Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1734)Stine, Michelle From: Sirois, Andrea Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 2:12 PM To: Hynd, Jessica Cc: Stine, Michelle; Jacobs, Mary Subject: FW: Naranja Trails Importance: High FYI Sincerely, Andrea Sirois Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley Direct Line: 520-229-4714 From: Cory and Michelle Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 1:17 PM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Naranja Trails Importance: High To the OV Town Council - Our property is impacted by the Naranja Trails project in which the developer intends to build a large tract with high density homes in Highlands Wash. This has gone on for the better part of 8 or 9 years as building in this wash is obviously quite controversial from an environmental impact perspective and for the homeowners that have resided near the wash for close to 2 decades or more. There has been flooding caused by drainage issues in the wash for years without any homes in it and this does not appear to be improved by building a neighborhood within an already existing flood zone. We have also been concerned regarding the scheduling of the public meetings during a holiday week (the June 291h meeting planned right before July 4th) and again on August 4th when so many of those impacted are away for the summer. This appears to benefit the developer and not the longtime, tax paying residents of Oro Valley. We have heard that there is a plan for breaking ground on this project in the 4th quarter of 2022 which would be this Octoberjust when many residents would be returning. It does appear that this meeting schedule has been implemented to the advantage of the developer, particularly since our current Covid numbers are high again, and many do not wish to congregate. Having followed this issue over the entirety of the 8+ years, we also have not noticed any additional information provided regarding mitigating potential flooding or that a sound engineering plan in this regard has been approved (which would be expected if in fact they are starting in October). We are requesting that current Town Council members seriously review the negative potential impact of a high density development being built in one of the main washes in OV/Tucson. The engineering must be perfect to avoid flooding to existing homeowners and those that would reside within the wash itself. The potential for legal action by the new home owners in the wash (and the existing ones near the wash) if they do incur flooding (which seems likely) should be seriously considered by the Council as it will be OV taxpayers that will have to incur these expenses. In addition, it has been brought to our attention by another homeowner impacted that there is a lack of clarity in the developer's traffic study. The Melcor PAD plans from Pima County had all traffic from the Highlands Wash entering and exiting from both Naranja and Lambert Lane (via N Shorecliff Dr). The developers are using some "interesting" language in describing their plans for traffic flow. Their plans allow for existing traffic to use Naranja Drive or Lambert but ONLY Naranja Drive will handle entering traffic. It appears the developers have changed the traffic flow approved by Pima County and the City of Oro Valley. Finally, we have observed inconsistent and outright incorrect information being supplied by the developers of this land throughout the many years of them attempting to obtain approval to build a high density neighborhood in a major wash. We expect our Town Council to protect the interests of OV residents and current property owners/taxpayers rather than developers seeking solely a monetary gain. Thank you for your consideration, Cory and Michelle Pearson Stine, Michelle From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: If helpful, for your records. Sincerely, Andrea Sirois Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley Direct Line: 520-229-4714 From: Paul Loomis Sirois, Andrea Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:31 AM Stine, Michelle Hynd, Jessica; Standish, Michael FW: 2022-23 General Pay Plan Comments 22-23 General Pay Plan Comments 220720.docx Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:25 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Jacobs, Mary <mjacobs@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: 2022-23 General Pay Plan Comments Good morning Mayor and Council, Since Item 1 on the regular agenda for tonight is not a Public Hearing and my comments may take more than 3 minutes, I'd like to ask you to continue this item to either your next meeting or a special meeting in late July or August. I do apologize for the late submission but was up until 1:30 this morning trying to find information on your website. While I fully support a general pay plan with internal and external equity for all Town employees and voted in favor of many in every budget that was presented while I was Mayor, they were all fully justified and unbiased. When we did our comprehensive studies, either with human resources staff or contracting to a consultant, the council was provided the full information for the comparable cities and towns and private industry. We were provided the rationale for weighting each pay grade for each comparable and the recommendation. Each grade compared Oro Valley's current and recommended pay to each comparable grade. This was done even before I was elected. A good example of this is Resolution (R) 93-27 of July 7, 1993 adopting the 93-94 Tentative Budget. It was 13 pages of the required budget forms and attached a 15 page Compensation Plan May 1993. The plan used data from the 1993 Local Government Salary and Fringe Benefit Survey published by the League of Cities and Towns. The survey used data from Tucson, South Tucson, Marana, Pima County, Apache Junction, Avondale, Paradise Valley, Gilbert, and Goodyear. The major focal points of the pay plan were: 1. Internal Equity 2. External Equity 3. The organization's ability to pay With respect to the 2022-2023 General Pay Plan. 3Q Job titles have a market variance of greater than 10%, 8 Job titles are 300 series (Director and above), at least 14 Job Titles are 200 series (Professional and administrative, FSLA exempt) and the remainder are 100 series (non- exempt). The hourly's and lower categories of the 200 series have kept up with the market (which should be expected since this is the most volatile group of classifications through the years) There is no comparison of actual salaries to the proposed new salary for the individual positions. Nor is there any identification of the retention rates or labor availability. This information is necessary to help you decide which jobs and the dollar amount of corrections that should be applicable to each job. The report discusses significant meetings with employees, directors, and Human Resources, none of the results of these meetings and discussions are documented in the report or information that was presented in the additional information in the packet tonight. I believe this information was requested during the discussions at the meeting on the 6th of July. In the far past (my experience, 1998-2010) when we had significant differences between management and professional jobs (currently 200 and 300 series) the council limited the maximum percent increase allowed for these differences (While I don't remember the actual numbers, the discussions included limiting to the overall average increases, a specific fixed amount ($x,xxx), the average increase for the Professional series and lots of other options). Grade differences over time is normal when you do cost of living (inflation) adjustments every year (or even more often) (the higher the salary, the higher the actual number is when the percentage is the same). The other information that is missing from the requested information is the detailed information on the weighting of the comparable jobs. Did this include Department size, budget, number of employees, responsibility for each position? Tucson has a lot more parks than Oro Valley, Marana has a much larger growth rate and sales tax base than Oro Valley. Does the ERI (Tucson region, government segment) double count Tucson and Pima County? This information should be available to the Council before you make your decision to approve the General Pay Plan. Your report provides and discusses items 1 and 2 from above but does not discuss the impact of significant adjustments to the Town's ability to pay. While "The cost to implement this change is approximately $825,000 across all funds and includes pension costs, Social Security, and Medicare contributions. The cost of this change was included in the Town's budget adopted on June 15, 2022." This cost is an annual cost added to all future budget general fund expenses for personnel salaries and will continue to grow with the "cost of living and benefit increases" every year. Personnel costs in the 2022-2023 budget are 70% of the general fund revenue or 84% of sales tax and state shared revenue. I believe information is available or can be generated in the next several weeks, the funds are budgeted and can be made retroactive to whenever you decide. Please continue this item with direction to provide the justifications you requested earlier and that have been identified in this letter and any additional information you may come up with tonight. Thank you for your attention on this matter and for all you do. Paul I've included this as a word document as well for easier reading.