At 9:05 PM on Feb 6, the Oro Valley Council voted to approve a $48.6 million expenditure to go on the Nov 8, 2008 Ballot as a Bond Issue.
As one who listened in and watched the proceedings at home, I can offer the following observations.
On the initial discussion concerning a possible Band Shelter, Helen Dankwerth said, "I'm confused." Al Kunisch did her one better a couple minutes later when he stated: "I'm totally confused."
It was easy to see why, when Mayor Loomis said: the "$48.6million includes the band shell, correct?" The answer was "No," it did not include the band shell.
After hearing from eleven speakers, including two youngsters who spoke about why we should spend $154 million, Bill Adler took the opportunity to address the council noting that the survey the town just spent $17,800 should be something the council should pay attention to. The majority of those surveyed, as Adler pointed out, said unequivocally that there are "needs," and a park is not high on the list of needs. More important are, among other things, roads, water, emergency services and shopping.
By the way, I found it interesting that a number of the proponents of a $154 million expenditure were indeed not even OV citizens who were quite anxious to allow Oro Valley residents to pay the secondary property tax
The Vote---Paula Abbott made a motion to put the $48.6 million on the Nov. ballot. After much discussion, including Terry Parish "lobbying" for the $154 million not once or twice, but five times, the vote was 5-2. Parish & KC Carter voted "No" for two different reasons. $48.6 was not enough for Parish and too much for KC.
That wasn't the end of it. Barry Gillaspie who we know "waffles" on just about every issue, saw fit to put forth another motion to go for the $154M, stating: "I know I originally supported the $48.6M but I know $48.6M will fail." When Dankwerth suggested in essence, the council just approved the $48.6M, and why now reintroduce another option, Gillaspie made it a point to say: "I don't appreciate the lecture from Mrs. Dankwerth."
They did vote on this $154M option and it was defeated, with only Gillaspie, Parish & Loomis voting "yes."
I guess if anyone who missed the proceedings and has a couple free hours, it will be available on the OV web site. I might suggest, you may want to visit your dentist for a root canal instead!
Art
21 comments:
I am an OV resident and attended the meeting in person. I would like to point out several things to correct the record.
Barry Gillaspie indicated that he made his motion because he believed the council should have first considered the most expensive proposal, rather than immediately proceeding with the most modest plan.
While there were public speakers who live outside of OV, most of the speakers were OV residents. With the exception of one speaker, no one from the public spoke out against an expanded park.
Terry Parish did not advocate for the $154 million plan, but rather argued that the three different plans should be put to a vote of the citizens on one ballot. He specifically said that he has a preference, but that he would rather leave the options open to voters. It was unclear from my listening to the discussion why the majority of council members found Parish's position lacking merit.
Tom Weede
I thank Mr. Weede for his comment, but out of the eleven speakers advocating the expenditure for OV residents, the out of town speakers included an eleven year old girl & her father, another youngster,and a gentleman.
Two others who spoke were Dick Johnson, as an advocate of GOVAC who wrote the following on behalf of GOVAC: "We need you and others from your organization to attend the February 6th Council meeting. Have a representative from your organization speak (3 minutes). Also, more impact is gained by having a participant, especially a young person, also speak."
Al Cook who was speaking as a representative of GOVAC.
I repeat, AFTER a bona fide motion was voted on and approved, (including Gillaspie) and then Gillaspie saw fit to introduce the maximum expenditure that was defeated.
As for Parish, I acknowledge the fives times he tried to get the $154M on the ballot, he did state he'd want all three --- $48.6M, $80M & $154M on the ballot, even though the attorney advised this would not be practical in that in his opinion, all the ballot initiatives would be defeated.
Finally, you ask why the majority of the council members found Parish's position lacking merit. I believe they thought a $154M obligation was fiscally irresponsible.
Thank you for the response, Art, and for clarification on the numbers with respect to speakers. And thank you for the forum to express views.
The fact remains that only one speaker was openly in opposition. While survey results are relevant (and were cited by those favoring a scaled-down park), so should be the representative sampling at a public forum.
I was speaking as to what Terry Parish said at tonight's meeting, and what I heard is that his position now is that he advocates a 3-option ballot.
While I agree that it's likely that the council majority had concerns about fiscal responsibility, I would have liked to have heard more discussion from the council about that aspect. The focus was on the cost side, with the council not addressing what kind of positive fiscal impact the project could have (e.g., enhanced property values and income to local businesses).
In any event, I don't believe that it's irresponsible to let voters decide the issue. And it's my understanding that a future council could still decide not to issue the bonds. This vote is simply to authorize an issuance.
We, the taxpayers of Oro Valley, have not begun to fight. The battle has only now just begun" VOTE NO on this insane use of public funding.
I do not disagree with Tom's last comment although I did NOT suggest it was irresponsible to let the voters decide. The law requires the voters decide this bond funding.
What I said is that I thought those council members voting "NO" thought it was irresponsible (as I do)trying to do too much with too little. (Too much park with too little money)
In a convoluted way, putting ONLY the $48.6 option on the ballot may prove to be beneficial to the advocates.
As I tried to explain in my previous comment, the bond attorney indicated if no one option received a majority, nor did the "no park" votes, there would be no park.
This way, we shall see in Nov.if more voters (not outside people brought in by Dick Johnson)want to spend $48.6M or not.
There is serious lack of leadership on this council and it was never more apparent than last night.
I'm not sure how long Loomis has been Mayor but he appears to be burnt out. Are there term limitations in this town?
Perhaps he should resign so we can put someone in there who has the energy and desire to lead this town.
I was glad that the multiple choice option ballot motion was disapproved."Hanging Chads in Florida would have looked like child's play compared to this type of ballot.
Keep it simple.
I also watched the meeting at home and was sort of annoyed that people
who don't even live in Oro Valley
are given just as much time to speak as residents are on an issue that involves our taxes !!
Even thou the kids that spoke were adorable, I don't know if it is fair or a good idea for the kids to be speaking during call to the audience. Last night there where not that many speakers, but what if there were hundreds of Oro Valley citizens who wanted to voice their opinion. Letting the children speak should be limited to say a special or unique situation.
I also was angry and annoyed that the Dad who spoke up about needing fields, etc, was telling Oro Valley that open space was not doing his kids any good.
Hey pal, that is our open space, you don't live here nor will you pay the tax required for this park.
Also I just don't trust the mayority of this council to make fiscally responsible decisions with our money. The less money they have of mine to work with the better. The more money government gets the more they will spend.
Perhaps we can find other ways to fund the fields for the kids.
Well, at least something will go on the ballot now, and the voters will have a chance to voice their opinions via an election. For that, we should all be thankful because it's the only way that this project will either move ahead or die a quick death. All the blogging in the world can't replace an actual vote, and I anticipate that the run-up to the election will be interesting, at the very least.
My reading of most of the opinions on this blog indicates that there seems to be some general acceptance among you bloggers for this lower bond amount that will pay for the installation of the needed infrastructure. Yes, there are some of you who will vote no because you either don't trust your elected representatives or you don't wish to pay an additional tax. So be it.
Just remember that if the Council ever returns to the voters to fund the next phases of the park, the costs will be even greater than they are now. But that's moot at the moment since only the $48 million will appear on the November ballot.
If you haven't visited the Naranja site, I encourage you to do so. As you stand there, try to imagine the possibilities. An indoor performance center may never be built, but having sufficient soccer/baseball/tennis facilities will be a real winner for everyone. A true community center with classrooms and meeting rooms will also allow the Town to expand its meager recreation programs and offer space to all of the various interest groups who need a place to gather.
Approval of the bond issue will help make this "Community of Excellence" a more desirable place for major employers and their families to locate. Congratulations to all of you who supported the $48 million proposal. Now let's work together to gather support for the election, demonstrating that this blog group can be in favor of something positive for the community.
I also attended the meeting, all the way to the bitter end, and as I remember, Mr. Parrish specifically stated he didn't advocate any of the options, but felt the whole amount of $154M should go before the voters to let them decide since it was what was in the General Plan for the Park. His rationale was that the Council could approve or disapprove specific amounts as designated in the phases of the plan. His point was he would not vote for the lower levels because he felt the voters would decide on the issue knowing the total amount would be phased and not a done deal. I am not saying I agree, just trying to clarify as I understood his position.
Well, I, for one, am a bit relieved that at least SOMETHING will 'get this show on the road'.
I do not agree that a sports complex, to the degree that it is proposed on the 1st phase, is necessarily the highest and best use for the opening act, but at least the voters will have a say in moving this matter towards resolution. I only hope that full disclosure will be in order when it comes time to 'educate' the public. A big reservation I have, derived from past observance, is that bond issues seem to have a way of becoming a habit and the
'fix' isn't always pretty.
Boobie-baby, you asked me in a prior commentary what I meant by the term 'art nebbish'; a nebbish is a nebbish is a nebbish - it's the type of a word which is a word unto itself much like 'mishuganah' or 'schmutz' or many other yiddush 'applications'. Perhaps I could have used 'art nots', connoisseurs of artistic mediocrity, art pretensive guidance counsellors, or a myriad of other 'euphemisms'. I think YOU get what I mean! Yes, ZEV means 'wolf' and I hope that some of my 'biting' commentary doesn't offend too much and perhaps can help in the attention to issues.
As to your reference to Stanislavski and method acting, having been a friend and acquaintance of some of the NY School attendees many years ago, and having had much 'interaction' with them I would very much like to hear how you 'apply' this reference to this 'blog' site.
Can somebody explain why open space is now deemed a problem. What is wrong with keeping open space, well open space. What is wrong with natural desert?
A lot of us moved here because we thought the natural desert was beautiful. We also believed that OV wanted to preserve its natural beauty.
We can build all the parks and buildings we want, why rush. But we can't build another desert.
I wonder if the idea of a Tohono Chul(sp) type park was discussed.
Say a multi-purpose type building
surrounded by a natural type park.
Even a nice, non-chain restaurant would fit in that type of environment.
Would any of you want to live next to a ball park? Not me!
Picture trying to relax and enjoy your evening on the patio and having lights glaring, noise, traffic, etc until who knows what hour.
If we had to vote today, my husband and I would probably vote NO on this question. But then again it is scary to think about what some on this council would do to get this passed
Yes, mscoyote, you are so right. There are many, many ways that the Naranja Town Site could have become an environmental asset. Walking paths, gardens, perhaps a 'Greek ' type theater sculpted into the natural landscape with a certain number of athletic facilities INTERSPERSED, and an activities center, too - all with keeping in mind the unique nature that is the Sonoran desert. There is a town, Cary North Carolina, that has an area within a park-like setting that has a type of theater/bandstand (possibly portable) with NO prestructured seating. Most people just lounge on blankets, bring picnic baskets, bring their own fold-ups for seating, and guess what - thousands attend concerts which include the Raleigh Symphony, touring groups from classical to country, rock to pop, and I can attest that thousands attend, thousands pay, and thousands enjoy!It is said that over the many years that our Town Site has been pondered, that hundreds of citizens were allowed to put in their two cents; that's
admirable when considering that at this time, opposition is so frowned upon that we are condemned for attempting to put even one-cent in, but that children from out of town are allowed to speak before the council and give their input as to how to spend my money and yours. This is a different time and a different economic climate from 8 years ago and adaptation to these kinds of changes are of the utmost importance. That this project
will help in keeping kids out of trouble is a weak argument; Terry,
what might have worked in the days of your childhood doesn't mean it will work today; regrettably, the ACTIVITIES 'centers' provided in the area from which I moved
either failed to attract expected patronage, were a drawing card for drug dealing, or were magnets for other undesirable nuisances. HOWEVER, as I stated, I think it IS about time some type of official vote was initiated and let the chips fall where they may.
I listened to the meeting last night via the Internet.
1. Am not in favor of using children - find that non-palatable. If adults have a message - speak. The same thing occurred with the library vote.
2. I do not understand why the Council and Town allow outsiders to speak and push their agendas. Only Taxpayers should have that right. This is the only town where I have seen this happen. Again, the same thing happened with the Library vote. Why should people who will not be affected by tax increases, etc. be allowed to voice their opinion at a Town Meeting??
3. Am not in favor of spending for a new park when I do not see the park facilities being used now. And, when I have been at Riverfront park most people I have spoken to have come down from Catalina or from Marana! Why should OV taxpayers build new parks for outsiders to use?
4. Could someone explain to me why Mayor Loomis said last night; OV promised Pima County we would build a regional park so we owe them one??
5. So now the Park goes to a vote... however they will tell the public the bonds will run for 30 years. I believe people will think, what the heck! I don't plan on being here for much more than a couple of years..no big deal!
6. We were at Kreigh park last week and it's closed..because they are putting in new irrigation and have a few holes around the sidewalks..why isn't that work scheduled for the "heat of the summer" when people want to be in the A/C??
Personally, my family enjoys having a place where we can hike or walk and enjoy passive recreation. Enjoy the desert. Tohno Chul was mentioned - that is a GEM!
Raindancer
I agree with Victorian Cowgirl, Raindancer and so many more that have voiced their concerns about Naranja. I want Open Space and natural habitat, hiking trails....etc.
I was so frustrated that I posted all my comments to "Coming Soon To Rancho Vistoso---"Up In Smoke!""
And if you think the GOVAC begs and whines for more money, just wait to see how much begging and whining the parks and rec dept will do! It will never end!
Zev/Wolf
Thanks for your explanation of "nebbish." It's something I'll nosh over while I eat a shtikele of halvah while sitting on my tuchus.
The Stanislavski reference was to the fact that we semm to have a surplus of local actor/activists in Oro Valley who could easily play the part of Scrooge in any upcoming production of "A Christmas Carol." Sample dialogue: "Bah, humbug--no park for you, Tiny Tim. I grew up playing in a hole in the street and that was good enough for me!"
All kidding aside, now's the time for everyone to pull together to get this project off the ground. There's a chance here for people who have expressed strong opinions about the park to rally behind the comparatively reasonable decision that the Council made and to work to support the bond election.
When the first phase of the park is finished, I hereby promise a picnic celebration (at my expense)for everyone who participates on this blog. Lord knows I'm not wealthy, but I consider the wealth of opinions here to be healthy and worthy of celebrating.
What is the real cost of the $48M?
At the meeting I believe they said $7.30 on $300,000 assessed evaluation?
Today in the AZ Star; they wrote $10.80 on $300,000.
Why can't the Town and the Council put out the "real cost", instead of throwing different numbers around.
When this comes to a Town wide vote; I hope the community is made aware of the "real cost" and exactly what this money will buy. The exact number of baseball fields,soccer fields, tennis courts, etc.
What will prevent the Town from changing their minds..like decide to decrease the #'s of playing fields in order to put in a pool or bandshell? once the bond issue is passed. (Assuming that it is of course)
Raindancer
"Raindancer"---- Interesting last sentence on your last comment.
Here's what I said on my Nov. 7, 2007 posting on the Naranja Park.
"One word of caution: When this expenditure does go to the voters, it behooves everyone to know exactly what they are voting for. You may think you're getting ball fields, only to find that you are getting a 'Band Stand'."
I believe the voters should heed our advice.
Art
ART'S LAST STATEMENT IS 'RIGHT ON'! This Town has a history of deception and of getting away with it by nefarious means. The way the measure is worded on the ballot is of extreme importance. There have been many instances when citizens have been fooled into voting for something when they thought they were voting against it, too (not just in this town). Also,IF a bond measure does in fact pass, by the time it starts to be implemented (in stone), hopefully a new regime will be in place, and better that should happen sooner than later.
Boobie-baby, and everyone else, too, I think that a major reason for so many (many more than just on this 'blog') have a negative attitude about the workings of this Town is that the 'powers' seem to think they are so much better than us unless we agree with them. Zoning ordinances - don't let ANYONE tell you that they are strictly adhered to; they are not and that is provable; the procedures that are required for change/exceptions in the zoning ordinances - don't let anyone tell you that they are strictly adhered to; they are not and that is provable; correct semantic definition of the wording in the zoning codes is bandied at will - and I believe that is provable.
I have been viciously admonished by the mayor in a public forum for something he said I said, but what I did say was NOT what he said I said, and when I tried to correct him he continued with his tirade on what he erroneously insisted I said. This is our Mayor, our example, our 'leader'; by his behavior it seems he can't even respect HIMSELF let alone his constituency. So, Boobie-baby, in my Stanislavski frame of mind - to the way this Town CONDUCTS itself -BAH HUMBUG.
Boobie-baby, why don't you give your party IF the measure passes, not when it might be completed; at my age, I could be dead by that time (but, please, please, please -if that should happen, don't let Harpold get his hands on me). By the way, I do enjoy your demeanor on this 'blog'; though I may disagree with you on certain issues, it is refreshing not to have to get into a quagmire with you.
A very delayed post here, but wanted to say that Art made a good point above re the bond attorney's opinion as to multiple ballot options for the park. Still, I would have liked to have seen the $154 million plan voted on first by the council last Wednesday night (ie putting the $154 million proposal on the ballot). I agreed with Barry Gillaspie that by starting with the least expensive option first, there was a shortcut on the session's deliberation process. Granted, this has been debated for some time, but Wednesday's action was an important vote.
I support the $154 million plan, as I believe that the project's costs will be offset both by economic and non-economic benefits in the community (we live very close to the site, and I'm still not sure what impact it will have on a personal level). I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I also believe that tax dollars spent close to home are not the same as tax dollars sent to a faceless state and federal bureaucracy.
Ok, Zev/Wolf-
I was once in a Quagmire when it broke down and we had to buy a new Studebaker to replace it.
OK, I promise to hold a free picnic lunch if the propostition passes. Please bring your own lawn chairs to the NTS area; I'll ask the Harpolds to tend the bar-b-cue.
It's highly unlikely that we'll soon know the exact amount of the bond issue that will go on the ballot due to a number of items: interest rates at the time, the Town's bond rating and bonded indebtedness, length of the bonds, insured or uninsured, etc. So, let's be patient and see what the numbers turn out to be. It would be nice if some bloggers here actually got in line to purchase a bond or two.
Serving on an elected Council is about as much fun as a colonoscopy. Who among us would want that job (with the exception of OVOT)? Once your ego is assauged on election night that's when the hard work begins.
Council members are human (I know some of you would debate that statement), and--as such--they make human decisions based on the information they receive from staff, citizens and audience members at meetings. Anybody on this blog ready to run for elective office?
Let's start looking forward--Art, how about a blog question that asks citizens what they want Oro Valley to look like in 10 or 20 years (not what they DON'T want it to look like). It would be interesting to hear some positive ideas that have a real chance of becoming reality.
Bobbie-Baby is soooooo thoughtful...asking the Harpolds to run the bar-b-cue for his picnic. Does he realize that "Fresh Meat" is the blog-name that Dougie Harpold's mother (Beverly Harpold-Wagner) used on the Coffin-Blog last year? Please roast her first, but make sure the wind is in the other direction, you know, down towards Town Hall!
If serving on Town Council is like a colonoscopy...why do people want the job???? It must have some "hidden" rewards.
Post a Comment