Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Records - The Oro Valley Voice (36) „,, „,_ 41MMNMNI.... OEM MINS THE Otee _ _.....� =., dd.”: 1 _ __ ��. �� .�..r� i, th = ice. -w----- =•= „iv_ ____ f _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ • Volume II,No.4 Published for residents of the Town of Oro Valley,Pima County.Arizona March[A]1975 NEW CENSUS INCREASES 'TRANSFER' FUNDS Population gains mean dou to Oro Valley Oro Valley's population has — State sales tax rebate: up budget committee continue to building permits and fees range almost doubled, officially, and from$18,819 in fiscal 1974-75 to wrangle over other sources and from$5,280 to$8,780; from the the increase means an automatic $37,410 this new fiscal year amounts. town's business privilege tax, gain of$36,362 to the town. beginning July 1. For example,estimates of the they range from $5,750 to The U.S. Census Bureau's town's potential income from $10,800. — State revenue sharing: up recent nosecount showed Oro from $9,186 to$21,183. Valley with 1,155 inhabitants— WITH HIGHER CHARGES: fewer than some enthusiasts — Federal revenue sharing: had predicted, but a solid gain up from $200 to $2,748. over the 1970 census. a r'v' r' v opact Since several different types — Auto "lieu” tax: up from of"intergovernmental transfer" $3,265 to $6,491. funds are based on population, The Highway User Fund, not By DICK GIORSETTI the gain boosts the amount of included in the above total of money Oro Valley can expect to $67,832,is earmarked for roads The Pima County Board of Supervisors gave tentative receive this next fiscal year, in and streets in Oro Valley. Since approval Monday to proposed costs and services for Oro Valley several areas: it's also based on population,the during budget year 1975-1976. new census boosts the town's The present intergovernmental agreement between the Editor's uote Book income in that category from $10,167 to$20,212. county and Oro Valley, under which the county provides necessary services to the community, expires June 30, 1975. "Work consists ofwhatever - (See related story and memo.) About those -sources of • a body is obliged to do, and income, and the amounts — play consists o f whatever a Mayor Kenneth W..- Holford and three council members there's no argument. They're attended the supervisors'studysession to review proposals with body is not obliged to do." automatic. But members of the the board. p p' 'p Mark Twain (Councilman Lauren Rhude had notified Holford Oro Valley council and the town earlier that he would be out of town Monday,but the mayor said TOWN GETS HEALTHIER, B 1G G E R the meeting couldn't be rescheduled.) Proposals by the county included the provision of law enforcement at a projected cost of $37,510.92. Justice of the peace and constable services estimated at $2,000, and animal Council, Vet eers control services at$6,057.The latter is a sharp increase from the present animal control fees. Holford said the costs, which he termed "roughly" $7,000 or to talk Thursday night $8,000 more than last year, will be presented to the Budget Study Committee for recommendation to the town council at Oro Valleyresidents Thurs- p.m. council meeting, the Thursday night's meeting." day evening will attend their members will meet at 6 p.m. town council meeting to hear with a representative of the RELATED the council and community Arizona League of Towns and - - STORY "`.__.... leaders hash over demands by Municipalities, and discuss Pima County and to argue the other civic bones of contention. A Pima County management assistant wants Oro Valley to projected income and expenses These include the newly- sign another contract with the county before June 15,he told the of the town. completed census,showing Oro Board of Supervisors in a memo last week. The council session follows a Valley with 1,155 residents; B.R.Sutherlin pointed out that the existing contract—which series of town budget commit- plans for cable television in Oro a number of Oro Valleyans have challenged as unnecessary and a tee meetings and a "study Valley; a proposed anti-noise "sweetheart agreement"with th county — expires June 30. session" with the Pima County ordinance; and the county's The Sutherlin memo is reprinted here in full: supervisors Monday morning. $7,000 surcharge on Oro Immediately before the 7:30 Valleyans for sewer use. [Continued on Page 3] 'THE PRETENTIOUS IDEA' UA publication investigating Star-Citizen fairnessl n reporting Oro Valley incorporation The fairness—or lack of it— the investigative team is decided to investigate the Board of Supervisors,both Star shown by Tucson's two daily currently reviewing microfilm Star-Citizen coverage and its and Citizen ridiculed the idea of newspapers in coverage of the files of the Arizona Daily Star's fairness after Oro Valley Voice an incorporated Oro Valley, Oro Valley incorporation fight is and Tucson Daily Citizen's publisher Ted Turpin charged, through their editorials and being investigated by a special stories about the Oro Valley in a letter, that: through slanted news and journalistic team from the incorporation drive,dating back — Neither of the two big "feature" stories; University of Arizona. as far as 1970, when petitions dailies paid sufficient attention —Because of a cozy cronyism were first circulated. to northside news in the late with Pima County and City of The results of that investiga- 1960's and early 1970's even to Tucson bureaucrats, Star and tion will be reported in the Fisher is also interviewing be aware of the Oro Valley Citizen reporters tended to spring issue of"The Pretentious those who helped circulate incorporation effort until it parrot their county and city Idea," the annual journalism petitions for incorporation and became a fact with filing of the staff "news sources" as to the review published by the UA those who battled the incorpora- petitions; folly of Oro Valley incorporation Department of Journalism tion after those petitions were — Once that possibility —with little or no rebuttal from graduate school. filed with the county. became apparent and was being Oro Valley pro-incorporation Headed by Howard Fisher, The University journalists stalled by the Pima County sources. .. — That Supervisor Conrad WOULD PERMIT BIG STATE PARK _ _ Joyner, whose 4th District includes Oro Valley, covertly opposes and incorporated Oro County okays Rancho Valley and has influenced several other county supervisors to adopt the same position. purchase; northeast of OroValley - That Joyner, through his pupil, Oro Valleyan Virgil l Brandon,cleverly used the Star By TOM BURKE it for an extension of Catalina because of current lower and Citizen reporters to build a The Pima County Board of State Park. valuation on lands held only for false public impression that Supervisors has voted 4-1 to If successful, Pima County investment. They pointed out most Oro Valleyans are opposed purchase the Rancho Romero would receive 3,700 acres near that the owners of Rancho to an incorporated town. property west of the Catalina the site and another 1,900 acres Romero were denied a rezoning —That reporters for the two Mountains —if an independent near the Pima County Fair- request in 1973 and consequently dailies gullibly accepted,without appraisal values it at no more grounds. couldn't develop the property. analysis or without seeking than $1,600 per acre. Most discussion of the Chief Deputy County Atty. contrary opinion, the "financial A heavy majority of the Oro acquisition involved its possible Rose Silver told the supervisors studies"made public by Joyner, Valley area voters approved the cost to the county. that appraisals by the county Brandon and anti-incorporation proposed new park in last year's Opponents of the purchase, staff would be discounted in members of the county staff. county bond election. supported by Democratic Super- court because they were made — That the management of The board's decision followed visor E.S. "Bud" Walker, by an interested party. the Star and Citizen aided and more than three hours of public contend that the county can't Democrat Sam Lena asked if encouraged such distortion of discussion on the measure, afford to give up more taxable citizens could challenge the Oro Valley news, even to the which would allow the county to property. county's acquisition without an extent of editing from their own buy Rancho Romero's 2,654 Other speakers against the independent appraisal and Mrs. reporters'stories such facts and acres and then negotiate a trade acquisition said the land was Silver said such an appraisal quotes which might strengthen with the state. The state wants over-valued at $1,600 per acre would only be a better the incorporation case. indication of"honest intent." Turpin further charged,in his The supervisors,with Walker letter to the UA journalism Clip this c o e p o. — mail it i• with $2 for dissenting, then voted to school, that the two Tucson Y O r S b s t!'I p 110 to the r 0 Valley Y O l t e! authorize an independent ap- dailies — which enjoy a joint praisal of the property within advertising monopoly — have a My name -r-� the next three weeks. vested interest in preventing Donald Pitt, attorney repre- the creation of a northside Street address senting the owners of Rancho suburb. Romero, agreed that the The Star-Citizen manage- City State ZIP appraisal was in the public ments have built up comfortable I enclose $2 for a year's subscription to the Oro Valley interest—but he added that the relationships with county and Voice. owners believed the price of city officials and staff members, $1,600 is fair and won't sell for he contended; relationships Mail to: less. which are profitable and which Oro Valley Voice, Sancruval Publications, Ted Turpin, The other four board members they don't want disturbed. Editor. P.O. Box 3003, Tucson, Az. 85702 agreed publicly the county Another municipal goverment ' wouldn't pay more than $1,600 in the area might do that, he st per acre. said. ...More nty memo on charge a Oro I Continued from Page 11 of the Township for the the prior ten months of the County code by reference" period from July 1, 1974, enforcement program. Phrase in parentheses to through Dec. 31, 1974. For the first seven months read..."which is the same as On advice of Counsel, it is Disposition of the twenty- of the present fiscal year,the the Pima County Building anticipated that the inter- seven citations stemming Animal Control Center has Code..." governmental agreement from eighteen traffic contacts compiled figures indicating a 3. Fee should be changed between County and the Town is being researched by the seven-month deficit of$2,877 from $35 per person and per of Oro Valley be consummated Justice Court and the for Oro Valley operations appearance to a minimum not later than June 15, 1975. amounts of fines will be and a projected 1974-75 $40 per person or to $25 per available within the next few deficit of$4,572. hour per person on a The existing agreement days. On projected Revenues, portal-to portal basis. terminates June 30, 1975. C. Animal Control. Expenditures and Deficit for P The Director points out Pursuant to Paragraph 7, the 1975-76 fiscal year for the that for him or a member of The departments of County Section C of the present Town of Oro Valley are as his staff to appear before the which furnish services to the Agreement, the Animal follows: Town Council or in Court Town have been contacted with Control Center shall furnish Revenue $ 140.00 would necessitate additional the request that any changes in the Town, prior to May 1, Expenses 6,197.00 time in the County office fees or service items be 1975,a cost studyrelative to Deficit 6,057.00 indicated in order that the Town _ preparing requisite reports for such an appearance. He and the Board may review them added that because of this in timely fashion to serve as the D. Highway Service. preparation time, the exist- basis for the Township's budget The Director of the Highway Department has ing fee schedule is insufficient and for inclusion in County's recommended that Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the existing to cover costs. general departmental budgets contract(both relate to labor costs and equipment charges)be The director has added also. eliminated and,instead,incorporated in the figures projected that "It appears from the for specific services, which are as follows: (1974-1975 in In order of their listing in the parentheses) agreement that we would not agreement, the servicing de- 1.Road Grading (275.11) $308.00 perform as a building partments and status of present Road shouldering (275.11) 308.00 department to Oro Valley, reports are as follows: Weed brush-cutting (331.01) 246.20 and if this is the intent of the agreement, then it would be Litter pick-up (331.01) 246.20 A. Law Enforcement. impossible for us to give an Maintaining drainage ways (354.30) 402.42 estimate of cost of service as No requested changes in required." the eight Paragraphs of G. Sewer Management. descriptive services. There have been exchanges In the summation of the 1.Road Grading (275.11) $308.00 of correspondence between Agreement(beginning at the Road shouldering (275.11) 308.00 the Chairman of the Finance lower one-third of page 10), Committee of the Town of p g Weed brush-cutting (331.01) 246.20 Oro Valleyand the Director the Law Enforcement total Litter pick-up (331.01) 246.20 for the requested two hours Maintaining drainage ways (354.30) 401.42 • of the Department of per shift,three shifts per day Street sweeping ( 66.19) 120.44 Sanitation. is projected in the amount of Patch-crack filling on streets (236.80) 218.00 In the last letter from the $37,510.92. (Supporting Weed spraying (141.97) 278.23 latter,under date of Feb.11, figures on which the compu- Installing barricades in dips 1975,the method of comput- tation is based are attached.) during heavy summer rains ( 83.38) 96.80 ing the service charge of the The rate of prisoner per diem Patching utility cuts ( 2.00) 2.00(sgft) Sewer service were explained incarceration is to again be Patching utility cuts-concrete base) -- 2.50(sgft) in detail; and it was made $9.50, said incarcerations to clear that the Department of be for violation of town 4.Street name signs -each- ( 35.00) 38.50 Sanitation Director would be ordinances. 24"x30"Speed-limit signs ( 45.00) 49.50 glad to meet with the 30"x30"Warning signs ( 38.00) 41.80 Township's Mayor and Coun- B. Justice Courts. 24" combination Stop & Street cil and/or financial represen- Justice of the Peace and Name sign ( 60.00) 66.00 tatives to explore alterna- Constable services to be tives and options for furnish- provided as stipulated in the 5.Center stripe(per mile) (125.00) 137.50 ing the necessary sewer agreement for the present service. To date there has year. 6.Field Inspections of subdivision /.. been no response. The Sheriff's Department streets or drainage ways-per day ( 50.00) 9.80(hour) Additionally, library service compiled a listing of citations 7.8.and 9.Recommended to remain as satisfactory in current for residents of the Town of Oro issued within the boundaries contract. changes in the existing Valley is furnished through the E. Planning and Zoning. agreement: County's agreement with the -_ - .' The Planning Director 1. "County, through its City of Tucson,and taxes levied g accordingly. `' }'9•:; `+�'f reports that thepresent Building Codes Department, gly. r,----/,-.:;:_.•-,,, p This arrangement was contin- ued agreement is satisfactory for will assist Town in enforcing g another year as written. the Town building code, wed at the request of the Town 'F.Building Code Services. (which is similar to Pima authorities, as it is in the Town Read the of South Tucson. -- The Building Codes Direc- County Building Code), -B.R.Sutherlin Oro Valle Voice for suggests the following Town having adopted the y , ONLY TOWN THAT PAYS EXTRA Rhude objects county's added tax on Oro Valley residents for sewer 'services' es Pima County is tapping Oro should pay the additional$7,000 electronics research plant, a and industrial commercial and Valley taxpayers for $7,000 a per year, over and above the peach orchard, and other non- industrial improvements within year for sewer charges — over monthly sewer surcharge of residential entities); their community, which ,Ore and above their regular county 40.16 cents per$100 of valuation —And that Dooley computes Valley doesn't." sewer taxes — and Councilman which all county property the cost of providing sewers to Dooley insisted that the Ore Lauren Rhude wants to know owners pay; Oro Valley not by ascertaining Valley surcharge"is an equitable why. — That the net assessed actual operating cost figures at charge,"which,he said,is what So he wrote to the Environ- valuation of Pima County be all, but by dividing his suspect EPA insists on. ment Protection Agency, a used by Dooley's planners in valuation figures into other Rhude denounced that state- federal body which oversees arriving at a sewer assessment valuation for the whole county. ment vigorously. sewer and sanitation matters, formula, but that they use the "According to that reasoning, "It's double taxation," he and asked. gross assessed valuation of the the cost would be exactly the said, "and I'm going to fight it "Unfortunately,"says Rhude, Town of Oro Valley; same if there were just one until I get it corrected— by the for an explanation, EPA — That this net assessed family living in the Town of Oro Federal government, if neces- referred the letter back to E.W. valuation figure for Pima Valley," said Rhude. sary." "Bud" Dooley, director of the County should exclude "corn- In his letter,Dooley conceded Dooley pointed to the Pima CountyDepartment of P mercial, industrial and mining that "it may appear to the county's new Ina Road sewage Sanitation—which imposed the property and all residential residents of Oro Valley that treatment plant, which his charge in the firstplace. Rhude g property not of a commercial they are receiving a double department installed last year isn't satisfied with the answer nature" (Rhude asked: "Why charge, inasmuch as South after Oro Valleyans and other Dooleysupplied in a letter back y lm. pp should they exclude commercial Tucson (another incorporated northside residents had vigo- toand industrial properties?They town in Pima County) didn't rously protested plans to install "With his rationale,"he said, use sewers too, don't they?"); have to pay a surcharge for open oxidation ponds at that reviewing Dooley's letter,"Pima — That Oro Valley — these activities this year." location. County owes us money." according to Dooley —" "However," Dooley argued, He said that "some 178 He termed "lousy thg" contains only residential pro- "the tax base for South Tucson homes, plus Canyon del Oro Dooley's reasoning, which sug- perty"(it also contains a district is very similar to that of Pima (High) School and Dennis gests: mining headquarters, Canyon County's, because they (sic) Weaver Park"feed sewage into —That Oro Valley taxpayers del Oro High School, an have substantial commercial that plant. AN EDITORIAL Dooleycan'tjustify county'sof OValley Bud Dooley, head of the Pima County Sanitation attempted to justify the additional charges with a Department, has been caught with his hand in Oro four-page letter which throws in every argument plus Valley taxpayers' pockets. the kitchen sink. It would be amusing to watch him squirm, if it The letter does omit logic, however. weren't costing us all money in the meantime. About Interestingly enough, Dooley made a point of $7,000 a year, in fact. referring in that letter to the Ina Road sewer treatment plant, which was installed last year after Dooley's Every property owner in eastern Pima County pays department had to back down in its desire to put open 40.16 cents per $100 of valuation in a special sewer surcharge—whether he's on the sewer or not.In other oxidation ponds there instead. words, the folks at Catalina, Rillito, Marana and And Dooley, we can report from personal Arivaca — who get no county sewer services — are experience, doesn't like being opposed on anything. subsidizing Tucson sewer users. We watched him respond to criticism at Green That alone is enough to make the sewer deal[if you'll Valley,when he suggested that a veteran newspaper editor was senile because he wrote stories and took pardon the pun] smell pretty rotten. photographs showing raw sewage flowing into the But in addition to that,Oro Valleyans are stuck with Santa Cruz River from that community's open a$7,000 annual sewer"service fee" stipulated in that oxidation ponds. sweetheart contract between the county and the Town And we know that Dooley tried — unsuccessfully, -of Oro Valley. The one Holford, Montgomery and we're glad to point out — to get Oro Valleyan Jim Brandon were so frantic to sign late one Sunday last Kriegh fired from the staff of the University of Arizona November, remember? college of engineering, because Kriegh exercised his For that$7,000,Oro Valleyans get not one dab more right as a citizen and taxpayer to appear at public of sewer service than they would otherwise. And the hearings and protest the building of those north side residents of Oro Valley are the only ones in all Pima oxidation ponds. County — that's right, in the whole county — being Come to think of it,county officials like Bud Dooley stuck with this additional sewer tax. are one more excellent reason to strengthen the Town Questioned about that fact by the Environmental of Oro Valley — and give us a buffer against petty, Protection Agency [see related story], Dooley bureaucratic tyrants.