More misinformation exposed!!

 

We received the following as an email from OVBill and thought it deserved a post to show that most people do get it and some people want to continue their tirade without acknowledging or knowing the facts…especially when the facts do not support their position.

Thanks OV Bill for calling out Mr. Richardson!!

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From OV Bill

So, this is what one recall supporter, Phil Richardson, has resorted to doing. When facts do not add up to support a recall…just make them up!!!

Mr. Richardson has crafted his own set of “facts” and is emailing them to his neighbors (see below a copy of his email).

Mr. Richardson, you are factually incorrect. The council did not “block” a citizens referendum.

The two individuals who attempted to bring a referendum to fruition bungled the job.

State law PROHIBITS councils from initiating a vote in these types of matters because it is the JOB of our elected officials to make these decisions in a community’s best interest. Even if the council wanted to put it to a vote, they are legally precluded from doing so.

I am curious what the term “NO VOTE FOUR” means since they voted yes. If you are implying that there was actually a vote to NOT send the question to the voters, then once again you are wrong and apparently intentionally misleading your neighbors. You should at least provide the facts, but they don’t really support a recall, now do they?

+++++++++++

Richardson email follows.

Sat, Mar 28, 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM

Oracle and Suffolk entrance to Suffolk Hills

Oro Valley voters. Stop and sign the petition to force a recall election of the Mayor and 3 council members who blocked a citizens referendum on the multi-million dollar tax burden of buying, renovating and running this huge money-loser. IF THE WILDCATS PLAY A DAYTIME GAME – WE’LL BE SURE TO BE NEAR THE ENTRANCE OF SUFFOLK HILLS BEFORE AND AFTER.

STOP AND SIGN TO PREVENT A TAX BLACK HOLE CAUSED BY THE “NO VOTE FOUR.”

Posted by Phil Richardson

1d ago to Suffolk Hills + 12 neighborhoods ·

Explorer v Truth Letters

We’ve posted two comments to two of the Explorer letters we discovered in the on line edition of 3-18-15. You can read the letters if you like and here is the link to the Explorer, just click on http://tucsonlocalmedia.com/ and go the tab “Your opinion”.

We would have posted them here, but they were too long and not very accurate.

We do believe the following response made individually to the letters makes some good points.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Response to Mr. Hartung letter:

Don’t let Mr. Hartung “soft sell” you on what an actual recall is. It is a serious consideration that is and was intended to replace those in elected office who committed egregious acts for which there was no other way of removing them.

Voting for a Community Center hardly fits that description!

Does Mr. Hartung not understand that in order for any action to be taken by a representative government there must be a majority vote? He seems to think that is unnecessary or just not his majority choice.

Actually, the first three sentences of Mr. Hartung’s letter are correct. I think this “Major-4” as he refers to them as had done exactly that, i.e. acted in the best interests of the community.

Including Naranja Park, burying electric cables, Steam Pump Ranch improvements, new park programs, the Aquatic Center and the list goes on, all in the interest of the community as a whole.

The connection with the “Don’t Sign” signs and upsetting OV citizens I don’t get. Are we to believe his recall signs have not upset any of our citizens? Really!!

Timing again of the decision and why, explained many times, but I guess it just doesn’t fit what he wants to hear. Let him keep beating that drum. He feels his opinion matters more than those of the duly elected officials who do represent the people.

Don’t be fooled by a blatant attempt to change the direction of OV and remove four very effective people on our Council.

DON’T SIGN and don’t be silent in your support of Oro Valley!!!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Response to Mr. Emmert’s letter:

Well Mr. Emmert like Mr. Hatung starts down the right path with his first few paragraphs and then veers into opinion not supported by fact.

His reference to not putting this to the “voting public” ignores just a couple of facts.

  1. It was someone else ineptness that did not allow this to go to the “voting public” not any Council action by the “Major-4” or anyone else on Council.

This is the old joke “I didn’t say it was your fault but I am going to blame you”!

  1. As explained in a Council session by the Town’s attorney there is no mechanism for taking a once made decision to the voters as she describes OV as a “Title 9” entity.

He is right on another point “leadership is a function of a selfless desire to formulate policies and arrive at solutions for our community’s benefit, based on guidance and input from citizens…etc”.

The “Major-4” and whatever they chose to call the other Council members have done that. Look around. Take a look at the list of accomplishments and the state of OV and it’s finances, programs, streets, parks, public safety, water assets, etc… and I think you will see they have. No they all haven’t agreed at times (we have statistics on how often and not and you would be surprised at how well it has worked).

None of this just doesn’t happen to fit Mr. Emmert’s story line.

Recall about Golf & a Community Center for all of OV?

Yes it is.

Here is the text (in italics below) of the petition for the Council Members.  We hope you haven’t seen it or signed it.  Same old same old after several Council meetings and the forums to explain.  All about opinions and some inaccurate information on the petition.  Disagree with a single decision and there you are “Recall”.   Don’t forget, the Sun City Board voted to make their facilities available for collection of signatures!

The grounds of the recall are as follows:            (State in not more than 200 words the grounds of the demand.)

xxxxxxxxfailed in his duties to Oro Valley Citizens as a Town Councilmember. He voted to purchase the El Conquistador Country Club, Golf and Tennis Facilities without public approval or input. He also obligated the Town to a long-term financial agreement to operate the golf courses, which allows the resort to retain its status as a franchised resort with Hilton Hotels and Resorts with no limits on costs to the taxpayers. Ignoring public input, he voted along with Mayor Hiremath for the Council to pass a 0.5% Sales Tax increase without a sunset clause to supplement the costs involved to operate the golf courses. The tax starts March 2015 even though the sale is not yet final.

Xxxxxxxx followed Satish Hiremath’s lead in a bad deal for the Citizens of Oro Valley. With the golf industry in a major decline, this rushed, back room deal will pit Oro Valley against private industry for the patrons needed to remain afloat. His irresponsible actions pose a threat to the financial stability of the Town. For these reasons, including the poor judgment involved, we request his Recall.

I hereby make application for the issuance of an official serial number to be printed on each side of each signature sheet of the petition (please affix to lower right-hand corner).

 

Arrett v Bower Appeal Rejected

A three judge Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the Arrett/Lamona referendum petition decision by Town Clerk Julie Bower. It affirms, once again, her decision as correct in rejecting the petitions for lack of a required serial number.

Details as follows you can read the opinion for yourself if you like by just clicking the case number.

 

2 CA-CV 2015-0017  DEBRA ARRETT and SHIRLEY LAMONNA v. JULIE K. BOWER, Oro Valley Town Clerk; MICHELE REAGAN, Arizona Secretary of State  Author 2 CA-CV 2015-0017 ** Constitutionality decision
Issues Summary: Did the trial court err in denying Appellants’ request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122 compelling the clerk of the Town of Oro Valley to accept and transmit to the Pima County Recorder for certification a referendum petition Appellants had submitted and which the clerk had rejected for lack of compliance with the serial-number requirement of A.R.S. § 19-111(B), and in finding that requirement did not impermissibly burden the constitutional right to referendum?

Mayor Satish Hiremath KVOI 4Tucson at 4

 

The date on the Podcast is incorrect the interview was actually Friday 3-6-15

Take a listen and tell us what you think.

http://kvoi.com/podcast-post/4tucson-at-4-10/

 

 

A note from the Mayor of Oro Valley

As a preface to this, the Mayor has asked us to post this statement.  You have probably heard most of this in bits and pieces over time or if you attended any of the forums, but here it is all at once in one place.

 

To the TRUTH readers,

FACTS REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF THE EL CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB

There have been many statements made regarding the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club and its amenities. Some statements made to the public have been intentional misstatements made by individuals. This letter is to let everyone know the true facts.

  • We had three Executive Sessions “regarding the purchase, sale or lease of real property”. All now know these were specific to the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club on La Canada Drive for possible use as a Community/Recreation center.
  • ALL OF COUNCIL WERE PRESENT FOR ALL THREE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
  • At the first Executive Session, limits for negotiating the framework of a proposal to bring back to the Council for discussion and possible action were given to the Town Manager and me by the whole Council.
  • There were 3 sellers along the timeline for the property between June 18th and December 17th. The first seller we were in discussion with occurred between the timeframe of June 18th and the middle of July.
  • Staff started doing their due diligence as of June 19th.
  • The seller requested that we withhold their name on the off chance that the deal of buying the Hilton resort fell through. Obviously, if their deal with MetLife for purchase of the Resort fell through, our conversation for potential acquisition of the El Conquistador Country Club would end. The deal eventually fell through.
  • Staff had done an enormous amount of due diligence until the middle of July when the first buyer pulled out.
  • There was no activity or discussion about purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club during the time between mid July and the first week of October.
  • Around the first of October, The Town Manager and I had heard rumors of another buyer possibly wanting to purchase the Hilton Resort property.
  • Still following the direction of the entire Council, we entered a conversation with MetLife (this is the second seller) to see if they would sell us the El Conquistador Country Club and all of its amenities. They said that the property was appraised at over $3,000,000 and that they would sell it to us for $2,500,000. This figure was a bit more than what was authorized by the Council for the Town Manager and me to negotiate.
  • Very shortly after the conversation with MetLife, HSL entered the picture as the proposed buyer for the Hilton Resort at the beginning of the second week in October.
  • The Town Manager and I started a conversation with HSL to see if they would be willing to potentially allow the Town of Oro Valley to purchase the El Conquistador Country Club and all of its amenities. This was around October 8th.
  • A dollar figure that was under one-half of the financial cap that the Council set was offered by the Town Manager and me to HSL as the starting point of a discussion for a possible proposition for me to bring back to the Council to discuss, as was directed by everyone on the Council.
  • The specifics of that conversation were relayed to the entire Council during the October 15th Executive Session. ALL OF COUNCIL WERE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
  • Based upon direction by the entire Council, staff was told to resume their due diligence at an expedited rate.
  • HSL made it very clear from the beginning that they did not want their name released to the public, as was the request of the first seller, until they knew that they would buy the Hilton property.
  • The initial bargaining price from the Town to HSL (which we now know to be $1,000,000), was again under one-half of what the Council set as the top limit and was well below the selling price offered by MetLife to the Town. This price was to include the 31,000 sq ft. building, the 36 holes of golf, 15 tennis courts and 2 pools at the El Conquistador Country Club.
  • After further conversations with HSL, the amenities for the possible purchase price were expanded to include all of the above PLUS the tennis and golf pro-shop building, the 9 holes of golf and the 16 tennis courts at the Hilton Resort property on Oracle Road. This was for the same price with no increase. This spanned over 300+ acres in the heart of our Town.
  • It was requested by HSL that if the Town of Oro Valley was seriously interested in acquiring the property discussed, that it be voted upon by December 17th as they were going to finalize their deal with MetLife to buy the Hilton Resort on December 18th.
  • HSL also wanted the Town to decide its interest in acquiring the property by December 18th because there were two additional buyers in line for purchase of the same property.
  • I told them that it would be possible to make a decision by December 18th because the Town had voted to reactivate the cancelled December 17th meeting for the sole purpose discussion and possible action by the Council on any items related for the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club in addition to any other pertinent discussion and action items related to this purchase.
  • At the December 3rd Executive session just before the council meeting, a final conversation amongst all of Council was had.
  • At the December 3rd council meeting regular agenda, it was discussed and revealed to the public that the Town offered $1,000,000 to HSL for 330+ acres which included 45 holes of golf, 31 tennis courts, both buildings, and two pools. A public hearing was had at this meeting to seek public input regarding the potential acquisition of this property.
  • At the December 17th meeting, another public hearing was held and Council voted 4-3 in favor of the acquisition. Council members Brendan Burns, Bill Garner, and Mike Zinkin were against the acquisition.
  • The acquisition date when the Town would own it, if it passed, was always March 1st.
  • As to the details of the acquisition, it was always planned that the community would be educated about the deal to acquire the amenities through press releases, fact sheets and open forums.
  • Everyone on the council had plenty of time to review the data and was kept abreast of the situation through the three Executive Sessions and Council reports.
  • NO BACK ROOM DEAL WAS MADE UNILATERALLY BY ANYONE! The Town Manager and I were instructed by the entire Council to bring back a proposal with parameters to see if the Town had an opportunity to purchase the property to use as a Community/Recreation center.
  • A decision to acquire or not acquire the property was required on December 17th because there were two other buyers in line ready to discuss the acquisition of the same property with HSL if the Town was not interested in acquiring the property.
  • THIS DECISION WAS MADE BY A COUNCIL VOTE….NOT UNILATERALLY. THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN THERE ON DECEMBER 18TH IF THE TOWN CHOSE NOT TO ACQUIRE IT ON DECEMBER 17TH.
  • There is NO contract to date with Troon. Contract negotiations are taking place.
  • There is NO contract to date with HSL. Contract negotiations are taking place currently for the agreed upon price.
  • The Town had planned to acquire the property by March 1st but due to the litigation currently under way, the acquisition date for the Town will most likely be April 1st.
  • This has NOTHING with the Town wanting to own a golf course. This has to do everything with the Town being presented with an incredible opportunity to buy this property to use as a Community/Recreation center for its residents. It also has to do with who is going to control over 330+ acres in the Town of Oro Valley.
  • The property does NOT always have to remain a golf course. It has remained a golf course for over 30 years because all of the previous owners of the hotel always wanted a golf course associated with the hotel.
  • It is a fallacy that in order for the Hilton to keep the designation of the term “resort” in their name that the Hilton HAS to keep the golf course. There are properties across Arizona and the country that have the word “resort” in their name and they do not have a golf course attached to their property.
  • There are entitlements on the property on certain portions of the golf course which currently allow for single family homes to be built.
  • One of the two buyers in line waiting for the Town to decide was a developer. There is now currently another developer who added their name to the “waiting list”.

I would like to close by saying that I understand why the public would feel as if they had very little time to decide properly on whether to acquire the El Conquistador Country Club and all of its amenities (along with the amenities at the Hilton Resort) to use as a Community/Recreation Center for our Town. The fact of the matter is that due to the other two potential buyers, a vote by the Council was necessary on December 17th on whether to acquire or not acquire the property. What I do not understand however is why some on Council state that they were not made aware of any conversation regarding the proposal to purchase the property until December 3rd when the public was made aware. As you can see by the above timeline, this is simply not true. Any other comments or statements made by other Council members countering this timeline are simply not true. The Town Manager and I are the only two individuals that are uniquely qualified to state the above timeline in addition to the content of the negotiations. Now you know the TRUTH.

Respectfully,

Dr. Satish I. Hiremath-Mayor

 

Attendance more important than facts and support?????

Below in this Post is a “draft” of the allowed three minute Call to the Audience comment by Stan Winetrobe from the February 18th Council meeting. 

Before you read it (and while it appears lengthy, it is “priceless), we would like to make a couple of points:

  1. You can hear the actual comment on the Town website if you like.
  2. Mr. Winetrobe takes them to task for their continued questions that he points out were answered in multiple Council reports which hopefully they read.
  3. There is a highlighted area in this post where Mr. Winetrobe asks if they were so interested, why the three did not attend the Police Budget Study Session of Last April. The reasons given were…Garner “out of town”, Burns… “military duty with advance notice given to town” finally, Zinkin…”20th wedding anniversary”.  These answers were given in a “rebuttal” as allowed by law in response to personal criticism and Mr. Winetrobe apologizes for not knowing the reasons.

Why is number “3” above so significant? Well it certainly speaks for what they are concerned with, i.e. not the facts presented to them or that they continue to misrepresent their receipt of them, but only their concern for their attendance record!!!  Wow….you have to hear it to believe it. !!!

Hello, my name is Stan Winetrobe, and I have been a resident of Oro Valley for over 20 years.

First, I just want to say “thanks” to the town staff.  A lot of misguided criticism has been directed their way over the past few months, and I just want to say thanks for their hard work and professionalism.

On December 3, 2014 Councilmember Zinkin attempted to show a Powerpoint presentation about the police budget, and his request was denied.  So, he read from a letter dated September 30, 2014, that he and CM Garner wrote to the Town Manager and Chief of Police, and also read from the presentation slides that he was not permitted to show.  CM Zinkin invited the public to read his letter and slide presentation.

I have read those documents, and I have many concerns about the misleading content, insinuations, opinions and incorrect facts contained there in.  I wish I had an hour to comment, but I am limited to only three minutes. Here are my top concerns.

First, you asserted, incorrectly, that officers driving take home vehicles get paid while “driving the cars”, and you appear to reference Oro Valley Police Procedures Rule 6.0 page 3 of 4 sections C and D.  You have since stated that this is not the case, and that officers do not get paid while commuting in take home vehicles.  So you admitted you were wrong, but it does cast doubt on all other claims you make.  How many other claims, comments and calculations in your September 30th letter and December 3rd slide presentation are not credible?  I expect my elected councilmembers to do their homework, research the issues, and present factual information to the public.

Second, in your letter and at the council meeting of December 3 you lament that you keep asking questions that are not answered about the police budget and use of overtime.  I read council reports dated March 13, April 17, May 9, July 24, July 30, August 7, and August 14.  It appears to me that your questions have been answered.

Your question about crime and events that occurred that caused the overrun in the OT budget?  In addition to the aforementioned council reports, the OVPD sent out 79 media releases in FY13/14 that support answering your question.  Overtime expenses are not easily predicted.  Although overtime expenses exceeded their budget, they are a subset of the personnel services budget, and that line item was NOT exceeded.  Also, under Chief Sharp’s leadership, the OVPD has never gone over their total budget allotment.  If you are so interested in the police budget, why did CMs Burns, Garner and Zinkin not attend the Police Budget Study Session of last April?

Finally, in your letter of September 30th, you state, in part “when they hear of this communication, they will accuse us of being anti-safety, anti-cop, anti-kid, anti-school.”  The September 30th letter was signed by councilmembers Zinkin and Garner.  When is the last time either one of you attended an event supporting or honoring law enforcement?

And let’s not forget this quote from CM Garner that appeared in the April 17th, 2014 edition of the Az Daily Star:

“(quote)Unfortunately this department is a prima donna department.  It tries to put candidates forward sympathetic to it so its interest can go unchecked.  It’s union politics and thuggery that goes on.” (unquote)

Actions speak louder than words, and these words are awful.

Thank you.

A LETTER FROM MAYOR HIREMATH

Good Afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

Below is a letter from Oro Valley Mayor Satish Hiremeth. We are honored that he has chosen the TRUTH Blog and are happy to pass along his comments. I was discussing the current issues facing a residents, and he opined that what we do between now and the end of November 2015 will either be one of the best things to happen to Oro Valley, or one of the worst. I couldn’t agree more.

****************************************************************************************************

To readers of the Truth,

As you know by now, there is an attempt by individuals to recall not only myself but Council members Joe Hornat, Mary Snider and Lou Waters.  I want you to know that it is their right to follow the democratic process allowed for recalls if in fact, they believe that we are not leading our Town in a positive direction.  I also want you to know that I support the process but would like to give you some background information so that you are better educated if someone asks you for your opinion on the recall.

In 2010 when we four took office, there was a $3,000,000 deficit between the tentative budget and the final budget.  The deficit was overcome by creating expense savings of $1,500,000 and creating a revenue source of $1,500,000.  This path was chosen because we have residents in our town of equal proportions.  In difficult economic times, there are those who will scrimp and save to make ends meet and are comfortable with that path and then there are those who will work longer hours, get a second job, etc., so that their quality of life will not be sacrificed.  Most elected officials make the mistake of choosing one group over the other thereby automatically alienating one-half of their resident population.  I am very fortunate that we four, along with then Councilmember Steve Solomon, chose to respect both sides and chose a path of equal parity.

The only original member from the 2010 council was Councilmember Bill Garner and his voting record is as follows:

Tentative budget         Final budget

2010                Yes                              No

2011                No                               No

2012                Yes                              Absent

2013                No                                No

2014                No                                No

As a result of Councilmember Garners voting record, never having voted yes on a final budget, I cannot in good conscience give him any credit for the success that Oro Valley has achieved since 2010.

In my opinion, there are two types of individuals; constructionists and destructionists.  Constructionists first look for the opportunities that a situation may bring to see if there is any value.  Once the value is determined the risks are evaluated and then a rational decision is made.  Joe Hornat, Mary Snider and Lou Waters and I are of this camp.

Destructionists only look for the risks first in every situation.  This is problematic because all things have a certain amount of risk associated with them and if this is the first focus, often the opportunities are missed.  This doesn’t apply only to new situations being presented but applies to existing situations as well.  It is easy to criticize but it is much more difficult to have a vision.  The four of us have a solid, well focused vision for the town of Oro Valley.

The successes in Oro Valley since we took office have been numerous.  We have been able to balance the budget, preserve public safety, invest in our roads, expand services in both transit and the library (while saving approximately $800,000), partnered with city of Tucson to bring an additional 2000 acre feet of water into Oro Valley, to name but a few.

In one of the worst recessions in our history, we currently have a surplus after beginning 2010 with a deficit shortfall of $3 million.  In actuality, this surplus is in addition to the investments we four made in the Aquatic center ($2.2 million), Naranja Park ($2.3 million) and burying the underground wires along our Oracle road scenic corridor ($2.1 million).  One could make a legitimate argument that, in essence, we would have had additional monies of $8.3 million added to our contingency reserve fund balance had we not made those investments improving services and bettering the quality of life for our residents.

In closing, everything you see in our town since we  were elected in 2010 was done by design.  NOTHING that you see today happened by accident or by luck.  If you think that there is a discernible difference in our town compared to other municipalities and you like your public safety, roads that you drive on, the quality of your schools, the arts and culture, the recreational opportunities and the quality of your life in general…then you must realize that this is directly attributed to me being your Mayor and Joe Hornat, Mary Snider and Lou Waters being your council members.  Now you know the Truth.

Respectfully,

Satish I. Hiremath

Mayor

Sun City Board votes to facilitate signing of recall petitions.

Recently Sun City changed it’s name from Sun City Vistoso to Sun City Oro Valley. They wanted to capitalize on the fact that they are a part of Oro Valley. Your Town Council applauded that change. It signaled a great partnership.

Now the Boards seeks to assist with the recall of the very people who made Oro Valley the place they want to be associated with…

The Sun City Board voted in a special session to allow their facilities to be used for collecting signatures for recall petitions of our Mayor and three Council members.

We understand Sun City’s Board’s self interest in protecting their golf course. Although, El Con has been there a long time and this isn’t new.

We understand and respect their support of the democratic process of a referendum to send the purchase question of a Community Center to the voters.

We do not understand why they would allow their facilities to be used to sign recall petitions when they don’t allow them for candidate positions.

Wait, maybe we do understand, could they just be vindictive?

While we can’t damn all of the Sun City residents it does appear the Board has forgotten who their friends are. Maybe we should support a recall of the Sun City Board?? Do they truly represent Sun City residents? We wonder. According to one of their blogs 86 % of the respondents felt they should not make their facilities available for signing recall petitions. Now who is not listening??

Let’s not forget their about face when their self-interests are at stake.

I bet they supported the Pima County bond for dogs…but things for people and kids…or seniors that don’t live in Sun City…probably not and further they don’t like the people who do care about ALL of Oro Valley.

They have three community centers and I guess they just plain don’t want you to have just one.

 

Radio Interview with Satish Hiremath KNST 790 AM 2-26-15

If you listened…we’d like to hear what you think?

If you didn’t get a chance to listen the link below will take you to the podcast.

http://www.knst.com/media/podcast-interviews-interviews/satish-hiremath-february-26-2015-25844036/

Any questions unanswered?