Monday, November 17, 2008

What Should Be Done With The Naranja Site?

We appreciate the responses we received so far concerning some of the options available with the Naranja site. (See the poll on left column)

One of our readers wrote and offered the following comment: "I would like the area left as it is, at least until the economy gets back on its feet."

My apologies for not offering this point as an option.

To rectify the situation,inasmuch as the poll question can not be revised, those of our readers that which to comment can do so here.

14 comments:

Dan said...

I would like to add that including a middle school on the NTS would only be appropriate if it occupied a portion of the site and not the entire property. Most middle schools cover 20-30 acres, including athletic fields, and the new middle school would not be different. The school would provide one anchor for the park, and the community would have shared access with such acreage, so it would not be "lost" by OV.

I recommend for those interested in the issue to review the comments in the Nov. 7th blog entry, "Naranja Park---Now What???" for some differing perspectives.

Dan

Frank said...

Regarding the failed proposal for the Naranja Town Site; I feel it was too grand, and too expensive as a result. (We have in close proximity the park complex on Lambert as well.) It seemed to me that it was more of a desire to improve the land than it was the need for additional parks. Please also keep in mind the annual upkeep costs to the city operating budget.
My sense is that the area should be East/West split, with the Tangerine side used for a smaller park, and the lower section for perhaps a Middle School, or future OV buildings sites, or land swap for other desirable city land sites. It would be good to preserve access to the park from both Tangerine and Naranja though, perhaps a North/South road along the western side accessing the park and resultant use of lower section.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Frank...

Welcome to the discussion.

Unfortunately your proposal would probably cost more than the original park site plan. The major cost is in the infrastructure i.e. roads, dirt work, water lines to include sewer, etc. The cost of the sports facilities was a low percentage of the overall cost. And yes the site should be improved. This would greatly assist in attracting grant and other private monies.

Don't be fooled by the 'need for a school' rhetoric. I don't know an easy way to put this so I will just put it out there and you can criticize me if you wish. The school discussion surfaced after the failure of the proposed bonds. To me it appears to be completely opportunistic and frankly leaves me with a bad taste. There are methods available to the school system to purchase land for a school and if the SFB, Amphi and other stakeholders were really serious about the need for a school they would act. If the need was truly there you would see article after article in the paper from Amphi or parents would be screaming about the overcrowding of the classrooms, lack of sports facilities, etc.

See or hear any before the bond failure?

I thought not.

BB....

I am glad you concluded your post on another thread with the statement alluding to we fact that we are no further along. Sadly your proposals keep putting us in the same circle with no clear solution to the proble, Getting this community to committ to how much they are willing to spend is like trying to herd butterflies. It just ain't gonna happen friend.

We have a Town Council and a Parks Board. Let them do their thing and MAKE A DECISION!! They will have plent of input....don't you think?

artmarth said...

Objective Thinker says: "We have a Town Council and a Parks Board. Let them do their thing and MAKE A DECISION!!"

As of now of the 12 choices we gave the readers, the option that states:"Whatever the Town Council decides is fine" has gotten a response of ZERO votes.

By the way, the previous council's decision to burden the citizens with an 85 million dollar debt didn't seem to cut it.

Hopefully, the "decision makers" will pay a little more attention to the people this time around.

Dan said...

In an attempt to provide more concrete details and helpful information regarding the prospective intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Amphi and Oro Valley, I have acquired an IGA used between the City of Avondale, Arizona (a suburb west of Phoenix) and the nearby Pendergast Elementary School District.

Important to note, is that such agreements are authorized by state statute under ARS § 11-951 et seq., and further for Arizona school districts pursuant to ARS §§ 15-342(13), 15-363, AND 15-364.

I have attempted to provide an executive summary of the agreement below. Of importance is recognizing that an IGA between Amphi and OV is viable and a worthwhile option to pursue. Also, since October the Town of Sahuarita south of Tucson has been discussing a potential IGA similar to this with the Sahuarita Unified School District for the joint use of the existing 50 acre Sahuarita Park.

Brief Overview of the City of Avondale Intergovernmental Agreement with Pendergast Elementary School District:
The IGA entered into force in 2005 for the development and operation of a joint park site, very similar to our current situation with the Naranja Town Site.

The IGA establishes that the cost of planning and developing the park would be split evenly between the two parties. Both the School District and the City collaborated on the park’s design. The School District has the right to use the fields from 6am-4pm on school days, excepting holidays/vacations. The City has the exclusive right to use the park at all other times, with control and scheduling power over park facilities.

The City is responsible for maintenance and operation of the facilities, ultimately splitting the costs incurred evenly with the School District. The City bills the School District for such costs on an annual basis. The IGA has a term of 25 years, can be automatically renewed, expire, or terminated by either party. If the agreement is terminated, the IGA stipulates that the non-terminating party has the option to purchase the terminating party’s ownership share. Such an option is also triggered if either party fails to fulfill its stated obligations.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

No one disputes that an IGA can be accomplished between Amphi and Oro Valley. Some exist now. But you continue to fail to come to grip with the FACT that Amphi is not going to spend money it doesn't have to build the kinds of facilities needed in the community. Additionally, they would not be allowed to spend the money to build ramadas, BMX parks, skate parks, little league fields, etc.

I appreciate your passion for Amphi but it will never happen and you and I both know it. Give us just one example where it has happened.

Dan said...

Mr. Cox:

With all due respect, I do have to refresh your memory that you have in fact questioned on this very blog whether such on IGA could legally take place. That said, I provided the Avondale-Pendergast IGA and pertinent state statutes for the benefit of all readers, and not merely one individual. This discussion is only constructive if all information is on the table. Also, if you are interested, the Avondale-Pendergast IGA covered the construction of the park, including: play equipment with a shade canopy, walking paths, ramada’s, basketball courts, ball fields, landscaping, interpretive education areas, and multi-purpose play areas.

All:

Amphi voters have recently approved a bond override for the district and an excess of $30 million of that bond has already been designated for the construction of the new middle school in Oro Valley. As I have previously stated, an IGA between Amphi and Oro Valley would not satisfy ALL the recreational needs for the community, but it WOULD provide an excellent start for the Naranja Town Site.

Once the middle school anchors roughly 20-30 acres of the park, complete with athletic fields and even potentially a public pool for community use, other future phases of the Naranja Town Site would further compliment the park. The students at Ironwood Ridge High School would certainly benefit from a pool closer to their campus.

Under Arizona statute, IGA’s such as the one at issue here can be written in virtually any fashion to fulfill unique requirements. Amphi funding can legally be used to construct any park facilities that could also be utilized for Amphi’s educational curriculum (i.e. baseball and softball fields, soccer fields, playground equipment, a public pool, ramadas and picnic tables, tennis courts, a football field and track, outdoor basketball courts, etc.)

OV could then enter into other agreements with private or other governmental entities to further develop the site, adding any additional fields, skate parks, tennis courts, etc. deemed necessary.

Collaboration and partnerships are critical to successfully developing a project of this magnitude, and the Amphi-OV IGA is a great starting point. The Amphi-OV IGA would provide the school district with facilities to support its curriculum and also expand the town’s recreation facilities, achieved through a partnership.

artmarth said...

Whether or not this council will see fit to consider a Middle School on the site is questionable.

What may be even more questionable is Mr. Cox already assuming that this site will include BMX parks & skate parks with their high insurance premiums.

It seems Mr. Cox takes a lot for granted.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art..I am not taking that for granted, I am only expressing what facilities are needed and requested at the park. The cost of insurance would/should be passed on to the users. Let us not forget that the survey stated that public was willing to pay user fees to pay for the additional services.

Dan...The questionable IGA I referred to was whether the Town funds could be committed to subsidize the cost of school facilities not IGA's in the broad sense. There are agreements already on file to utilize school space for summer programs provided by the Town Parks and Rec Department

Dan said...

Mr. Cox,

Well hopefully I've enlightened you with the knowledge that both funds from OV and Amphi can be used to subsidize multi-use facilities between the two entities. Please refer to ARS § 11-951 et seq. for more information.

I appreciate your continued interest in this project. The blog poll suggests a fair number of residents believe a middle school would be an ideal fit for part of the park. I could not agree more.

Dan

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Thinker,

You said Amphi would not be allowed to build BMX parks and skate parks. Then Art wondered why you would assume that the site would include those things (because of their high insurance premiums.) To which you replied:

"I am only expressing what facilities are needed and requested at the park."

A skate park is NEEDED? A BMX park is NEEDED? I didn't have a skate park when I was a kid and I didn't turn to a life of crime as a result. And do you know how I know that a BMX park isn't NEEDED either? Because I had no idea what it even was. I had to look it up. Here is what I found:

BMX (Bicycle Motocross) is a form of cycling on specially designed bicycles which usually have 20 inch wheels. The sport includes racing on earthen tracks, known as BMX racing, as well as the performance of tricks on the bikes, called Freestyle BMX.

This is a necessity?

I wouldn't even consider this as a "request" since all it does is kick up a ton of dirt/dust, polluting the air and irritating my lungs and spreading Valley Fever.

Yeah, I know...the hell with my lungs and my health...it's for the children.

Ferlin said...

Dear OVOT,

Do you know the people on the Parks Board? Do you think it is a "brain trust"? My, my, my are you misinformed. One member we know is a real turkey. He should decide what to do with this huge piece of land? I wouldn't trust my future tax dollars to someone who is so uneducated and unprepared to make judgements?

The Bikebox said...

Well, I guess I'm a NIMBY--I don't want a middle school built on the NP site. I would like a park, but what was proposed seemed far too grand. It was more in line with a regional or county park in my view. I'd like some improved trails; the proposed dog park would be a welcome and well-used addition, as well. I'm not at all opposed to ball fields, but again, it just seemed like too much at too high a cost.

artmarth said...

The Bikebox may be a NIMBY, but I couldn't agree more with his/her comment.

Welcome to our blog. Hope you'll see fit to share your views with us on other issues.