With the Oro Valley Town Council and mayoral recall election a little more than a week away, voters are getting ready to mail in their ballots and hit the polls. The Star asked the mayoral and Town Council candidates three questions, allowing only two sentences for each answer.
In the mayoral recall, incumbent Satish Hiremath is being challenged by Pat Straney.
For Town Council, incumbent Joe Hornat is challenged by Ryan Hartung; incumbent Lou Waters is challenged by Steve Didio; and incumbent Mary Snider is challenged by Doug Burke and Shirl Lamonna.
The recall was initiated after the council and mayor voted to approve the $1 million purchase of El Conquistador Country Club and a half-cent sales increase to pay for improvements to the clubhouse, which is being converted to a community center.
People are also reading…
Here’s what each had to say.
What kinds of ideas do you have to draw new businesses to Oro Valley?
Satish Hiremath: I plan on capitalizing on the bioscience industry at Innovation Park and on sports tourism with all the assets we now have. Everything I have done as mayor, along with Joe Hornat, Mary Snider and Lou Waters as the current council, has been to create OV into an end destination where new businesses will want to come.
Pat Straney: More clearly and accurately define OV’s short- and medium-term financial obligations and align spending with income so that a plan can be developed to sunset the recent sales tax increase, which will put approximately $2 million back into the pockets of OV shoppers. Do not operate municipally owned businesses in direct competition with privately owned OV businesses.
Ryan Hartung: We can draw more businesses to OV in a few different ways, such as lowering the utility or sales tax and removing ourselves from competing against private businesses. We must get our financial house in order to continue providing the necessary services businesses require to succeed, such as a strong police force, great roads and others.
Joe Hornat: Businesses locate in communities that are consistently safe, financially stable with sufficient rooftops, good schools, and that offer a broad spectrum of amenities to the entire demographics of the community. My plan is to continue to engage with all levels of business, tourism and government to promote OV and those strengths to include our outreach and relationships in the Sun Corridor and Mexico.
Steve Didio: We need to further expand efforts to emphasize the quality of life, economic advantages and availability of newer commercial real estate in OV. This is best accomplished through a combination of educational, outreach and advertising methods sponsored by the town and the Greater OV Chamber of Commerce.
Lou Waters: Plans are well underway to provide market-driven housing opportunities to the rising number of demands for infrastructure by residents and business. Business marketing demands rooftops/people that will, in turn, demand their product.
Doug Burke: I would recommend we prepare incentives for corporate relocations and develop a task force for marketing purposes to sell the benefits of doing business in Southern Arizona and OV in particular. Shorten approval times for plans and code enforcement on new local retail and restaurant businesses.
Shirl Lamonna: I will seek to make it easier to attract businesses by keeping taxes low, regulations fair and ensuring the business and/or building application process is handled efficiently and in a welcoming manner. Like San Antonio, which is rated in the top eight cities for business friendliness, OV should capitalize on its small-town feel that enables business owners to connect with customers, and support existing businesses rather than competing with them.
Mary Snider: OV residents regularly communicate their desire for more services, more shopping and more dining amenities; as the town’s population grows, new business will follow. My plan advances the current path of diverse housing options attractive to people of all ages which promote healthy population growth, while maintaining a strong relationship with the Chamber of Commerce to educate and facilitate new businesses, and continuing to ensure a smooth development process to foster new business development in OV.
The council and mayor’s office have been accused of lacking transparency. What efforts will you take to change that perception and ensure that the community feels as though it’s being informed?
Hiremath: The lack of transparency argument is being originated by individuals who have an ulterior motive and that is to try to capture one of the seats up for recall. I will continue to govern for the greater good and disseminate information based on facts and in good faith in order to improve the present and secure our future.
Straney: I will invite residents to be more involved in town governance by encouraging public input on all legally allowed Town Council agenda items and respect and consider alternate views before voting on important issues. On issues of very high communitywide interest, I will establish an ad-hoc committee of residents with diverse opinions to work together to find a shared vision to the issue and make recommendations to the Town Council.
Hartung: I will work extremely hard to make myself available to anyone who wants to talk though council on your corners, being at public events, and using email and phone. Also, by talking with the general public, they will know that their opinions and ideas are extremely important to me and that I will always take their opinions into account before I make any decision.
Hornat: “Lack of transparency” is a popular trumped-up issue that draws headlines and does not exist. We have a town website that has more information than most people can absorb or ask about along with videos of all council meetings, details of all commission meetings along with notes on all “neighborhood meetings,” news releases on all events ... and a council that is accessible for any question or comment. People talk about “transparency” and they aren’t even sure what that is, but it is a great sound bite. Every decision we make is in the public forum with significant discussion and research.
Didio: The mayor and council majority have lacked transparency because they’ve completed major deals in secret and without sufficient citizen input. I would ensure the citizen input is fully considered upfront, and will cast my votes independently, without the pressure or expectations of large special-interest donors.
Waters: I will continue to encourage resident participation in OV’s boards and commissions, neighborhood meetings, volunteerism, citizens and police academies, Coffee with a Cop, council study sessions and more, all designed to promote transparency. A politically designed accusation of lacking transparency does not mean it’s true.
Burke: I’d suggest an electronic newsletter from the town to our citizens. There would be an “opt in” option to receive this either monthly or bi-monthly. Included would be a summary of topics from the previous meeting minutes emphasizing items such as annexation, changes to our sales tax or any significant purchases or changes to our community that are being considered.
Lamonna: I plan to develop relationships within the community by fostering communication through my website, Facebook and public Council on Your Corner meetings as well as individual meetings with residents to restore the public trust in OV. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I will meet and work with interested parties for the betterment of the community, but I will not accept financial contributions from developers or other special-interest groups.
Snider: This claim of lack of transparency has no merit. I am very actively engaged with the public, I am readily available to respond to any and all inquiries from our citizens, council meetings are open to the public and recorded for reference, and all council members’ interaction with the public is tracked and reported weekly on town records for any resident to view.
Which, if any, of the 2015 county bond questions do you support and why?
Hiremath: I support the two bonds OV has investment in, which are 426 and 428. Having said that, as a regional team player, I support the propositions that my regional colleagues deem are important to them for their respective municipalities’ success as well.
Straney: I will respond to the Pima bond question as a resident and taxpayer that tends to support potential high-benefit proposals such as Prop. 426 business incubator proposal, but I determine my vote on reading the fine print and researching the propositions to understand its potential impact on me personally and my community. I encourage all residents to do the same and to hold our elected officials accountable for delivering the results of what is contained in all the bond propositions that are approved by voters Nov. 3.
Hartung: Two of the bond questions that I supported were for the scientific incubator in OV and the improvement of Tucson’s roadways, as they are both very important. I believe that by investing money into a new incubator we can bring more biotechs to OV, while Pima County’s roads are a mess and this can deter business from seeing Tucson as a viable community.
Hornat: There are portions of the bond package that I like, some I don’t like, including taxes, but I recognize the importance of the “whole,” not just the small OV portion to the growth and stability of the entire region this encompasses. I’m “all in.”
Didio: I support Proposition 426, which will provide $15 million to the OV Business Accelerator. However, I do not support any of the other bond initiatives because they will indebt Pima County too deeply, and for an unacceptably long pay-back period of over two decades.
Waters: Innovation Park becoming Southern Arizona’s bio and high-tech hub is this council’s primary economic objective, and creating a Business Incubator in partnership with Arizona State is the best way to accomplish that. Bond proposal 426 is very important to OV and I strongly support it.
Burke: I support all bond questions because OV is part of the bigger picture known as Pima County. We’re losing our competitive edge to Maricopa County in attracting businesses, new residents, and growth because the infrastructure is decaying at a rapid rate. We’re at the point where it may be too late to save our region.
Lamonna: Given that Tucson, the fifth poorest city in America, has not recovered from the recession and Pima County is already $1.4 billion in debt, I cannot support any of the bond propositions at this point in time. If OV residents desire to support bond(s) for projects specific to OV, then that can be accomplished on our own at less cost than through the county which is a much larger bond package than the portion applicable to OV and imposes a greater share of the costs on our community due to the higher taxable value of our homes.
Snider: Prop. 426 and Prop. 428 will further OV’s economic stability and sustainability along with fulfilling General Plan elements by providing funds for the development of the Oro Valley Business Accelerator in Innovation Park (428) which will create new jobs and spur synergy in our bioscience industry, while 426 advances the completion of Naranja Park and its amenities sorely needed to relieve the severe lack of athletic fields for our youth and families, provides a full range of park amenities to serve the needs of residents of all ages, and promotes sports tourism. I encourage all voters to study the issues closely and make an informed vote, but taxpayers can rest assured the bond funding they approve will be overseen by a 25-member citizen committee to ensure the allocation of bond funds is carried out exactly as the voters intend.
