Yesterday, we posted the fact that there was a Consent Agenda item on tonight's (July 2) agenda.
D. **Resolution No. (R)08- 53 Authorizing the execution of the Financial
Participation Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and EC
Tenant Corp., lessee-operator of the El Conquistador Country Club
(the “Country Club”), authorizing the expenditure of funds, delegating
authority to the Town Engineer and declaring an emergency to exist to
reconstruct the Fourth Fairway of the El Conquistador Course.
Well----here's the deal. Evidently, last year the previous town council agreed that as a result of the widening of La Canada Dr, the 4th fairway was positioned that errant shots may hit vehicles driving by. That would potentially make the town liable.
All that is understandable. What's not understandable was the negotiations. It appears there were two options. An ugly high screen that would preclude golf balls landing on La Canada Dr, at a cost of $500,000, or the repositioning of the 4th fairway at a cost of $420,000.
The town chose the latter option.As for the negotiations, as Craig Civalier, the town engineer explained it----Oro Valley paid $17,100 for the design phase. The Country Club paid the rest---$1,900.
What about the $420,000 expenditure? Well----obviously, Oro Valley negotiated a great deal-----for the Hilton El Conquistador. Oro Valley pays the total amount. The Hilton pays "zilch."
To their credit, Bill Garner, Salette Latas & Paula Abbott voted "NO." The deal passed 4-3.
Disgraceful?
We sure think so. To let a private enterprise (The Hilton) off without contributing to this major expenditure is hard to understand. Let's remember, La Canada Dr was there PRIOR to the golf course being built.
By the way, to his credit, citizen Bill Adler let the council know, this deal "smells bad." (My words, not his.)
Anyone from the town wishing to explain why this deal was totally one sided, is certainly welcome to comment.
27 comments:
Wrong thread, but....
It is always interesting to listen to some of the speakers in the call to the audience at Council meetings.
Some of the things they say, and the things they heard are based on what they believe to be facts and they repeat them without thinking.
I would just like to comment on a "fact" that was quoted regarding the signatures of the AZ Initiative for protected lands.
I heard a speaker say...pardon my paraphrase...
"One third of the signatures came from citizens of Oro Valley so I think you know how they feel".
I was pretty good in math, but let me see if I understand.
There are about 230,000 signatures required to get this on the ballot. That would mean that about 73,000 would be one third. If this one third came from Oro Valley, it is a little suspect as the total population of Oro Valley is about 44,000.
Tough to see how this would be accurate...
The point is, that someone standing up and repeating something they heard as a fact without a little investigation and some thought is dangerous.
Can't tell if they meant to misrepresent this or just don't understand.
Makes the rest of the things they say suspect also...without a little investigation that is.
As to the thread that should have been commented on...I have no problem with this decision. Done a long time ago and it does look better than a "screen".
We paid for it from State funds, yes might have been used elsewhere, but that is the deal that was made...
Why, oh Why, did KC Carter vote yes on this deal? A simple no vote from him, with a comment that the town should go back to the Country Club and actually negotiate a deal, would have passed.
The town has the power to shut the hole down in the interest of public safety.
And the Country Club could do nothing but sue in return.
Thus, a negotiation to have the Country Club pay some of the cost, say 50%, would have saved the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.
KC, you owe us an explanation. We expect better of you.
And thanks Paula, Salette and Bill for being good shepherds of our money!
"Can't tell if they meant to misrepresent this or just don't understand."
Then there's the possibility that you misunderstood.
I reviewed video online, and what the speaker said was that 1/3 of the volunteer signatures were from Oro Valley.
In Arizona, initiative petitions can be circulated by paid circulators or by volunteers. The circulator must check the appropriate box on the front.
Volunteer signature gatherers are generally local people going door-to-door, or collecting at their churches, ball games, and other gatherings. So I think it is a valid observation that people who were not being paid to gather signatures did very, very well garnering support for the initiative in Oro Valley.
Observer,
You seem to have a problem with a citizen who gets up to speak and
apparently made a mistake with numbers or calculations but you have no problem with the town spending $420,000 of public funds to fix a problem on private business property that was not caused by town negligence.
The issue of the expenditure is not what remedy looks better the issue is inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Seems there maybe be more to this , maybe somebody would like a previous error laid to rest or buried.
I am observing that some on the town staff don't seem to be 100% cooperative or forthcoming in their answers to council questions when issues are being discussed.
It is not always what they say it is what they don't say that is bothersome.
A good sign is that some on council are asking questions and hopefully they continue.
I agree with the Zeeman about KC and Barry Gillaspie needing to explain their vote
Actually I think all on council who voted to spend taxpayer dollars on a private business fix need to explain.
While I am loathe to give my opinion on anything on this blog as I usually get blasted for it, I have to weigh in on this one. Yes the road was there before the course, but now the Town is moving the road closer to the course. It is the Town's action that is increasing the likelihood someone will get hit by a golfball. How and why it came to be that way is not the issue, the issue is that the course is there and now the road will be closer. What possible incentive does the golf course have to pay for part of the reconstruction? They could have just sat back and done nothing and waited for the Town to get nailed in a law suit. Frankly, $420,000 is a hell of a lot cheaper than a fatal car accident where the plaintiff's family can prove the Town discussed the possibility of injury and did nothing because the Country Club wouldn't pony up half the dough. Again, the Town brought the road closer to the golf balls so the Town is more likely to be found at fault. As many have pointed out, the Country Club is private property - they didn't have to reconfigure the course to help the Town protect the public. That they are willing to do so, granted on the Town's dime, is a good thing and I hope you folks can look at this situation from another angle and see that utlimately this was a reasonable expenditure.
Cyclone,
So then the town made a bad decision or move with the road widening or design?
So, ok, I am looking at this differently but maybe not the way you had hoped.
About the town discussing the possibility of an accident, well just discussing does not make them liable in my opinion but if the golf club knew there was a possibility of injury, then would that make the golf club just as liable or responsible.
I say we outlaw golf!!
Not blasting you, I think we need more opinions, etc.
I still think the town should have at least tried to negotiate a deal with the club.
Oh Well just my opinion
Cyclone,
Does the town have some type of insurance to cover itself in the event of accidents?
ok, what would have happened if the road was not widened but a person was hit and injured while walking on that same exact land?
Would the town be liable or would the club be liable or the golfer?
Cyclone 1,
You're overlooking the comments that were made by Bill Adler who said that he used to jog along LaCanada (I think he said approx. 10 years ago) and even then he was finding golf balls in the road. He said the golf course was built too close to the road to begin with. So the problem existed long before the road widening project took place.
Therefore, this is a problem that should have been negotiated between the town and the golf course. For the town to be responsible for 90% of the cost and the club to only be responsible for 10% is absurd! I don't understand why Carter and Gillaspie didn't ask for further negotiations to take place.
And if the town could prove that they offered to pay 50% but "the country club wouldn't pony up half the dough" then why should the town be sued? Why not the country club? Why are they untouchable?
Another question.
Does the Golf Club have insurance?
I sure hope so.
It boiks down to this - the Town has the responsibility to protect the public, the golf course does not. The prudence of the golf course being built where it was is a decision that is over and done with - it is what it is. The Town has to deal with the situation as it exists, and the fact is the Town is bringing the road closer to the course and increasing the risk of someone getting hit with a golf ball. Besides all of the liability issues, i.e. it will cost the Town money, and thereby you and me, if someone gets hurt, is it not a good thing that the Town is trying to avoid someone getting seriously injured as a result of their actions? Isn't that what we want them to do, look at all the possible consequences of their actions and try to lessen the collateral damage? Sure, everybondy has insurance, but it still takes time to litigate cases, and the end result is someone is hurt or dead.
In response to Ms. Coyote's comment about the discussion not making the Town more responsible, imagine this scenario - a grieving widow takes the stand and tells the jury how the Town predicted her husband's car could be hit by a golf ball and decided they wouldn't do anything to prevent it because $400,000 was too much money. How do you think that would play in front of a jury? It all about appreciating a risk and the duty the Town has to try and prevent harm.
Couldn't the grieving widow get a lot more going after the Hilton? Wouldn't it look bad for them if she sobbed that they refused to modify their golf course, even though they knew that golf balls were hitting the right of way even before the road was widened?
Would she be considered a "golf widow".
Sorry I had to say it. :)
In the original post, I wrote---"Evidently, last year the previous town council agreed that as a result of the widening of La Canada Dr, the 4th fairway was positioned that errant shots may hit vehicles driving by. That would potentially make the town liable.
All that is understandable. What's not understandable was the negotiations."
So, as far as I'm concerned, there is only one issue.
How did it come about that Oro Valley is paying the FULL AMOUNT of $420,000 to rectify this situation?
The question of liability is not the issue. Was there not liability for the last 17 years or more as golf balls would continuous fly onto La Canada Dr?
Until someone at the town can explain why this "deal" made by the previous council obligated us (Oro Valley) to pick up the WHOLE TAB, and the Hilton does nothing, we won't have any answer.
Where's Mary Davis when we need her??? The citizens deserve a full explanation as to how this deal come about.
Question I have is what was the status of that portion of land which abuts both the golf course and La Canada Rd. at the time
El Conquistador purchased, designed, and implemented that portion of the course. Was La Canada designated for future widening? If so, then it would appear that the responsibility for realignment of the course would be on the shoulders of El Conquistador. If it was not clearly designated at said time and it was only at a future date that the Town of Oro Valley decided to expand La Canada, then I would have to assume that it would be the responsibility of the Town.
At some point past, the TOV did El Conquistador wrong and ended up giving up a portion of El Con's bed tax; is this still
part of the 'payoff'?
There are a lot of questions surrounding this 'donation' and I think that we are owed an explanation. That a victim of an errant golf ball could sue everybody he or she could (and most probably would) is a fact to consider. As I understand it the most responsible party in a mishap would be the John Doe who couldn't shoot straight. I use the name John Doe because most likely Pinocchio wouldn't own up to it and, as well, the 'judgement' would probably start with the deepest pockets.
As to the Council vote, not knowing the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, I will not judge it but I think we are owed the LEGAL rationale behind it (if there is one). Tobin?
Since everyone keeps bringing this up, I looked and the plat for the golf course was approved in 1989. I don't think nearly 20 years ago the Town knew it was going to widen La Canada, nor did the golf course know. Can't say that for sure, but...
It is a liability issue. The Town moved the road. The Town would be held most liable. $420,000 is a small amount (OH GOSH THAT COULD GET ME IN TROUBLE) if there was one, two or three $2,000,000 lawsiuts....or more!!
As usual Art, Mom and the gang just don't understand the real consequences and thay are not going to do anything to research the issue.
Thinker,
Are you know what is known as a Philadelphia lawyer? hehe
I really don't know who would be more liable and I would bet that 5 lawyers would have 5 different opinions.
Cox--- Exactly what part of my previous comment didn't you understand.
Here it is a second time.
In the original post, I wrote---"Evidently, last year the previous town council agreed that as a result of the widening of La Canada Dr, the 4th fairway was positioned that errant shots may hit vehicles driving by. That would potentially make the town liable.
All that is understandable. What's not understandable was the negotiations."
"How did it come about that Oro Valley is paying the FULL AMOUNT of $420,000 to rectify this situation?"
Perhaps this time you can grasp the fact that I acknowledged the liability issue, but asked for an explanation why we, the taxpayers are footing the whole expense.
Once again, you're too busy with arrogant comments rather than read what I actually said.
There is an old expression about lawyers that goes something like, "If you ask two lawyers, you will get three opinions." What can I say.
Remember that if such a case would go to a jury, history says that they will go to the government entity for the big bucks!!!
Have a great $th and enjoy the fireworks tonight......brought to you by GOVAC.
It SHOULD be obvious to you. We pay the lions share because we have the lions share of the liability.
During the negotiations that became clear!!!!!
Art...look at your postings. Leave your hatred out of them and you may command more respect.
Coyote have a great 4th also!!!:-)
I thought the fireworks were done by the Hilton.
Called the Hilton earlier to see if we could eat dinner there and watch the fireworks, nada not this year.
My better half and I were considering
attending but then I notice that we would have to take a shuttle and we thought about going to hang out in the park earlier today and eating but then saw the food choice's and said
forget it.
guess we will OH and Ahh watching fireworks on tv.
You are more than welcome to observe from my back yard. Can't hear the music but you can see 90% of the fireworks.
It might make for a great evening if I could get Cowgirl to join us!!!
MY question still has not been answered. What were the prospects at the time the Hilton had the golf course designed? Were they lax in not accounting for a probable, inevitable, possible widening of La Canada; Were they unaware that with the advent of Big Bertha, Clark Kent could hit the ball as far as Superman? Yes, OV OT is correct in that "if you ask two lawyers, you'll get three opinions" and I will add, they will all be undeniably correct.
Regardless of the 'string' of liability, it appears that El Conquistador would have a great deal of potential liability as well as OV; I think the big question here is [why isn't the solution at the very least a shared responsibility?] And, incidentally, no one can tell me that EC doesn't have the monetary capabilities; they do. I'm beginning to wonder about their relationship with the Town, however.
Zev,
That is exactly the question. I just don't understand why the town decided to pay all the costs.
Regarding the resort's relationship with the town, the Hilton is getting a $350,000.00 per year kickback from the bed tax fund. In addition, their general manager shows up at council meetings and lobbies the town to give the visitor's bureau $160,000.00 per year. We also paid a million dollars or so to reline the ponds at the golf course. And now this.
ov mom, what the past 'regimes' have gotten us into and why is the question of the decade. Simplicity is beauty; regretably we have been immersed into a river of complexity. Some have said, don't look back, look forward; but,as overly used as the saying might be, [those who forget history are doomed to repeat it]. I believe this town needs desperately to examine and expose itself; who knows what the next 'pop-up' will be. I do have a lot of faith that the new Council will be able to slow the runaway train but it may take awhile to stop it completely.
Zev....You have spoken wisely. I am not sure what you mean by "I believe this town needs desperately to examine and expose itself; who knows what the next 'pop-up' will be." but I speak more to your comments about the future.
As I have previously stated, Arroyo Grande is the PERFECT scenario for us (Oro Valley)to properly script the lands in our northern planning area.
Some of the issues that have caused some of the greatest uproar in our community were the result of decisions made as far back as the late 80's.
To walk away from this and allow Pima County to be our protectorate is like asking a very hungry fox to guard the hen house......after the same fox has been busted 5 times with feathers hanging out of it's mouth.
Post a Comment