequented their neighborhoods.)

• The decision is tainted because “the newly elected council primarily ran on an issue platform of one single item, and that was closing the golf course.”

(That is false. They ran on multiple issues, including wanting to take a breather on the over-development of the town, advocating for playgrounds which was the Number 1 request of citizens in the 2014 Parks and Rec Survey, and putting an end to the uncivil treatment of the citizens by the former mayor.  The decisions of former Mayor Hiremath and his Majority-4 council regarding golf were tainted because they didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake in purchasing the golf courses.)

The next speaker was very rude to the mayor and did not follow the “instructions to speakers” which state that you “must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.” You can watch her 3-minute speech in the video below.


(Responding to Ms. Davies comments: The Hiremath council won the 2015 recall election by the skin of their teeth with just 51% of the vote vs. the Winfield council winning the 2018 election with almost a 60/40 split. If you have a bias for green grass, perhaps you shouldn’t live in the desert. Many of us moved here because we wanted to live in a town with sweeping desert and mountain views. Our views have changed dramatically over the past 10 years with the desert scraped and the mountain views blocked by multi-story buildings. Natural settings should have a higher priority than man-made views.

She accused the mayor of speaking out of both sides of his mouth (which we’ve never personally observed). This is a laughable accusation when you consider that one of the arguments for keeping the golf courses is that they’re worried about a drop in the Town’s finances from a possible loss of revenue, while on the other hand, they have threatened to sue the town if the golf courses are closed. We call that, “speaking out of both sides of your mouth.”)

• It’s critical to our happiness to find a way to connect with people. For us, that avenue was golf and the community center. Our days are filled with activities at El Con Golf and Tennis. We were willing to pay more for our home because of it’s unique location. All of our friends are golfers because golf provided the vehicle to meet people.

(Taxpayers are now being asked to subsidize other people’s property values AND their social lives. Can we all get in on this taxpayer subsidy?)

• I bought a home here with plans to retire on the golf course. I don't go to the library, but yet I still support it. I don’t swim at the aquatic center, but I still support it. I don’t have children in school, but I still support the schools.

(There is a big difference between tax dollars being utilized for a public library, public schools, or public parks and the aquatic center vs. tax dollars being utilized to maintain property values for a select group of individuals in town.)

• We should look at who can provide additional funds, the HOA’s and individuals who live on the golf course should help to subsidize the golf courses and I would be happy to help subsidize it so that my property value and the home that I just renovated will continue to hold value.

• When I purchased my home two years ago, I had no idea this was even on the table or we would have made a different choice.

(The seller should have disclosed that information. This is a problem between her and the seller, not her and the town).

• If you’re going to change this from a golf course, you’re going to have to rezone the property. It’s zoned for golf not open space. If you want to create a park, you’re going to have to go through a General Plan Amendment and a bunch of other stuff.

(According to the Town’s Power Point presentation in 2014, besides a golf course and clubhouse, the current entitlements along the golf courses also allow for residential - commercial offices - public offices – retail - religious institutions – restaurants - recreational facilities - social center buildings – hotel - equestrian facilities. Current permitted appurtenant uses include small retail shops - cocktail lounges with live music - day nursery satellite receiving station - equestrian exhibition arena.

Would they prefer one of the above entitlements over returning to natural desert, open space, and walking trails?)

• ARS 12-1134 clearly states that if the action of a municipality diminishes our property values, we get to ask you to pay for it. The PAD has, by definition, legal standing. It defines the golf courses to our advantage. You take that away, someone has to pay for it, and it shouldn't be us.

You can read the statute HERE

(Our take on the statute: It discusses citizen recourse when, “the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced.” A change in the status or use of public property that abuts private property does not in any way affect the right of the private property owner to do whatever is currently permitted on their property.)

You can watch the entire Special Session HERE  Public comments begin at the 38:00 mark on the video.

Part 3, public comments for closing the golf courses, will be published on Friday.

Guest View: Love Contributor ~ Mayor Hiremath omits important details on the Tangerine State Trust Land annexation

An article in the January 3rd Explorer, “Recent Oro Valley land changes to remain in place” discussed the attempt by the Political Action Committee, Keep OV Green, to take the General Plan Amendments passed during the December 6th town council meeting to the voters via a referendum.

One of those amendments was the Tangerine North General Plan Amendment (annexation of 321 acres of State Trust Land north of Tangerine -- between Moore Road and Tangerine).

The Explorer article contained the following comment regarding that annexation:

“Hiremath wasn’t even sure why Keep OV Green chose that property to focus on, because developers may not choose to be annexed into Oro Valley. Pima County and Marana also have the property in their respective general plans.”

Mayor Hiremath’s comment omits important details about prior Council actions for the Tangerine 550. (550 acres at the NW corner of Tangerine and Thornydale). Oro Valley has a serious interest in this land, which now seems to be why the land north of Tangerine is important. Both these parcels of land will be designated as one large Master Planned Community (approximately 871 acres).

The Paper Trail

August 28, 2012: Councilmember Hornat met with the Arizona State Land Department concerning the 550 acres of State Land at Tangerine and Thornydale. (This is evidenced in the letter below from the State Land Commissioner, dated February 27, 2013).

October 2012: The Town of Oro Valley approached the City of Marana with an “Annexation Request” regarding the Tangerine 550. (This is evidenced in the letter below from the City of Marana dated October 1, 2012).

February 2013: State Land Commissioner, Vanessa Hickman, sent a letter to Councilmember Hornat, dated February 27, 2013, outlining three specific items required in order for Oro Valley to move forward with the annexation. Those items are:

1) A no-objection letter from the Town of Marana
2) A waiver of town ordinance requirement for fencing of open range livestock grazing
3) An agreement not to enact or apply ordinances or regulations prohibiting mining on the State Land

Mayor Hiremath is not being fully transparent nor is this as innocent as the mayor would like us to believe. Although Marana has this land in their General Plan, it is false to say that they remain in the picture. I have recently followed-up with the City of Marana and they still support the decision in their letter of 10/1/12 to allow Oro Valley to annex the property.

Letter from the Town of Marana

Letter from the State Land Commissioner

From You, Our Readers

We receive and read messages sent to us by our readers. We thought that some of what they write could be of interest to all. So, from time to time, we will share them with you.  Here are some recent readers submissions (without identification of the writer).
---
Former Oro Valley resident says county annexation will cost the town
"After the public meeting 8/2/17 with Oro Valley town staff about the possible General Plan Amendment to annex 321 acres of State Trust Land north of Tangerine, I believe Oro Valley residents need to know that Oro Valley Town Council continues to march down the road of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. Vella [ Town Of Oro Valley Planning Manager and Planning and Zoning Administrator] explained that this land north of Tangerine WILL COST Oro Valley money as it has no commercial opportunity. 

So why is the town even considering it?  Other than it being additional State Trust Land the town intends to annex and develop (adding to the Tangerine 550). 

It baffles me as to why this town council wants to continue to destroy Arizona's natural beauty, continue to cost the citizens of Oro Valley money, and leave nothing to their legacy other than track homes and concrete. Add this to the golf course debacle. How much money are the residents of Oro Valley willing to allow this town council to squander?

To protest the General Plan Amendment please email your dissent to: Michael Spaeth mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov Case #: OV1701699

(I am a previous resident of Oro Valley 2007-2015)"
---
Reader astounded that bulk of town council election funding is from developers
"Hi, I was reading in your blog that the Oro Valley town council had 80 percent of their campaign paid by developers?

Do you have the link to an article or the FOAI on that?"

Yes. Developers are the primary source of funding for Oro Valley's council. Our reports on this are accurate. We sourced the information from candidate election reports. We have been writing about this "ad nauseum" since the first term election of the majority 4. Use the blog's search box to search to learn about Oro Valley's election funding.
---
Clarification to a reader on our revised "Guest View Policies"
Our guest view policies changed in July to accommodate anonymous postings for guest views. We felt that change is appropriate, given the current political climate of attacking people for what they say. Apparently a reader did not read our new policy. The person wrote us:

"Besides posting more misinformation on this blog today, you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite. In addition, you must identify yourself in the blog posting. No pseudonyms allowed. So.... who is this Nombe fool? "

This same individual who wrote this message to us sends us at least one email a week complaining about our blog and attacking it. Here's another sample of an email to us:

"So on the save the cactus site. Which cactus did you want to save? Because if you wanted to save them all, it would be save the cacti. Right?"

and then there's this one:

"Didn't we vote Mike [Zinkin] out of office? And..... if we eliminate golf, what will happen in its place? Solutions, not bitching! Can't you move to another city?"

No. "We" didn't vote Mike Zinkin out. But you probably did.

In all of these messages, the writer seems to think that only one individual is writing our posts. Au contraire. We currently have four staff writers, one editor, and we have received Guest View submissions from nine individuals in just in the past month.
---
Reader wants LOVE to highlight Mayor Hiremath's voting record

"Grateful for the website - shouldn't the record of Hiremath be published? His record on tax increases, property purchases, what the budget was when he came on board, what it is today - let's publish ALL the facts."

Yes. We agree. Why don't you write a Guest View on this?
 ---
That's it for today.
Hope you had as much fun reading these as we do.
And, if you want to send us a comment, please do so by using the form on the right panel of the blog. We will read it and respond where appropriate. And, while you're at it, sign up to our "opt in only-no spam" email list!

LOVE Contributor ~ Community Opposes Oro Valley’s Future Annexation of State Land (Tangerine North)

Outside the meeting room at Casas Church, local Save the Cactus activists greeted attendees and passed out flyers detailing their concerns with Oro Valley's unwanted and incompatible overreach into their community.

Oro Valley Planning Manager, Bayer Vella, faced a room packed with passionate area residents who came to learn the reasoning behind the potential Tangerine North State Land General Plan Amendments and future Annexation.

Mr. Vella assured the group that this meeting would provide staff with a good listening opportunity for their concerns but that the land would be developed regardless of whether Oro Valley annexes it or not. He further advised attendees to say "ditto" during the open question segment rather than repeat someone else’s comments and to “Be kind and treat each other the way you want to be treated.”

 "The properties currently under consideration for annexation

by the Town of Oro Valley are the two State Land‐ owned sites

indicated on the map below, referred to as Tangerine North

(302 acres), and Tangerine South (550 acres)."

He then proceeded to clarify various misconceptions related to the potential annexation of the two State-owned properties referred to as Tangerine North (302 acres) and Tangerine South (550 acres.) The meeting primarily focused on the proposed Plan Amendments for Tangerine North.

Background
Oro Valley is 90% built out and is looking at annexation to grow the town. At the April 5, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Community Academy session, developers expressed an urgency in establishing lot supply during 2017 and 2018.

To that end, Tangerine South was added to the Town’s official Planning Boundary and designated as a Master Planned Community in the Town’s voter approved General Plan in 2016. While many residents were likely unaware that this was in the Plan, it was included with the expectation of annexation due to its commercial potential.

The possibility of also annexing Tangerine North arose during Tangerine South annexation conversations with the State Land Department. It is primarily suited for residential development due to limited frontage on Tangerine Road and is currently zoned to allow one residence per three acres under the current Pima County jurisdiction. Oro Valley, however, is recommending a land use designation of Master Planned Community as this will offer the most flexibility for development and increase the value of the property.

Who will purchase and develop the two properties?
Oro Valley will not assume ownership of these properties if they are annexed. Rather, the State Land Department will sell the land at public auction to the highest bidder. No purchaser or developer has been identified.

Why is Oro Valley interested in annexing these properties?
Oro Valley wants to manage growth and control the potential impacts of land near or within its boundaries to ensure quality developments and environmental resource conservation. Annexations however, must make fiscal sense and be approved by the Town Council.

The costs will outweigh the revenues
Tangerine North offers NO advantage in terms of a revenue stream for the Town as Oro Valley has no property tax. The cost to the Town (additional police, road maintenance, etc.) will outweigh the revenue derived from construction taxes and impact fees. Over time, a purely residential annexation loses money. There is also little chance that Tangerine North residents will increase our sales tax revenue by shopping or buying gas in Oro Valley since it will be more convenient for them to shop in Marana (unless Tangerine South is also annexed by Oro Valley and provides those commercial services).

Residents raised the following concerns:

• Desert conservation, wildlife and riparian areas – Oro Valley has lost a significant amount of credibility with recent land management. The motto, “It’s in our nature” is inaccurate. Their "Nature" is bladed every day by developers with Town Council's approval.
• Developers’ campaign donations and cozy relationship with Oro Valley Town Council. Residents fear that they “will work behind the scenes to get whatever they want.”
• A Master Planned Community is not compatible in this rural area with 3+ acre homesites/horse properties.
• Traffic and road conditions (Thornydale Road)
• Water resources
• Loss of property value
• Lack of fiscal analysis (Staff is unable to prepare this analysis until State and Oro Valley agree on land use.)
• Lack of representation - Neighborhood meetings are all about the process and checking off a box that meetings were held.

Given this extensive list of concerns, it was no surprise to hear the room echo with “dittos” when one person commented that he didn’t want to be part of Oro Valley or be surrounded by it. He said that they moved here to get away from the city and they do not want Oro Valley bringing the city to them.

A second Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled for August 21st at 6 PM in Council Chambers, 11,000 N LaCanada Drive

Learn more HERE or contact Michael Spaeth at mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov or 520-229-4812.

Visit savethecactus for additional information on how you can help.

Interesting Information As It Concerns GRFD & Rural Metro Fire Service Bills

The following message is from a resident in the Suffolk Hills community of Oro Valley (southeast of Oracle rd & Magee.) Although we are aware of much of the information gleaned by the homeowner, it is applicable to all OV homeowners and we believe worthy of passing on.
**************************************************************************************

I have come across something that may be of interest to other property owners here in Suffolk Hills.

I received an invoice from Rural Metro Fire Department just this month and my rate from last year had increased by 47%. I thought this was exorbitant so I started calling to see why such a large increase.

I first called the city of Oro Valley and was told that they did not have any control over Rural metro and perhaps Pima County did.

I next called Pima County and after several transfers the person in charge of finances told me that Pima Counaty had no control over Rural metro, but did say they were a private corporation and perhaps the Arizona Corporation Commission could tell me something.

I call the Arizona Corporation Commission and the said Rural was a corporation but they did not have any control over them.I then called back to Oro Valley and asked for a copy of any contracts as well as the Oro Valley Emergency Service Standards
which were mentioned in the letter attached to the yearly fee invoice.

There is a contract between the City of Oro Valley and Rural Metro Fire Department as well as Golder Ranch Fire District. This contract specifies that the City of Oro Valley be paid $250,000 per year for the right to provide fire service to Oro Valley.

I think this is what has happened. The Old Kord ambulance service became Rural Metro Fire and they now think that the ambulance and rescue business is more profitable to them than the fire service, so they have gone to the Golder Ranch Fire District (In Catalina)and made a contract with them to provide the fire service to the City of Oro Valley. The rates for this service were much higher in Catalina (they might have a fire hydrant every few miles or so) Golder Ranch liked the rates in Catalina because they were higher and would provide them more revenue, so they just adjusted
our rates to match theirs. They are also tying the rates to the Pima County assessed value of the home.

Their Corporations depend on subscribers for their revenue, but no one is required by law to subscribe to their service.

I just pass this along, so that you may know what is happening in our area.

Wayne Elledge
550 E. Cambridge Dr.
Tucson, Arizona 85704

Pima County Tentative Budget Meeting ---Mon. May 20 @ 9:00 AM

The following is a message from Tom Jenney--Arizona Federation Of Taxpayers

ARIZONA FEDERATION OF TAXPAYERS

16 May 2008

Dear Pima County Taxpayer:

This coming Tuesday, May 20^th, members of the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity and the Pima Association of Taxpayers will attend the 9:00 a.m. meeting of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, which will feature a hearing regarding the County’s Tentative Budget for 2008. The County budget usually determines how much the Supervisors will choose to levy in property taxes.

AFP Arizona and the PAT strongly encourage all members to attend the meeting (though we understand that many of our over-taxed activists are normally working at that hour!), which will be held on the first floor of the County Admin building at 130 W. Congress Street downtown. If you plan to attend, please reply to this email.

The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity recently released its 2008 Tax and Spending Pledge for local governments, and invited all city council members, county supervisors, and candidates to sign on as Friends of the Taxpayer.

To pledge to be a Friend of the Taxpayer, a supervisor or candidate must promise not to vote for any FY 2009 budget that is greater than the FY 2008 budget, not vote for any increase in total property tax LEVIES (note: we did not say “rate”), and not vote to increase any sales taxes or impact fees, even by means of voter referenda.

In 2007, Supervisors Sharon Bronson, Richard Elias, and Ramon Valadez scored as Champions of Big Government on AFP Arizona’s Local Government Scorecard (link below), because they: 1) voted to increase the county budget by 15.8 percent—more than twice the rate of growth of Pima County’s private economy during years of strong economic growth; 2) voted to increase county property tax levies by almost 10 percent; and, 3) attempted to impose a county sales tax.

Supervisor Ray Carroll scored as a Champion of the Taxpayer and won AFP Arizona’s 2007 Local Hero Award for voting against the budget and property tax increases, and for single-handedly stopping the imposition of a county sales tax increase. Supervisor Ann Day scored as a Friend of the Taxpayer for voting against the budget and property tax increases.

So far, Pima County’s FY2009 budget looks relatively modest, with projected spending ($1.46 billion) lower than that of FY2008 ($1.48 billion). But the County plans to increase property tax levies by 4.3 percent, which is still too high for a recession year, and after several years when home and business owners have been heavily over-taxed:

http://www.pima.gov/finance/PDFs/Budget/RecBdgt/2008-2009/00cbdgtschl.pdf

Supervisors Carroll and Day have submitted an alternative budget that does not include an increase in property tax levies:

http://www.pima.gov/bos/rcarroll/PDFs/th-budget.proposal.CarrollDay.pdf

AFP Arizona is asking Pima County taxpayer activists to contact their supervisors (and all supervisor candidates) and encourage them to print out pledge forms, sign them, and mail them in to the AFP Arizona office (Americans for Prosperity, One East Camelback Road, Suite 550, Phoenix, AZ 85012). Supervisors and candidates can also give those pledges to Tom Jenney at the May 20^th meeting.

For printable pledge forms, Board members can visit this page:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/azlocalgovtpledge2008.pdf

Emails for the Pima County Supervisors can be found here:

http://www.pima.gov/bos/bos1.html

Link to AFP Arizona’s 2007 Local Government Scorecard:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/local_govt_scorecard_2007.pdf

Thank you so much for helping to control the growth of taxes and spending in Pima County!

For Liberty,

--Tom

Tom Jenney

Arizona Director

Americans for Prosperity

www.aztaxpayers.org

tjenney@afphq.org

(602) 478-0146

And if you’ve made it this far…

Please join Americans for Prosperity and support your grassroots taxpayer watchdog.

The Arizona Federation of Taxpayers has served the hard-working people of our state since 1980. Now that we have teamed up with Americans for Prosperity, we are fighting the Big Spenders at all levels of government—local, state, and national.

For $10 a year, you can take a stand for freedom and limited government—and save yourself hundreds of dollars a year in taxes. Use the link below to JOIN NOW!

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?page=donate