Now that we have had a few days to reflect, rejoice or be disappointed in the results of the Naranja Bond Issue, I guess the big question is, "Now what?"
It seems the existing town council will have to decide if, when and what to offer the citizens of Oro Valley as it concerns this parcel of land.
We don't have any inside information, but based on their support, it seems evident that Mayor Loomis, Council Members Kunisch, Gillaspie & Abbott were disappointed that the park measure was defeated, whereas Council Members Carter, Garner & Latas have indicated they were against a property tax on the citizens in order to subsidize this park.
So----Where does that leave us?
That certainly is a legitimate question the proponents & opponents of the park want answered.
From our standpoint, the answer is not as straight forward as it may appear on the surface. While a "curtailed" plan might be the prudent approach, there may be other issues that need to be addressed first.
First of all, we probably all recall the Tucson Museum of Art had expressed an interest in relocating to Oro Valley and one of the sites considered was the Naranja Park. Now that the voters have spoken, might it not be wise to see if the museum is in fact interested in coming to our community, and if so, we could work with them and give them the "pick of the litter" as to a specific site at Naranja.
If that should materialize, we would then work with the museum representatives in determining the "how & where" the sports facilities should be located, and to what extent.
If the museum opts out, we still have a viable, less costly option available to us. In our previous posting on the election results, our neighbor "Fear the Turtle" suggested funding the park with both private & public funds----certainly not a new or novel idea, but one that should be considered. After all, although we don't have a wealth of corporations based in Oro Valley, we do have some rather large organizations that may want to help better our community with their financial support.
That way, we may be able to avoid asking the citizens to fund a property tax over the next 25 years, which I'm sure was the main reason the bond question was defeated.
Although I'd like to take credit for the next idea, the credit must go to our good friends, Council Members KC Carter & Bill Garner.
For those who may not be familiar with KC's background, he owned his own construction firm back in Iowa. KC has made it known that he would be willing, (as he always is) to serve the town, and could work with the town public works department to get some of the necessary infrastructure in place at a tremendous cost savings to the town.
Bill has advised this approach falls in line with his belief that the town should be "fiscally responsible."
As we see it, this makes total sense. Although we were outspoken critics of the previous council putting this $48.6 bond issue to the voters, we also indicated we supported ball fields and courts for our youth---but in reasonable numbers.
The question of "what is reasonable in terms of numbers and costs," could be ascertained with constructive dialog between town staff, town council & town citizens.
Surely, now that the voters have spoken, we must appreciate more than 7500 of our fellow citizens voted "yes.
Let's see if we can't all agree to get going on a plan that the vast majority can, and will support.
That will serve us all well!
We'd appreciate the thoughts of our readers.
26 comments:
Art,
Do you have any specifics on how KC would get "the necessary infrastructure in place at a tremendous cost savings to the town."
Savings would result by using town resources rather than outside contractors. It has been suggested town workers and equipment can be utilized when not required to work on other projects. I don't believe this is an over simplification, but in fact a plan that could very well be implemented.
As we all know, in excess of 10,000 voters said "no." Probably most of these votes were to avoid a property tax. The above will assist in doing that---at least to some extent.
I would like to share with you my response to a request from Salette for more input on the park:
Good Morning Salette,
First off I would like to thank you for your concern for the park and making the effort to hear what the folks have to say. Unfortunately I am working Saturday and will not be able to join you in person.
As you might imagine I am extremely disappointed in the results of the bond election. As a realist however, I feel there were two strong forces working against passage. First and foremost was the current economy. While we are not as effected as some parts of the country, the mind set is the same. The second negative was the estimate of costs. A member of our PAC had the plans reviewed by another well respected architectural firm and their opinion concurred with ours, that the cost estimate was grossly overstated ($20 million+)....especially in this economy. But that's all history and we need to look forward.
I believe to use this property as a cemetery would be a huge mistake. The land is far too valuable and poorly situated for that use. I do believe that a cemetery in the Arroyo Grande area would be far more compatible.
I do not want the park to die. The need for additional recreation space is well documented. I am sure there are some uses that could be reduced. However the actual space dedicated to recreational activities was only 24.8 acres or 11.6% of the 213 acres at the site. This did not appear to be excessive to me. Additionally the actual cost of the recreational space, ball fields, etc., is a small percentage of the overall cost.
I believe discussions with the Tucson Museum of Art should accelerate with specific space within the Town Site offered to them at no or little cost in the form of a long term lease.
I would also like to see the Town fully support building the park as a green project. I can envision the east, west and north perimeters of the park being equipped with solar panels that will not only generate enough power to fully support the lighting of the fields but may also provide heat for a water feature should one be included in future plans. I would also like to see a state of the art water harvesting project on the site that would contribute to it's maintenance. Any building construction on the site would be LEED certified. If the Town would commit to this kind of project, I then believe there is some serious grant money out there and there would be strong corporate support also. What large corporation would not like to have their name on a project like this? Green space, solar energy, water reclamation, children and adults recreating and an art museum is a public relations bonanza. In addition, I believe that with the proper emphasis on renewable energy we may catch the attention of Ms. Giffords and significant federal money could be directed our way. At a time when energy conservation is a hot topic we should capitalize on this and use it to our best advantage.
That's my two cents. As usual I am willing to personally do what I can do to support this community project. As I have mentioned before in other forums, my past service to our community is well documented and that dedication has not faded.
Again, thanks for asking.
***********************************
While utilizing some of the Town resources (equipment and manpower)is a nice sound bite, we are not equipped to attempt this kind of project. And if we have sufficient additional personnel to do this scope of work then the fiscally prudent thing to do is to assist them in finding jobs elsewhere.
Thinker,
As you know, many of us thought this park was just too much and we wanted the town to come back with a better plan. Those who were FOR the park believed that the current plan WAS the best plan and argued that it had been discussed and researched for some time with much input from the residents.
But interestingly, what you have proposed today, now that the bond issued failed, is a much better idea than the original one.
Solar panels, water harvesting, LEED certified buildings, grants, Federal funds, corporate sponsorship...these are all good ideas, and if any or all of them can be implemented, then wouldn't even you agree that the failure of the bond was a good thing because we now have an opportunity to come back with something better?
As a side note, according to ballot stats on pima.gov/elections, the Naranja Park bond results were:
58% against
42% for
The results for Question 2 (back in 2006) that gave $23.2 million dollars of our sales tax revenue to Vestar were:
58% for
42% against
Since the percentages are exactly the same, and it was 58% of the vote that passed Question 2 (and the Wal-Mart that came with it) and led to those that "won" telling those of us who lost to "get over it!" well, now THEY'VE lost the Naranja Park by the exact same percentage of votes.
I do hope they're all getting over it, especially Susan Zibrat, the leader of the PAC.
OVOT has made some good points. But I would suggest that the Town not count on any substantial private funding, if for no other reason that there are very few "headquarters" companies in Tucson, let alone Oro Valley. Once you get past Raytheon and Ventana Medical, the list becomes very short and the ability of local branches of national companies to make donations is limited.
And, he's right that the road work and paving is beyond the capability and personnel and equipment of the Town's road maintenance division. Simply put, they don't build roads. So that would have to go out to bid for outside contractors.
Further, as I have stated ad nauseum on this site, electrical, water, sewer and related infrastructure must go in first.
LEED certification would be dandy, but it does increase the up-front costs significantly. Anyone suggesting that user fees should cover a large part of the O and M budget of a park is not being realistic. It's akin to having a car wash or bake sale--the revenue is too small to cover the actual costs. Fees can help pay for some things, like classes, but if you make them too high, you defeat the pupose of charging fees.
Even with OVOT's modest proposal, I suspect that the total would still approach $40 million, particularly as we wait and see inflation eat away at the value of the dollar. The Town's General Fund will never be able to pay for the development of this site. So, keep your eyes open for another bond election--they can only occur in November, by state law.
And, as a piece of advice that you can accept or reject, be sure that the Town never sells off a portion of the site for private development (except, perhaps, to the Tucson Museum of Art). Once gone, parkland can almost never be regained.
Finally, I believe that the 58/42% vote split on the OV Marketplace and Naranja Town site issues was purely chance, so I wouldn't read much into it. If Susan Zebrat is willing to lend her time and energy to support a scaled down plan, I--for one--would not discourage her. Perhaps she and Art could join hands!
[I wonder if bloggers here think that the above is a rant by an ignorant, gutless wimp of a boob.]
Cowgirl....Passing the park bond as it was presented did not preclude doing what I suggested. Once passed I would have fought hard to build it as I suggested. I believe most if not all of the solar could be installed at a very low cost if not gratus by a solar industry that is ripe for a marketing tool. This park could have been and still can be a model for other communities in the sun belt.
I still believe, and the marketplace will support my assertion that from a cost standpoint this is a perfect time to build this park. I doubt we will see construction costs as low as they are now. I think you will agree that waiting for a good economy is a two edged sword. We might have a few more shekles jingling in our pocket but construction costs will be much higher.
Boobie....Ventana, Sanofi, Raytheon, Northwest Hospitals, Wal Mart, Walgreen's, Dick's Sporting Goods, Starbucks, Target, Home Depot are among some of the potentials. They don't have to be headquartered here to be a viable candidate. If you asked each of these companies for $200,000 a year for ten years and you placed their name on a significant feature in the park and it was a 'green' park, I believe they would be happy to use that as part of their PR/marketing campaign. Then you get Giffords to come up with a few million in federal money and you are there!!!!
You got to think bigger and more positively my friend. But then that probably why I am a member if the Optimist Club.
There is only one (maybe two) participant(s) on this blog who would agree with your last paragraph.
BB-
I'm not really reading anything into the 58%-42% numbers since although the percentages are the same as before, the number of voters was different (approx. 12,000 voters cast a ballot on Question 2 vs.approx. 18,000 voters casting ballots on the Naranja bond issue) so it wasn't the exact same people who voted. But because the percentages were the same, I just wanted to point out that those who said "Get over it!" in the last election would now have to eat a little crow since they lost by the same percentage of votes. I also know that many of the people who voted FOR the sales tax sharing were the same people who were FOR the Naranja Park...not 100% of them, but many of them were the same people.
Your posting on this topic was very rational (I agree that a user fee probably won't pay for O/M but I also doubt that a bed tax will cover it, either.) I don't trust projections after what happened with the projections for revenue from Oracle Crossing.
Obviously, when you speak rationally, none of us think you're an ignorant, gutless boob. But every once in awhile you launch into a baseless rant and then you lose credibility, such as calling Art a racist while refusing to identify yourself. In fact, after I was able to prove that your racist theory was BS, you quickly disappeared from the site but never did apologize to Art for your incorrect presumption.
Thinker,
Your last 2 posts have been a pleasure to read. Why can't you be like this ALL the time?
VC...
THANK YOU!! I don't take lightly your compliment.
If you look back at my postings you will see that I frequently post as I have done the last two times. You happen to agree this time so I think this has some influence. It is when people who have no clue make an attempt to post baseless nonsense or post inaccurate, prejudicial information that I get 'aggressive'. If that is a fault, so be it. I am my father's son. I make every attempt within my power to post accurate information and I do study the issues from many facets. That's how I discovered that the recreational acreage of the park was only 24.8 acres. I expect everyone else to do the same. If not, simply state that the posting is an opinion, a guess, a desire, a wanna be and that is acceptable. I know that may sound judgemental but that's just an insight into my nature. But as I have stated, I will not allow a statement, presented as fact which I know is inaccurate, to go unchallenged.
I have little tolerance for people who want to argue on an emotional (there's that word again) level when there are serious issues at stake. In truth, I am a very emotional and passionate person. But too often people allow their emotions to override sound judgement. I will always remember the person carrying the sign "NO DEAD BODIES HERE" on Rancho Vistoso. If it wasn't so sad, it would have been a great laugh.
So I think ( I hope ) you can appreciate my position. When I am with ya, I will fight with ya to my last breath. And when I am again ya, I am consistent. :-)
PS: I don't recall the post but if Boobie had identified himself and called Art a racist would it have been OK? I'm confused by your logic here.
Have a great Sunday!!!
P.S.> Has anybody heard from Zev recently? I am concerned.
Objective Thinker--I too am pleased to read your objective thoughtful comments as it concerns the park. The issue is not whether I agree or not, but the fact that you presented a rational piece without resorting to anything not pertinent.
As for boobie---one might think he/she would be smart enough to not bring up an issue that many are not even aware of. However---as long as it was noted, those that are interested may want to go to the recent posting on "The OV Police Bike Patrol" and read the comments.
As for Zev, no need to worry. He'll be back within days offering his very astute comments.
Finally---- Hopefully others will see fit to offer comments or suggestions as it concerns the Naranja site.
OV OT (and others, too)- I was on an extended vacation, lolling around on an ocean liner, visiting some islands, eating, playing, and generally relaxing. Outside of the fact that I have gained some unwanted weight, it was a good trip! After returning and getting myself caught up-to-date, I will, once again, partake in some dialog here. I do find it refreshing that within this stream there appears to be a rational (and conciliatory) approach to revitalize an issue which was denied by the citizens of this community. Just one comment at this time: it is my belief that this issue was not voted down simply because of the 'money thing'; many, including myself, felt that this was an over-the-top
extravagance, and though perhaps, in part, a result of many prior 'inputs' of community members, it was an ill conceived application as translated by a consortium of outside consultants who might have been simply after the glory (and cash?). Yes, I will write more later as you all know I probably have some opinions. And, OV OT, thanks for your concern; as I have been back for only 24 hours, it has been time impossible for me to address it.
Pardon some of my spelling and thought processes within the above; I'm still trying to regain my 'land brain'.
Thinker,
To answer your question, "if Boobie had identified himself and called Art a racist would it have been OK? I'm confused by your logic here."
I didn't word my last post very well. No, it still wouldn't have been OK, but he wouldn't have been called a gutless wimp if he'd had the courage to identify himself. It's easy to make incendiary statements such as "racist" when you hide behind a "stage name."
I thought Boobie lost credibility first by launching into a baseless rant with unfounded accusations and name-calling (especially when he goes after others for name-calling), then never having the guts to reveal his identity to anyone, and he lost more credibility when he disappeared when I said something that he could not challenge.
BB,
Before you come back and say that I also use a "stage name," yes, that's correct, however, there are quite a few people on this site who know who I am (including Art and Thinker). I told Art who I was from the very beginning. And since I knew who Thinker was, I thought it was fair that he should know who I was since we "go at it" quite often, and I don't believe in one person having an advantage over another, so I told a friend of his who I was, assuming that the friend would pass the information on to him.
So at least when Thinker and I or Thinker and Art have "spirited arguments" each one knows the identity of the other and, therefore, none of us could be called gutless wimps.
I think at this point in time there are several options to pursue for the park. While I do not believe any park land should be used for office buildings or a tech park, as has been previously suggested, it is sound land-use policy to develop a park of this scale in phases and utilizing the support of a number of community stakeholders.
One of the best ideas is to work with the Amphi School District in negotiating for a school to be built on a portion of the land. Amphi is in need of an additional middle school, has approached the State School Facilities Board for funding, and has identified a prospective site on East Moore Road in Rancho Vistoso. However, with collaboration, Amphi could abandon the Rancho Vistoso site and move the school site a mile due south, and construct the new middle school at Naranja Town Site.
This alternative has a number of benefits. In collaborating with Amphi, Oro Valley will be able to share some development costs with a second governmental entity. The new middle school could feature extra athletic fields and facilities for shared use with the community under an intergovernmental agreement. Further, once Amphi is involved, the potential of building a public pool adjacent to the new middle school could be a shared venture as well, particularly considering that Amphi’s Ironwood Ridge High School needs a pool facility in closer proximity to its campus on W. Naranja Drive. Oro Valley has the ability to entice Amphi into such an intergovernmental agreement by offering a transfer of a portion of the land for the school site, in exchange for assistance in developing some athletic facilities that will be used by schools and Oro Valley alike.
As has previously been mentioned, partnerships with private entities could be used to further develop the park in subsequent phases as well. The Tucson Museum of Art would also be a promising addition to the property. The biggest concern with the prospect of partnering with Amphi is the difficult history between Amphi and Oro Valley in cooperating with one another. This would need to change for the park intergovernmental agreement to work. Given the failure of the bond proposal, I believe such an agreement is one of the more promising proposals for gradual development of the park.
Dan has made some recommendations that deserve contemplation. The cooperation between Amphi and the Town has improved over the years, so there is certainly a possibility for shared use of public lands.
Traffic would continue to be an issue--on a daily basis if there were to be a middle school on the site. Witness the lineup of cars at Wilson K-8 some morning.
Nevertheless, it's an idea worth pursuing. Amphi's pockets are no deeper than the Town's, and you'd have to wonder if the voters in the Amphi School District would approve funding (bonds) for such construction.
Finally, an intergovernmental agreement would have to spell out the costs for O/M on the site, especially if both the school and citizens were sharing use of the fields and recreational areas.
Has anyone on this site spoken to any members of the Amphi Board or to the Superintendent about such an idea? There may be pitfalls (legal or otherwise) of which we're unaware.
I can tell you that Amphi (along with other area school districts) have intergovernmental agreements for use of athletic fields and facilities with other entities like Pima County. These agreements are not uncommon and cover concerns like maintenance, etc.
Further, Amphi has more financial leverage than you would think. The School Facilities Board funds the construction of schools, and Amphi voters recently approved a substantial bond that earmarks over $30 million for the construction of the new school. No additional bond money would be needed to be approved by voters.
Let me emphasize, these intergovernmental agreements are commonly employed, provide for beneficial use for both the community and the schools, and allow projects to move forward that otherwise would remain stalled.
Dan,
Have you sent your idea to anyone on the Town Council? They're looking for input from citizens on what to do with the NTS now that the bond issue has failed. Your idea has a lot of merit.
BB-
I loved your comment..."Traffic would continue to be an issue...Witness the lineup of cars at Wilson K-8 some morning."
Yes, installing that traffic light on LaCholla near Wilson School sure did improve the situation, didn't it? Me thinks it was another huge waste of money. Then again, it wasn't done to help with traffic flow. No, it was done because some kid's mother decided it was too dangerous for her kid to cross at that intersection even though there is a crossing guard present.
Today's kids are so coddled. I can just see our military 10 years from now when all the soldiers can't walk from Point A to Point B unless there's a red light and a crossing guard present!
VC:
Thanks for the affirmation. I have since submitted my concept to Salette Latas on the Town Council. I have also been in contact with Rep. Nancy Young Wright regarding the issue, and I remain optimistic of its prospects.
All:
Too often local governmental bodies do not work in concert with one another to share resources and ultimately produce a stronger result than would have been possible independently.
Oro Valley and Amphi have rarely worked together, and I would like to see this change. I am certainly willing to work for it. Intergovernmental collaborations have been successful in numerous communities across the country (far too many to name), and given the current economy, this is an option we should put into action.
The most important first step is getting the conversation started.
Enough of this school silliness. The madness of a middle school is only superseded by the stupidity of a cemetery. How about another funeral home and a crematorium? Let's ask Dan why we need a middle school 2 miles from one middle school (Wilson) and five from another (Coronado). Dan, give us some specific middle school current enrollment numbers, projected numbers and the middle school enrollment numbers in the southern part of the the Amphi school district. Land was offered in Rancho Vistoso (I think in neighborhood 3) for another middle school and the infamous N(I LOVE THE OWLS)YW fought against it.
You want to see cooperation between Amphi and Oro Valley? Just drive to Copper Creek School and see the 18 foot high, lighted sign that they erected without permission from the Town and they also failed to get an electrical permit from the Town...which was required. Amphi doesn't give a damn about Oro Valley and their actions continue to prove it.
BB made a very important point when he stated that this is the LAST piece of property available in Oro Valley that could be utilized for a major park. We can argue over uses within the park but let us never stray from the use as a park.
Mr. Cox,
Your interest in the subject is much appreciated. Unfortunately, I don’t view the necessity of an additional middle school on the same terms as a cemetery. An additional middle school has been deemed necessary not only by the Amphi community committee assigned to study the issue, but affirmed by the Amphi School Board, and most importantly by the State School Facilities Board (after examining figures for the entire Amphi District.) The SFB is charged with the responsibility of determining which school districts in Arizona require new classroom space based on current and projected enrollment figures. With the affirmation from all these stakeholders that an additional middle school is needed, it is difficult to argue that one is not. While the existing middle schools you mentioned (Wilson and Coronado) may be in close proximity to the proposed site in Rancho Vistoso and the Naranja Town Site, nonetheless population growth in north-central Oro Valley is requiring the construction of another middle school.
I also encourage you to further explore the notion that Rep. Nancy Young Wright fought against the acquisition of such land in Rancho Vistoso. The reality is quite to the contrary, and the title to the property has yet to be delivered. This is after Rep. Young Wright’s (among others) insistence of such delivery, and due to the actions and delays on the part of the Vistoso Partners in not fulfilling their previously agreed upon obligations to Amphi.
Amphi and Oro Valley have a very promising future relationship. Conditions will continue to improve. Integrating the new middle school in Naranja Town Site remains a viable option that will continue to be explored. The school would provide a solid anchor in the park, with shared use athletic and recreational facilities. I look forward to working with the community in pushing this concept as it continues to develop.
The public schools in Oro Valley have served as the impetus for growth in the town, as more families have wanted their children educated in the Amphi system. Biotech companies frequently cite the strength of Amphi’s school in their reasons for relocating to Oro Valley. The strength of the schools also serves to preserve and enhance community property values. That said, a collaboration such as this between Amphi and Oro Valley is a logical next step in improving the quality of life in the town and moving the park project forward, while it would otherwise remain stalled.
Dan
Dan…
I appreciate your enthusiasm but I believe you have consumed a few too many school lunches. :-)
More than one site has been proposed for additional school space in Rancho Vistoso and NYW has opposed many of them. That is a known, verifiable fact. I suggest that you contact Vistoso Partners office in Chandler and speak to Dick Maes about dealing with Ms. Wright. She, and her ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, is one reason title has not been delivered.
Statistics can be presented in many forms depending on the projected outcome one prefers. Seven years ago Amphi was extorting money from builders with the threat that if one more home was built, then school children in the Oro Valley area would have to be bussed to schools in the southern part of the district. That was a smoke screen that hasn’t materialized although they were successful in extorting much money from builders that was simply passed along to buyers as an additional construction cost. I have a copy of a policy memo from the Office of the Superintendent that clearly states that Amphi support for any home construction will be withheld until the builder agreed to pay money to Amphi. On the Amphi web site is a list of builders who agreed and those who didn’t. I suppose that is simply presented for ‘informational purposes’.
I agree in part with your comment, The public schools in Oro Valley have served as the impetus for growth in the town…” The schools are just one facet of “the impetus”. There are many more factors. One facet that is lacking is sufficient park space.
Amphi and or the SFB is not going to pay for the construction of little league ball fields which are sorely needed. They are not going to pay for the construction of additional soccer fields or a skate park or a BMX track or tennis courts or ramadas for picnics. In addition gaining access to school facilities is not only difficult but can be very expensive. Administratively, Amphi is not the most user-friendly group.
As has been accurately stated many times, Oro Valley has NO property available for a park other than the Naranja Town site. It should be utilized for that purpose. Land has been donated to Amphi for schools. That route or the SFB should be your source for property, not the local government. And just as a formality, the possibility may be a moot issue due to the required separation of school matters and local governments.
Mr. Cox,
It’s good to get your input on the matter. I’ll agree to leave the issue of school sites in Vistoso and Rep. Young Wright for another day. That simply is not my focus here. Further, if you disagree with school districts being able to compel or encourage local builders to pay rooftop fees for the additional families that will live in the respective school districts due to new housing developments, I suggest you contact your state legislator to amend such an allowance. In this case, ironically that legislator would be Rep. Nancy Young Wright. Again, this is a common practice not only in Arizona, but in other parts of the country. It’s a “pay as you go” approach.
I am happy to hear that we agree on how beneficial the public schools have been to the welfare and reputation of Oro Valley. I also agree with you that more park space is sorely needed in our Town. I view an intergovernmental agreement between Amphi and OV as a vehicle to help get us more park space. The agreement could be written in any way, and yes, even having Amphi help subsidize construction costs for amenities such as a public pool, and athletic fields above and beyond what the District would build at its new middle school independently. Amphi has secured the funding for its new school, so its leverage and ability to negotiate is right where it should be for a project such as the NTS.
As a parting note, I have emphasized that in moving forward with this proposal, the new middle school would occupy a small portion of the total Naranja Town Site. Most middle schools encompass 20-30 acres, including athletic fields, and this school would not be different. What’s more is that the community would have shared access with such acreage, so it would not be “lost” by OV. The school would serve as one anchor for the park.
And lastly, as an individual rather familiar with the law and legal issues (it may just be my occupation), I can assure you the issue is not moot due to any separation requirement between school matters and those of local government.
Dan
Well, we've finally got some constructive dialogue going here and some of it may actually be realistic.
There does seem to be a disconnect about the amount of recreation and park space that a community "needs." What are the national standards? Do the little tot lots that are required of planned developments provide a sufficient substitute for community-wide parks?
To be honest, I'm wary of more committees to study the Town's needs for the site. By the time every interest group has had its say, we could easily be back at the same starting place. The site can only be used for certain activities and buildings due to the natural landscape and slope (without having to cut and fill huge slices of land, something the Town doesn't normally allow developers to do).
Again, I'd suggest an alternative approach, one that combines both financial and planning considerations. I'd want to know what the voters of Oro Valley would pay per year for a community park. Based on that finding, I would develop a plan that would build the park in stages according to the peoples' willingness to pay. Of course, this approach would take 20-30 years, but if the majority of the voters won't pass a secondary property tax to pay off bonds, I don't know what the alternative is.
Yes, Amphi can contribute, but it's still taxpayer money, just coming from a different pocket and serving a slightly different need. An intergovernmental agreement to build and share baseball, softball and soccer fields seems like a good start, but it still doesn't address who pays for it all. Is the suggestion that the NTS development costs be folded into the Amphi District's property tax? That's not going to fly with voters because the Amphi District covers more that just the Town.
It just makes good sense that, if you're going to put a park in that space, that you pay for all of the infrastructure up front and at once, saving money down the road as prices increase (along with labor and materials). But infrastructure (water, electricity, sewers, roads, parking, etc.) doesn't give you a pretty park--it just gets you ready for one when the time is right. And, to be honest, you can't build infrastructure piecemeal. So, we're back where we started again.
Excuse me, I am reading your comments and don't understand a few things. For one, I have lived in Oro Valley for 5 years and have visited most parks with my grandchildren. I go weekdays and weekends, most times, there are only a hand full of people utilizing the parks. I also attend Soccer meets with them, which is held at the local schools playground. Please tell me what I am missing?
Flyboy--Good observations. Naturally, you'll see only a few people with young children at the park during weekdays because all of the other children are in school.
But, if you were to stop by the pool at Kriegh Park, you'd see that swim teams are packed in to the point where 4 or 5 swimmers have to use the same lane to practice.
And, in the evenings, the softball and soccer fields are completely booked by various organizations.
The ramadas at Riverfront Park appear to be used almost constantly, and there is no designated dog park north of Kriegh Park.
Nevertheless, I still believe that we should be looking to national standards to determine where we are in relation to population and park space needs. There are limited recreational classes in OV because there simply are no buildings in which to hold them. That's why the Town rented a small retail space across from Town Hall, but that's used primarily for exercise and dance and martial arts classes.
Having a full complement of soccer and/or baseball fields also means that we could attract national tournaments that would stay at our hotels (and pay the bed tax) and eat at our restaurants. Right now, about the only thing that OV can attract is a national convention of tumbleweed watchers!
The national standard used to be 10 acres per 1000 people, which puts OV far behind. However, a newer model has been developed that favors an individualized approach to assessing the need for public parks as opposed to a set ratio. See the following article:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1997/ip970317.html
Post a Comment