Town of Oro Valley Faces Huge Funding Shortfall On Parks Bond Projects

Parks Bond estimated spending far exceeds funding

Last week, for the first time almost a year, the Oro Valley Town Council got a glimpse of what it is really going to cost to build the projects funded by the $25 million parks bond. It was a real eye opener for them.

The news is so bad that it is hard to know where to start. Here's what the Council learned.

There's an $18.2 million shortfall [see panel]. 

Spending is estimated at more than $51.4 million to fund the five Park Bond areas. Funding sources, which include the Park Bond money, are $33.1 million. The shortfall is $18.2 million.

Spending on golf course irrigation replacement and tennis course replacement assured

Spending on golf course irrigation and tennis court replacement at the Community Center is well underway. These projects will be completed in November and December, respectively. Their total cost is $12 million. All but $900,000 has been contracted. These projects are going to be built.

Naranja Park spending far more than "guestimated" by Parks and Recreation Study Consultant

The park that Council imagined when Council approved the bond is in jeopardy. The cost of that park has grown from a guestimated total spending of $17 million to an engineered estimated $33.7million.

Why the difference? According to Town Public Works Director Paul Keesler "The creation of the $17M estimate within the [Parks and Recreation Master Plan] study was completely generated by the consultant in 2018, using their historical data and their design assumptions. But at the end of the day, it’s only a study and actual engineering was not designed at that point."

Community Center Parking and Multi-Use Paths in jeopardy of not happening

The Parks Bond also included spending on the Community Center parking and some key additions to the town's multi-use system. Nothing has been done on these. Detailed construction design is not completed. It's anyone's guess as to what these will cost.

Town Staff recommends stripping back Naranja and cutting Multi-Use Path projects. Then, funding remaining shortfall through town's capital improvement funds

Staff recommended stripping back funding of $8.2 million from the Naranja Park Project and from the multi-use path projects. Then, they recommend using the $9.4 million from various town funds to cover the difference. The total of the two measures still results in a $2million shortfall [panel left]

Town Council requests revisit with staff

After a lengthy discussion, the Council asked staff to come back with more recommendations on what to do. 

This rather simple request came after various Council members blamed various other council members, town staff, the economy and anything else they could think to blame for this problem. Frankly, there is plenty of blame to share. 

- - -

Tomorrow: The Naranja Park Spending Disaster

Wednesday: Eleven Reasons For The Parks and Recreation Bond Project Spending Disaster 

- - -

Some links that might be of interest

5/10/21 Parks Bond Resolution (Panel)

7/21/21 Park Bond Amenities (Panel)

11/15/ 21 LOVE article: Town of Oro Valley Embarks on Ambitious Parks Projects

11/17/21 LOVE article Naranja Park Buildout Presents Huge Challenge

The Town of Oro Valley Embarks On An Extraordinarily Ambitious Set of Parks Projects

Investment will result in massive change to the town's parks and recreation system over the next three years

Based on town council direction in July, and funding secured in September, Town of Oro Valley staff has embarked on a set of major parks projects. Over the next three plus years the town will build, upgrade and improve the town’s Parks and Recreation system. 

$25 million in spending from the parks bond...

The town will spend tens of millions of dollars in doing so. $25 million of this is from a bond that the town issued on September 22. Those monies are specifically to be used for three facilities: Naranja Park; Golf and the Community Center; and multi-use paths. The council has defined specific projects. (See panel) These projects can be changed by a future council as long as the funds are used to improve the facilities. The town is required to spend 85% of the $25 million within three years per bond requirements.

Plus another $6.9 million in non bond related projects this year

The town will also spend money from the annual parks and recreation budget for parks and recreation facilities. These are annual appropriations, subject to the discretion of the current and future councils. 

This year’s budget for parks and recreation capital improvements is $29.2 million. That includes spending of $22.3 million dollars from the bond funds. Thus, there is additional $6.9 million on projects this year that are not related to the projects reported in this article. (Source: 2021-22 Town of Oro Valley Final Budget, pages 225 and 230).

These non bond related projects are either lifecycle replacement projects or park improvement projects. This year's lifecycle replacement projects are the rehabilitation of the garage at Steam Pump Ranch, the rehabilitation of the BBQ and bunkhouses at Steam Pump Ranch, a playground upgrade at Kreigh Park, and an upgraded sanitation unit at the Aquatic Center. The sole parks improvement project is a hardscape walkway at Naranja Park.  (Source: 9/21/21 Town Council Agenda item 3)

Financial impact of the Vistoso Preserve is on the horizon

The operating cost and investment impact of adding the former Vistoso Golf Course to the town's parks and recreation system won't be known to the public until after the purchase occurs, hopefully early in 2022. There is work that the town will need to do there as the course has been abandoned for four years.  This will add to the complexity of what is already a very ambitious set of Oro Valley parks projects. 

- - -

Wednesday, we explore the complexity of actually spending the $25 million bond funds and building the projects within a three year horizon.

Town Staff Fails To Include As Directed By Town Council Specific Uses In the $25M Parks and Recreation Bond

Council approves a $25 million parks and recreation bond...

Last week, The Oro Valley Town Council passed a measure to raise $25 million through bonding for parks and recreation improvements. Mayor Winfield framed the discussion of the bond as the culmination of efforts to add long neglected items to the town’s parks and recreation facilities.  After discussion, the measure passed 5-2, Council Members Greene and Solomon dissented.

But projects to be financed are not a "done deal"

Mayor Winfield framed it as a “done deal.” After all, in July, the council approved by a 5-2 vote the specific projects that are to be funded by the bonds. But that does not mean that all of those projects will actually happen.

 

Because the bond agreement does not restrict use of funds to specific projects

The only legal document that survives a change in council is the bond indenture document. That document does not restrict the use of these funds to the July approved specific purposes. The funds will be spent over a three or perhaps a four year period. This term of the current Mayor and three council members next year. There is no guarantee that the items this council approved this past July will survive a newly installed council.

Despite the fact that staff was directed in the July  town to include specific uses with the bond

The minutes of the July 2021 town council meeting reflect exactly how these funds are to be used.  The following motion was passed (5-2): "Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by councilmember Josh Nicolson to direct staff to include the following projects and amenities with the Parks and Recreation Bond."  The panel at right lists these. Not including these items specifically in the bond indenture violates this council directive

Thus, the use of these funds can be shifted because the funds are really just a "pool of funds"

The funds, thus, can be shifted to other projects because they projects are not identified specifically in the bond. The only way that the projects this council defined in July can survive a new council is if the  the specific projects are included in the "bond indenture."  That is because the bond indenture is the legal document that has been approved by the IRS and the SEC. It is the document upon which investors rely. It is the use of funds as described in that document to which the Trustee of the funds and the town must abide regardless of what any council wants to do.

In this case, however, there is nothing in the bond legal documents that defines the specific use of the funds.

85% of these funds must be expended within three years... beyond the term of current council

In effect, the bonding is creating a $25M fund that can be used for any future parks and recreation need as long as 85% of the funds are expended within three years. This leaves 2 years of spending beyond the term of the current council majority. 

Most of the projects won't even start for six to nine months.

Funds can not be spent in advance. Thus, it is highly likely that it will take at least a year before major projects building commences simply because of a shortage of contractors and materials for the work. 

Consequently, ample funds will remain in the bond fund well into the term of a new council. Indeed, the use of these funds will be their responsibility.

Tomorrow: 5 Reasons why the projects funded may differ from the originally intended projects if the council bond vote last week stands

---

County Administrator Responds To Miller Assertions

Tuesday, we posted a guest view by County Supervisor Ally Miller. In that guest view, Supervisor Miller made assertions regarding County Administrator Huckleberry's alleged actions regarding garnering support for county bonds. The administrator wrote us regarding this as he does not believe this view to be supported by fact. We don't want to be involved in county politics so we don't intend to allow pursuit of this issue further. We are positing the following response as part of our fairness doctrine.
---
To Whom It May Concern,

In a post on your blog October 10, 2017 you published a portion of an email purported to be from Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller in which she referenced the Pima County Bond Program.

According to your post, she wrote:

“One of the things that Chuck Huckelberry (Pima County Administrator) does to garner support for bonds (and I will use a Parks and Recreation bond to illustrate) is that he will list every park in the county and list $1 million for each park.”

“Then after the election, he uses all the bond money for one park. Voters are outraged. “

Neither assertion is true. You and your readers should know you’ve been purposefully lied to.

Pima County has an extensive bond program and has had such for 20 years. There are strict controls on how bond projects are funded. We have a Truth in Bonding Code that governs the expenditure of bond funds and requires the Board of Supervisors to hold an advertised public hearing before voting to approve any change in bond funding. We have a Bond Advisory Committee that reviews every bond project and has public discussions and votes at publically noticed meetings to recommend any suggested changes to projects. Any change affecting a project requested by a city or town also requires a public hearing and approval of that municipality’s elected council. The County Administrator has no authority to make decisions about bond project funding as asserted by Supervisor Miller.

All of the information about our bond program is available online at www.pima.gov/bonds . There are over 700 completed bond projects since 1997. There is an interactive map online where you can click project-by-project and review the project scope of work, status and funding.

In 1997, voters approved $52.65 million for parks and in 2004, $96.45 million. It is verifiable that Pima County never proposed $1 million for every county and municipal park and it is verifiable that in neither election did all of the parks money approved by voters end up being used for a single park.

If you don’t believe me, go the state Auditor General’s website and look up the 2013 state Legislature-ordered audit of Pima County’s bond program. It proves Miller lied in her letter published in your blog. It also shows that Pima County’s bond program is exemplary.

Finally, Supervisor Miller’s argument about moving bond funds from one project to another doesn’t apply to Oro Valley’s bond election since it’s a single project bond – there’s no other project to which funds could be moved. So why bring it up?

I’ll leave it to you and your readers to fathom why a Pima County Supervisor would write such demonstrably false and misleading statements. Perhaps she’s trying to affect the outcome of the Proposition 454 vote?

Sincerely,
Chuck Huckelberry
Pima County Administrator

Tonight… Council Focuses on Climbing Out Of The “Parks Bond Shortfall” Hole

Start Town staff: Cut Naranja Park and Path Spending
On October 9, Oro Valley Public Works Director Paul Keesler delivered bad news to the Council: Spending on the parks bond projects was going to be $18.2 million over budget. Keesler recommended specific cuts in spending. The counsel did not like what they heard so they asked Keesler to return to them with new recommendations. 

Keesler returns tonight with a plan  
Keesler will recommend relatively the same overall construct that he proposed a month ago: Slash spending on Narjanja Park amenities and on multi-use paths. We base this conclusion of our review of the “staff presentation” for tonight. 

Slashing spending in these two areas is the only alternative unless the Council authorizes more funding from town reserves. The town has already spent the parks bond money that was planned for the golf course and the tennis, courts. So, there really isn’t any other place to cut spending.

Reduce Naranja Park Spending by $12 million
Kessler’s plan reduces the scope of Naranja Park amenities:

• halve the size of the splash; 
• reduce the size of that the skate and pump track; 
• eliminate basketball courts; 
• reduce the number of pickleball courts. 
• change the type of paving for the streets and the parking lot; 
• and defer construction of two of the Multi-use fields. 

After already spending about $1million to level an area to relocate the dog park to the north end of the park, Keesler recommends leaving it where it is, thus putting the skate and pump track elsewhere

Reduce multi-use path spending by $3.4 million
Keesler recommends deffering the “CDO to JDK path extension”. That is the only parks bond project from which those who live south of the CDO got any benefit. Staff was able to identify outside sources for another planned path, thus saving money,

Still a shortfall of $3.1 million

Even when all of these changes or implementing, they’ll still be sure fall of $3.1 million. Keesler is recommending that the council use available reserves and park impact fees to try to cover most of that.

Tonight Council will decide how to climb out of the hole
The Council faces ugly choices. Perhaps they will solve the problem by covering the full $18.2 million shortfall with general funds dollars. Or, maybe they will elect to make other changes. We don’t know. 

We can tell you though that for 11 reasons we identified previously this Council, the former town manager, and town staff have put themselves in this hole and they’re going to have to figure out a way to get themselves out.

Five Reasons Parks and Rec Bond Project Priorities Could Change

Yesterday, we discussed the fact the council approved $25 million bond for parks and recreation improvements does not include a specific list of projects that are being funded. As a result, there is no enforceable promise that guarantees that the projects approved for bonding in July will happen.  

Today, we present five reasons why priorities could change.

---

The "next council" might have a different set of priorities

The term of the two members of council who voted "no"on the bonding ends in 2024. Thus, they will be in office through the completion of most of the work. All they need are two new members of council who agree with their thinking to change the direction of the use of these bond funds.

Some of the items on the list of projects do not reflect the wishes of the residents

Council Member Solomon is focussed on what residents want. He bases his thinking on a town conducted statistically valid needs assessment that was done by an independent consultant for the town's 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. That survey classified facility needs into three categories (See panel right). Many of the items on the July approved priority list are either low or no priority. "My big objection is that this does not follow the statistically valid survey that was touted 'time and time and time again' through this council. Yet, after all of that, that is not the way priorities were set," according to Solomon speaking a last week’s town council meeting.

The town does not know what each project will cost yet they are raising money to fund the projects now

The town has "put the cart before the horse". The town has no true financial picture of what projects it can and can not afford.  This is because it is just now preparing revised estimates of construction costs, costs that may be much greater because of inflation. Council Member Solomon asked Town Finance Director Gephart last week what these estimates were. Gephart  stated that “I do not have a cost estimate...” of these items “… because we are still working through what this final project list is going to be.”  According to Gephart, the project list cost could well be more than originally estimated.

The town may need even more than $25 million for these projects. Funds may have to come from added sources.

$25 million may not be sufficient to pay for all of the cost of the projects because of inflation. According to Gephart, inflation may stay in the 5-7% range for the foreseeable future because government stimulus money has flooded the market.  “There is concern that with inflation, we are not going to complete all of the projects, amenities that have been approved.”

What happens if the town finds itself short of funds for these projects? According to Town Manager Mary Jacobs: “If we are not able to get everything done on the list, I will come back to council. We also have the opportunity for...” adding funds to complete these projects through future budgets. “Because these projects are going to go on over multiple years… We’ll have to budget the bond monies…and look for supplemental monies."

The town has no idea of what will be the cost of maintaining these facilities

The projects that will be funded by the bond are not fully defined nor have they been fully vetted per town policy.  Policy 1 of the town’s financial and budgetary policies states that all proposed projects should have “…all operations, maintenance and replacement costs shall be fully costed.” Town Finance Director Gephart stated that he had no idea of what these costs would be.

---

Council Members Solomon and Green voted against the bond measure. Solomon summed up his reasoning.  "This is a pretty big wish list and we are not going to be able to afford all of this especially considering the operating cost.” After reminding the council that voters have always rejected bonding for parks projects at the ballot box, Solomon noted; "This is not what the community asked for. This bond is rushed through and no real financial analysis." If new council members next year agree with Council Members Solomon and Greene, then the allocation of the bond money will change.

Tonight, Oro Valley Town Council Focuses On Bonding $25 Million in Parks and Recreation Spending

A $25 million borrowing

The focus of the town council tonight is financing Parks and Recreation spending of more than $25Million over the next three years. Last night, the town’s Parks and Recreation Commission discussed what will be done and when it will happen [See Panel]. Tonight, the town council will review and likely approve the details of a municipal bond issue to fund $25 million in spending on these items.

It will be a challenging meeting because of the detail nature of the discussion. What follows is our synopsis of the key elements of the financing.

The money will be repaid over 20 years in annual amounts of $1.7 million per year. 

This assumes that the face interest rate of the bonds is to be no more than 3.5%. The actual rate is determined on the date that the bonds are sold to the public. Town Finance Director David Gephart estimates that the effective rate on these bonds will be from 2% to 2.25%. According to him, this will be a bit less than the effective rate on the bonds the town issued to pay down it's public safety debt. Those bonds were taxable bonds with an effective rate of 2.39%.

The town anticipates issuing bonds in the amount of $20,990,000. It anticipates that the face interest rate on the bonds will be such that investors will a premium of $4.4 million to own the bonds. Thus, the bond issuance would raise $25.4 million of which $25 million will go into the project fund. The remaining amount will be used to pay fees.

.

The actual borrowing will be more than $25 million

This is because of  fees paid to four third party participants: A special legal counsel, a financial advisor, a trustee, and an underwriter [those who actually sell the bonds].  The total of these costs is estimated to be $357,000.

In this case, the special council is Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C. The financial advisor is Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. The trustee is U.S. National Bank Association, a division of U.S. Bankcorp. The underwriter is Piper Sandler & Co.

These are revenue bonds

The funds to repay these bonds are pledged from the town's sales ["excise"] tax revenues. Thus, they are called excise tax revenue obligations. The town is pledging all not previously pledged sales tax revenues to pay for the bonds. This means that the sales tax revenues must be used first to pay back the bonds. What is left can be used for town operations.

Primary backing is the half cent parks and recreation sales tax

Though the town is pledging all of its sales taxes to pay bond service, the primary fund being pledged is the half cent sales "community center" tax fund. This is now to be called the "Parks and Recreation Excise Tax Fund"

The town believes that fund will have sufficient capital over the 20 year time frame.

"The Town forecasts that the 0.5% sales tax the Town Council identified as the fund source for this bond repayment will be sufficient for both the continuing operations of the Town's golf courses and community center as well as the repayment." (Source)

The interest on these bonds is "tax free"

These bonds are being issued for a civic purpose. Thus the interest on these bonds is tax free. That is, the bondholder will not pay interest on these bonds. This is unlike the $27 million in bonds the town issued in July to reduce the town's large public safety pension underfunding. The interest on these bonds is taxable because the use of the proceeds to pay previous debt is not a "non taxable" use, per IRS rules. The difference between the two types of bonds matters because taxable bonds are generally only purchased by investors who have no tax liability, such as a University's endowment fund.

The proceeds of the bond will be held by a trustee

The proceeds do not become part of the town's general fund. According to the trust agreement the trustee xxx  will disburse the funds for one of three reasons:

• to finance costs related to the project;
• to pay trustee costs and fees and
• to pay pay all or a portion of the costs of delivery of the 2021 Obligations

Generally, the proceeds are reinvested so that earn interest until they are used. In this case, the funds will be used over a three year period.

Bond agreement allows sales tax reduction only if certain conditions are met

Essentially the bond agreement requires that the town maintain sales tax levies at the same level as today. However, the town can reduce sales tax rates as long as the resultant sales taxes are "...equal to at least two times the Annual Debt Service Requirement (as defined in the Trust Agreement) payable under the Agreement. This is approximately $3.4 million. 

- - -

A Quick Lesson On Oro Valley Bonds By John Musolf

Thanks to John for sharing his vast knowledge and clarifying the "Bond Issue" in layman's terms for all of us.
**************************************************************************************************

There is a lot of confusion about the use of bond issues in Oro Valley. Perhaps this will offer some clarification.

A municipal bond is a bond issued by a state, city, or local governments for their day-to-day and for specific projects that they might be undertaking (usually pertaining to development of local infrastructure such as roads, sewerage, government buildings, etc.)There is no voter (taxpayer) approval to issue this type of bond

Municipal bonds are sold to the investing public. Municipal bonds pay interest to the bondholder over 25 or 30 years. The bonds appeal is that the interest is exempt from federal taxes and in some cases state or local taxes. The interest is usually recorded as annual debt costs by the municipality (such as the Town of Oro Valley (TOV) and is paid by taxpayer money out of the general budget. This means other priority capital projects such as roads, water development, etc. may not occur since there is not enough taxpayer money in the budget to go around for all projects (perhaps even for day-to-day town operations).

The other danger is that in bad economic times, the TOV could default on these municipal bonds because of insufficient funds to go around (such as receiving less state shared tax revenue). As of June 30, 2007 there are 12 outstanding bonds issued by TOV for many projects for an outstanding principal total of $75,755,000. This is reported on the Report. There is an additional bond issue that is estimated to occur for $26,365,000 for the Municipal Operations Center in 2010 to bring the total to $102,120,000.

These type of bond issues could be manipulated. For example, if money somehow got diverted for other uses, then the TOV could simply issue some additional bond issues (called excise tax revenue refunding bonds) to pay off the shorted (diverted) bond issues with new bond issues without voter approval.

General obligation bonds are also a type of municipal bond. This is the kind of bond that TOV has on the ballot for November 4, 2008. The major difference is that general obligation bonds are issued with the belief that a municipality (TOV) will be able to repay its obligation through direct taxation (such as a property tax). There is little danger in default on these bonds since property taxes can be increased. Municipal bond investors like this added security.

The TOV is seeking voter approval to create a secondary property tax to fund the general obligation bonds for the Naranja Town Site. There is no absolute guarantee that these direct tax monies could not be manipulated but the risk is somewhat less. However, don't forget the capability of the TOV to issue other types of municipal bonds for rescues without voter approval still exists. Also, since this is projected to be only the first of many phases for the Naranja Town Site expect some more taxes. Also, this does not take in to account other opportunities [ed note: and may preclude], such as a branch of the Tucson Art Museum or bringing CAP water to Oro Valley for bond issues!

Originally, the TOV Council wanted to spend close to $150 million dollars for general obligation bonds for the entire proposed NTS. This would not have been possible! Under Arizona Law, municipalities may issue general obligation bonds for specific purposes such as water, waste water, artificial light, open space preserves, parks and recreational facilities up to an amount not exceeding 20% of the secondary assessed value. This would allow the Town of Oro Valley to bond for an amount of $92,642,349 (not $150 million) based upon the most recent secondary assessed value of $463,211,743.

John Musolf

Guest View: Ally Miller ~ Bond Notice and Disclosures to Voters

This posting is a clarification and expansion of Supervisor Miller’s earlier email that was posted on LOVE last Tuesday. This is being provided to help our readers more fully understand the issue. Although this information pertains to Pima County bonds, the information provided ties in to the upcoming Naranja Park Bond Election in Oro Valley.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After the 2015 Pima County Bond Election which included 7 bond propositions, I realized that reform was needed of State Statutes governing the bond notice and disclosures to the voters. These disclosures are provided via the Publicity Pamphlet for bond elections. I worked with State Representative Vince Leach to draft the legislation to update Arizona Revised Statute 35-454. Representative Leach ran this bill twice and it was killed by the lobbyists who didn’t support improved transparency to the voters.

I identified 3 deficiencies in the existing Statutes governing disclosures to voters:

1. Interest rates are not calculated at the maximum rate
The "estimated" bond payments provided to the voters weren’t shown at the maximum interest rate that voters were being asked to approve. In the upcoming Oro Valley Naranja Park Bond election, the estimated payment is calculated using a 5% interest rate. However, voters will actually be approving an interest rate up to 7%. The proposed amendments to the statutes would have required the payment to be calculated with 7% interest and disclosed to the voters.

2. Project Lists and Maps are Non-binding
Most voters believe that maps and project lists are binding. They are NOT. The town will be held to the “Purposes” only.   In the upcoming Oro Valley Bond Election, the purposes are listed as: Parks, Open space and recreational bonds. Any spending that falls within those categories is appropriate and legal to spend the monies on.

The 2013 Audit of Pima County Bonds clearly shows how monies can be moved around as well as showing projects which were canceled altogether.

You can access the link to the Pima County Audit HERE

Go to Appendix D, Table 8, “Project Changes: Reasons for changes in bond proceeds allocated to projects or changes in project timing, May 1998 through May 2012” towards the end of the document (Pages 52- 57). This is the list from the auditor showing all the monies that were moved into or out of bond projects. You will see many projects that were never done due to millions of dollars that were moved to other projects.

For example, you will see on the last page of Table 8 that the money from a previous Pima County NARANJA PARK project ($2.9 million) was taken away due to “Proceeds moved to cover costs in another project.”

3. Operations and Maintenance Costs are not included
Voters often don’t think about additional costs that come with Bond Projects. Operations and maintenance costs are not part of the disclosure to voters. My bill would have required a statement that primary tax rates could increase as a result of bond passage. Operations and maintenance costs typically start out low and increase over time as projects age.

I believe transparency to the voters is critical and that knowledge is power. I am hoping this bill will be presented at the state legislature again. In the meantime, I believe it is important for elected officials to provide the information to you so that you make an informed decision when you vote.

Ally Miller is a Pima County Supervisor in District 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Editor’s Note: As noted in the article, the $3 million dollars that was transferred from a previous Pima County Bond from Naranja Park to another park appears to be the type of bait and switch that Supervisor Miller was referring to in her email of last week, published on LOVE, entitled, “Ally Miller Cautions Voters on Naranja Park Bond.”

Kristy Diaz-Trahan Celebrates A Decade of Service and Extraordinary Change As Oro Valley Parks Leader

Diaz-Trahan celebrates a decade with Oro Valley 

Kristy Diaz-Trahan joined the Town of Oro Valley as the town's Director of Parks on February 4, 2013.  That's ten years ago. 

My, how things have changed... from then...

At that time, the town had completed the rehabilitation of the town pool. The town had two major parks: Kreigh Park, which the town got for free from the County; and Riverfront Park, which the town had built a few years prior. The town also had the county bond purchased Steam Pump Ranch. The town had several multi-use paths.

...To now... A decade of major change

Diaz-Trahan has overseen tremendous change in the town's parks facilities and programs. Today there is much more to Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation system. There is a community center building that houses an exercise facility, meeting rooms, golf retail, and a restaurant.  There are also two locations for tennis courts. Town has converted some of these to Pickleball courts.  There is a resturant. There are three town owned golf courses that comprise 45 holes. Naranja Park, which was a gravel pit when Diaz-Trahan joined, is being built into a regional park.  Diaz-Trahan is overseeing the conversion of the Vistoso Golf Course into the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve. Over the decade, the town has done much to increase its multi-use path and trails system.

Making Oro Valley's parks and recreation a source of economic vitality

When Diaz-Trahan joined the town, the focus of Parks and Recreation had been changed by then Mayor Hiremath. The focus had been to provide facilities and programs primarily for Oro Valley residents.  Hiremath wanted the town's parks facilities to be a revenue source for the town.  The thought was to use the facilities to bring those who live outside of Oro Valley into the community to spend their dollars. As reported in LOVE from our interview with her in March of 2013, Diaz-Trahan bought into that concept. She has implemented it. Today's majority council has retained that philosophy by not making any change to it. Thus, the creation of Naranja Park into a huge regional sports facility under their leadership.

Spending change from $2.8 million in 2013 to $15.4 million today

All of these changes have consequences in terms of the spending on Parks and Recreation by the town. The total Parks spending in 2013 was $2.8 million. The 2023-24 requested Town Manager Recommended Budged [TMRB] is $15.4 million. That is a five times increase. Total staff was 47 in 2013. The 2023-24 TMRB number is 69 staff. 

Rising to the challenge

It is hard to imagine that Diaz-Trahan anticipated all of the change that town councils have visited upon the parks department. None of these changes were envisioned in the town's 2006 or 2016 General Plans. The golf courses, tennis courts, and community center came about through a happenstance purchase from HSL Properties when it shed itself of these facilities for $1million in 2015. The Winfield Council decided to buildout Naranja Park through a $25 million bond offering in 2019. The town virtually had the Vistoso Property delivered to it so that the town could maintain and protect it in perpetuity in 2022. 

Nonetheless, Diaz-Trahan has risen to the challenge of helping to envision and create these facilities; and then to manage and operate them.

Add to this the major changes and increases in program offerings that Diaz-Trahan has authored and attendant increase in resident participation.

Congratulations Kristy....It's been an awesome decade of change

- - -

Use of Half Percent Sales Tax Levy In Limbo

Solomon illness causes decision delay

Last week, the Oro Valley town Council discussed, but did not vote on broadening the use of the half cent sales tax. This tax is dedicated to the town’s golf and community center operation. It amounts to more than $2.6 million annually and its growing.

Winfield wants to broaden use of funds and issue bonds to pay for parks and recreation wants

Winfield’s intent is to used these funds together with potential bond financing “...for construction of parks and recreation, golf, and community center capital projects, and/or other uses as determined by council.”  

The specific measure would continue to dedicate about $2 million to golf and the community center; and use the remainder of sales tax revenues, about $800,000 for other facilities.

Statement of Mayor Winfield in support of measure

“I support broadening the use of half-percent sales tax to support priority town parks and recreation facilities, such as our town golf courses, the community center, Naranja Park, Steam Pump Ranch, Amphitheater School District Partnership, multi-use paths and, potentially, other priorities through bond financing. 

Incredibly, 93% of our community agreed that Oro Valley’s parks and recreation system makes our town a more desirable place to live, although not all residents use priority parks facilities. 

Even though the community is unified about the importance of our parks and recreation system, I believe the creation of the community center fund and the dedicated half percent sales tax, has created in effect “winners and losers,” fueling community division and hampering flexibility to fund the town’s parks and recreation assets, including the golf courses and community center.

For example, the town has owned Naranja Park for twenty years and it is only partially developed. Steam Pump Ranch was purchased by the town in 2004. Several of the structures are on the national register of historic places and urgently need restoration work. 

I believe it is good public policy to broaden the use of the half-percent sales tax to spread investment across multiple parks and recreation facilities. This includes the town’s golf courses, the community center, Naranja Park, Steam Pump Ranch and potentially other priorities.I believe this action will ultimately benefit the greatest number of our residents and help to unify our town. That’s why I support this policy decision.”

Other Parks and Recreation Needs

The town has completed its 2021 Parks and Recreation Ten Year Master Plan. The plan will be reviewed and, after some change, approved by council. The priorities of this plan are shown the panel above.

Public Reaction Mixed
This council item was a public hearing. Reactions of the twenty people who spoke were mixed. Those in favor felt that the town had many other important parks and recreation needs that were long ignored. Those against either did not understand the proposal, since it was not explained to them until after the public hearing; or felt that the golf courses and community center had needs that were supposed to have been met long ago. For example, replacing irrigation and making the community center ADA compliant.

Next step
The council will discuss and vote upon the broadening of use of the half percent sales tax at the May 5 council meeting.

Winfield "Doubles Down" On His Support Of Municipal Golf

"No on wants our public courses to succeed more than I do"

“In October 2019, I approved the 36-holes of golf. No one wants our public golf courses to succeed more than I do.” 

Thus began Mayor Joe Winfield’s 8 minute explanation of why he supported spending almost $7.8 million to replace golf course irrigation. The council approved this expenditure by a 6-1 vote last week. 

“I also supported broadening the half percent sales tax, broadening to all parks and recreation, including the golf course irrigation. Delaying repairs will just cost more in the future.”

Reason: "Golf is the most popular sport in our community"

Referring to the public outreach that was on for the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan: “It does identify that golf is the most popular sport in our community.” It also identified many other resident needs parks and recreation items that are important to the community. “We did have a good response to each of these outreach efforts.”

Basis: As validated they the towns "statistically valid survey"

Winfield relies on the a resident survey that was done in the development of the town's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 

“When I looked at the statistically valid survey, the thing that really stood out to me was that half our community doesn’t use any of these amenities.” Winfield noted that despite this 93% of the community (users and non users) indicated that the “Parks and Recreation System Program makes Oro Valley a more desirable place to live.” 

"Nothing I like to see more than people on our golf courses"

Winfield noted that he doesn’t use many of the town’s parks and recreation facilities but “I know that it is important to our community and I want to invest in all these parks and recreation facilities and amenities, including golf because I know that golf is important to our community. There’s nothing I like to see more than people on our golf courses.”

Winfield stated that 22% of the respondents to the survey use the golf facilities.”I get a little weary of hearing that it is only 300 people. That’s nonsense.” According the Winfield, the national statistic for that is 9%. “And our facility is 22%.”

“I wish this bond was 50 million"

Winfield would like to build every part of the master plan now. “I wish this bond was 50 million.”

Winfield applauded town staff for recommending that $4.5 million of the golf irrigation replacement come from the $25 million parks and recreation bond, with the remaining $4.3 million coming from available reserves.

Mayor Winfield is confident in town staff's ability to get the irrigation rebuilt. “If we leave it to our staff to get the job done, they’ll make it happen.”

---

Bits and Pieces

Don't speed on Rancho Vistoso Blvd

"I am here to discuss enforcement of the 35 mile an hour speed limit on the portion of Rancho Vistoso passes through Sun City". Speaking at the call the audience portion of this week's Oro Valley Town Council Meeting, resident Leslie Fisher noted that the speed limit is 35mph. 

She related: "On a Saturday afternoon this past June, I exited Del Webb and headed east on Rancho Vistoso toward Oracle Road. As I approached the bridge over the Big Wash, I saw the dead bird. it appears that the motorist who hit this bird had to be going pretty fast. The bird and have enough time to even get off the road...I’ve noticed nine out of 10 cars will speed by me either going 45 or faster and I watch them to see if they’re going to reduce their speed and a lot of them just don’t they just blow right through there." 

Another resident noted that "..people are going at least 10 miles if not 20 miles over the speed limit not only in the Sun City 35 mile an hour but in the 45 mile an hour that’s on the edges of our community" Mayor Winfield asked town Manager Jacobs to follow up on this.

"SnOV" on December 10

The town has added a new holiday season event called SnOV. "Let it SNOW in Oro Valley! SnOV (pronounced Snow V) is a first time free event hosted at the Oro Valley Community & Recreation Center that will include games, crafts, food trucks, beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), snow for the kiddos to play around in and a visit from Santa! Thank you to Lisa Bayless, Realtor and Hughes Federal Credit Union for their sponsorship!" The event is December 10 from 5-8pm at the Oro Valley Community & Recreation Center. (Source: Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation email)

"Rockin' 4 Heroes" at Kreigh Park on December 11

"With multiple sold out U.S. tours under its belt and hundreds of thousands of fans around the world, Leonid & Friends continues to astound its global audience with its unique ability in capturing the spirit, musicality, and fire of American supergroup Chicago. Click here to learn more about the event!" The event is sponsored by the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce. (Source: Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation email)

$25 Million Parks Bond Issuance Complete

"On Thursday morning, Nov. 4, the Town closed on its Parks and Recreation bond issuance, netting the Town $25M in bond proceeds after issuance costs. The bond repayment term is 20 years, with an all-in total cost of issuance of 2.31%. Annual debt service on the bonds, including both principal and interest, is approximately $1.56M per year." (Source: Town Manager Executive Report, November 2021)

How Council Member Steve Solomon Lied During the January 9th Council Meeting

Item 3 on the agenda of the January 9th council meeting was “Establishing a Budget and Finance Commission and establishing the tasking and operations of said commission.”

The original Finance and Bond Commission was dissolved in 2010 during the Hiremath reign. Mayor Winfield wanted to bring it back to allow for more community involvement. He explained, “I have a strong belief in our boards and commissions and the important function they have in our community.”

Council Member Solomon paints himself into a corner
Council Member Steve Solomon tried to paint himself in a positive light, but ended up painting himself into a corner during the July 9th meeting. During the discussions, he claimed that he had nothing to do with abolishing the original Finance and Bond Commission in 2010.

Solomon claimed at the meeting: "…in the past, there was kind of a failure of this prior committee because when I first came on council in 2010, we discovered that the budget that was approved by the prior council, through whatever this bond or finance committee was, had a $3M deficit which they never bothered to point out or emphasize and we had to deal with it. After that committee was dissolved, and I wasn’t involved in the dissolution, what happened was that for the last 7 years, the town has run a surplus in the budget so I just want to make it clear that we do not have a budget problem."

Does he think that LOVE doesn’t have fact-checkers?

There are multiple problems with Solomon’s claims

• Solomon claims that a previous deficit was the fault of the prior Finance and Bond Commission. That’s nonsense. Staff has the final call on what is presented to the council. How many times did we hear from the Hiremath council that they didn’t need to get into the weeds because “we have staff and staff are the experts.” We found it curious that Finance Director, Stacey Lemos, said nothing when Solomon blamed the supposed “deficit” on the former commission members.
  
  
• There was never a deficit. The Hiremath Council did not inherit a $3 million deficit as Solomon claimed. First of all, it is against State law to have a deficient budget. The Council was told by the Town Manager (Jerene Watson at that time) that they needed to increase revenues or the staff was going to suffer layoffs and/or 4 day weeks. The Hiremath Council responded by doubling the Utility Tax from 2% to 4%.

The 2011-2012 tentative, proposed budget showed a $3.1 million difference between requested spending and forecasted revenues. That’s not a deficit. A deficit only occurs when actual spending exceeds actual revenues. That never happened. This is the $3 million to which Councilmember Solomon refers. This was the Majority-4's budget. They did not inherit it from any previous council.

• Solomon maintains that he wasn't involved in the Board’s dissolution, yet he was one of seven council members who voted unanimously to dissolve that commission.

Here’s the timeline:

June 2, 2010
Mayor Hiremath and his Majority-4 council took the oath of office. 

June 16, 2010
Steve Solomon was appointed to fill a vacancy left when Salette Latas resigned two months earlier. Solomon’s term was effective until June 6, 2012. (The Finance and Bond Commission was still active when Solomon took office.) 

December 1, 2010
The vote to dissolve the former Finance and Bond Commission took place during this council meeting. Solomon was on council and was present that night. 

Item 7A on the agenda was a “Discussion and possible action regarding the Finance and Bond Commission.” The vote was 7-0 to dissolve the commission. There was no discussion prior to the vote. Solomon did not argue against dissolving this commission and he voted to dissolve it. 

Or in Solomon’s words, “I wasn’t involved in the dissolution.”

These are more examples of why you should not trust anything that Councilmember Steve Solomon asserts. He appears to just make it up as he goes along, saying whatever paints him (or the prior Majority-4) in a positive light.

Devils, rakes, and shovels…oh my!
But wait, there’s more! During his arguments, Solomon also made the following comments:

"Now more citizen input is always nice but the devil’s in the details. So my question is…what is this group of people going to do? Are they going to go through the budget and say, ‘We’re spending too much money on parks and not enough money on planning and zoning.’ Or are they going to say, ‘Wait a minute, Parks and Rec…there’s a line item, we need 10 shovels…we want 5 rakes. Is the committee going to say, ‘No, I think rakes are better than shovels. We should buy 10 rakes and 5 shovels.'"(Well, if anyone knows about shoveling stuff, it’s Steve Solomon.)

He continued: "This is not unreasonable because this is what happens when you put a group together. So we need to be clear on what do we expect from them. Do we expect them to tell us that Parks and Rec has the wrong number of rakes and shovels? Do we expect them to tell us that the Police are getting too much money and Parks and Rec is getting too little money? Do we expect them to tell us that…we should cut out golf?...Are they going to slow the process up?...What role are these citizens going to have and are they going to have the background to contribute positively to it, which would be wonderful. We can’t just grab a group of five people and throw them into this and say, ‘Here’s the budget. Give us recommendations.’"

If Solomon had read the Council packet including the attachments, he would have known exactly what the responsibilities of the Finance Commission would be. The functions of the Commission were spelled out clearly. One needs to read the Resolution you are voting on before you vote. It appears that Solomon was too lazy to do his job and instead relied on the verbal summary from staff.

For the record, the Town Council isn’t going to just “grab a group of five people and throw them into this” and it was insulting to Mayor Winfield for Councilmember Solomon to even suggest this absurd possibility.

Supporting town documents showing that Councilmember Solomon voted to dissolve the former Finance and Bond Commission

Roll Call for 12/1/10 meeting showing that Solomon was present

Motion Carried 7-0

Two More Oro Valley Residents Say "NO" To Naranja Bond

In their letters to The Explorer Oct 1, 2008, Oro Valley residents John Musolf & Donald Bristow give more reasons why we should VOTE "NO" ON NARANJA BOND.
**************************************************************************************
Tax to pay for a park, but ignore Oro Valley roads

Chet Oldakowski formed a PAC to stop the Naranja Town Site Park.

Dick Johnson (NTS supporter) is quoted in the news article. According to Johnson, communities have just as much obligation to fund parks as they do roads. And the burden to pay for such things falls upon all members of the community, not just those who benefit from them.

“That’s not the way we do things in America,” Johnson said. “It’s not just about me, it’s about the community.”

Interesting that Mr. Johnson brings up the analogy of funding roads as well as parks.

The TOV already has long-term “under-funded liabilities” that exist for TOV roads. If such “under-funded” obligations are permitted to grow over a long period of time, they can have a substantial effect on a government’s financial condition (sounds like our country’s current economic crisis).

Where is Mr. Johnson’s voice on “community support” for maintaining our roads?

Mr. Civalier, town engineer, appeared before the TOV finance committee in both 2007 and 2008 to discuss “pavement management;” that is, the strategy on how to maintain our streets (roads).

We are currently at least $1 million short each year in budgeting reserves for pavement management.

Mr. Civalier indicated it would help if we could spend about $3.8 million for about 7-8 years ($25-30 million) to maintain the roads properly.

According to Mr. Johnson, we must tax our citizens for a park and ignore our roads.

John Musolf
***************************************************************************************
Bonds too costly in THIS economy

In a recent letter to the editor, Don Cox indicated that Oro Valley will be a town of mediocrity if the citizens don’t approve the Naranja Town Site (NTS) bond proposal.

How can that be? Without the developed NTS, the town recently received several excellent recognitions. U.S News & World Report stated Oro Valley was one of the top places to retire; Money Magazine reported Oro Valley was one of the best places to live in 2008; Family Circle and Parents.com rated Oro Valley as one of the best 10 towns for families; and Fortune Small Business Magazine ranked Oro Valley 44th out of the 100 best places to live and launch a small business.

It doesn’t appear the quality of our town or our property values have suffered from the lack of the developed Naranja Town Site.

Investing in the high cost of the NTS to save some citizens money on gasoline spent to reach recreational facilities outside the town is a minor consideration. A major consideration should be the current financial state of United States and its potential impact on the bond issue.

While it is anyone’s best guess, it appears likely the ability to borrow money for everyone, including the Town of Oro Valley, will be at a higher rate than when the town first asked its citizens to assume more personal long-term debt (up to 25 years and up to 12 percent per annum) by approving the bond proposal. Therefore, it is likely if the bond issue is approved now, we will receive fewer facilities due to higher costs.

The NTS will also cost more to operate. It would be wise to reject the parks and recreation improvements bond proposal for now due to the cost uncertainty. If approved now, the resulting additional property taxes (personal long-term debt) and operational costs will further reduce our shrinking standard of living.

Without the NTS, the Town of Oro Valley will not be a town of mediocrity. It will continue to be a community of excellence.

Donald Bristow

Oro Valley

Ally Miller cautions voters on the Naranja Park Bond. The Devil is in the Details.

We recently received an email from Pima County Supervisor, Ally Miller, with her thoughts on the Naranja Park Bond. Ally has worked with State Representative Vince Leach on bills to clean up the laws for Publicity Pamphlets sent out to voters because they are misleading. Unfortunately, lobbyists have twice killed these bills.

Below is a portion of that email:

……………………

Below are some of the things that I noticed in the Publicity Pamphlet for Oro Valley’s Naranja Park Bond. These are the issues that everyone should understand and question.

1. PURPOSE: “Parks, Open Space and Recreational bonds”

These monies can be used on any parks, for purchase of open space, and any recreational purpose.

The list of amenities and all the renderings listed are nonbinding. The PURPOSE stated above is the only binding use of these funds.

If you want clarity…it must be stated in the PURPOSE.

2. Voters are approving up to 7% per annum Interest Rate.

The calculations were done using a 5% per annum interest rate. Ask the Town for the calculations at the 7% interest rate that voters are being asked to approve. 2% will make a huge difference. (My bill would have required them to show the calculation at the maximum interest rate).

3. They list the average cost per year for a homeowner with a $250K home as well as the estimated cost over 20 years. However, for the 20 year cost, they simply multiplied year-1 times 20 years.

This assumes that your valuation stays at $250K for the entire 20 years.


One of the things that Chuck Huckelberry (Pima County Administrator) does to garner support for bonds (and I will use a Parks and Recreation bond to illustrate) is that he will list every park in the county and list $1 million for each park. This sounds great to voters. They think, “My park will get some improvements. You’ve got my vote.”

Then after the election, he uses all the bond money for one park. Voters are outraged. An audit is ordered but of course it passes with flying colors. Why? Because the audit is focused only on the bond PURPOSE listed in the Publicity Pamphlet.

Allyson Miller
Pima County Supervisor

You can read the Naranja Bond Publicity Pamphlet HERE

No Bonding (Likely) For Parks Master Plan

Bonding Highly Unlikely In Funding Parks and Recreation Plan
Seeking public approval for issuing bonds with a property tax to repay them is a highly unlikely source to pay for the Parks and Recreation Master plan. Mayor Winfield noted, at last week's council study session, that residents have continually voted down such bond measures over the years. 

Winfield noted that the survey the town conducted last year asked what people would want assuming there would be no new taxes to pay for such. "This means that it would not cost them anything." 

Town staff acknowledged this. In fact, it appears that staff never considered bonding to be a viable funding source. "Our community doesn't really have an appetite for a bond initiative" to fund parks, according the Parks Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan. "We do know that there are financing options available that can be used." She noted that funding for parks is on a "pay as you go" basis. That's how we moved the needle somewhat at Naranja Park over the last seven or eight years." Indeed, it is becoming quite a park as we noted in our posting: "Naranja Park... Building Over Time... Meeting Resident Needs."

Funding from various sources

According to Winfield and others speaking at the study session, some of the funding can come from sources other than from the town. For example, funds from the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) may be available to pay for trails funding. In fact, Winfield and Vice Mayor Barrett recommended to staff that they move trail spending timing up to take advantage of these funds.

According to Consultant Mike Svetz of Pros Consulting, the half cent sales tax the town enacted to subsidize municipal golf can be used for work at the community center. This includes paying for improved parking and repaving tennis courts. 

Also, council believes that there  may be opportunities to partner with third parties, like Pima County and the Amphi School District.

Three facilities are 65% of the $62 million plan

The Plan calls for $62 million in spending in the next ten years. Projects are classified in groups (see panel above, right).  The cost is driven by three items: $17 million to build out Naranja Park; $13 million for the Community Center; and $10 million for trails. Indeed, spending to repurpose the "clubhouse" as a community center begged the question, asked by Council Member Bohen, as to whether the town had considered starting from scratch, building something new. Diaz-Trahan said they had not.

Winfield: Target Town Spending $25 million in capital spending over 10 years

The challenge will be to prioritize spending. Hopefully, this will be done based on the statistically valid survey that formed the baseline for the study. Winfield set a target for which the town would be responsible of $25 million in capital spending over ten years.

In addition, as Mayor Winfield noted, priorities must also consider the ongoing maintenance cost of the facilities. For example, trails can be maintained at minimal cost whereas park equipment requires relatively more cost. Also, as Svetz noted at the meeting, there are opportunities to break projects, such as the Naranja Park buildout, into phases.

Initial priorities presented to Parks and Recreation Commission last night

Last night, the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Commission met to discuss project priorities and funding the the plan.  Svetz presented project priorities and funding sources. His plan targeted the $25million Winfield capital spending cap by dropping spending on Naranja Park and the Community Center visionary, rebuilding projects. 

Next Step: Community Meeting on March 30

Staff will host a community meeting on March 30.  This meeting also will focus on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Capital Improvement Project (CIP) priorities and funding expectations.

---

Naranja Park …. Vistoso Preserve… and more…

Council prioritizes projects in the $25 million Parks and Recreation Bond…but not without controversy
The Town Council set priorities for specific parks and recreation projects to be funded by an approximate $25 million bond that will be issued this fall. The projects are listed in the panel that follows. The bond will be repaid by approximately half of the half percent sales tax the town levies to fund the town’s three golf courses and the community center. Town Manager Jacobs and Town Finance Director Gebhart assured the council that the town will have the funds from the sales tax levy to repay these bonds under any foreseeable circumstance. 

The projects that are included in the bond are in addition to projects included in the 2021-22 Parks and Recreation Budget. $1.3 million in this budget is designated spending for Steam Pump Ranch. According to Council Member Bohen this amount is far too little. “Steam Pump Ranch has never been a priority” and there are many unmet needs. 

Council Members Solomon and Greene voted against the priority list. Pointing to the town’s statistically valid survey of resident parks and recreation needs done just last year, Solomon noted that Naranja Park was not even on the list. Solomon stated that the inclusion of massive funding for Naranja Park in this bond simply does not meet the wishes of the residents. 

Solomon is correct that the survey reflects no significant resident interest in building Naranja Park. This has been true since the day the county gave this stone and mortar quarry to Oro Valley. Naranja Park has never been important to the majority of residents. It has only been important to members of council.

Former Vistoso Golf land purchase negotiations continue… Some resolution perhaps in September

Speaking at last week’s council meetings, Rancho Vistoso residents were complementary of Mayor Winfield, Vice Mayor Barrett and Town Attorney Jonathan Rothschild “for their diligent, hard work in bringing this matter to closure.” They were speaking in regards to ongoing negotiations regarding the former Vistoso Golf Course. The matter remains in negotiation. 

 
Speaking after executive session, Town Outside Counsel Rothschild stated that Romspen has “agreed” to a specified price for the property. The Conservation Fund has agreed to purchase the property for the appraised value, which will be known in August.” It is possible that the appraised value will be less than meet amount Romspen wants for the property. Thus, the council likely will have to consider legal options, which may include condemnation, to force a resolution. 

Council Member Solomon said: “We are very close.” Residents hope so. “Its’ been three years”, one resident noted. “Time to bring this to a conclusion.”

Council adjourns until September 7 meeting… Will unveil upgraded council chambers

It will be an “in person” meeting in renovated council chambers. Public participation will be available in person. The town will use Zoom participation for public hearings only. Thus, one who wants to participate in the “call to audience” segment will have to do so in person. Town Manager Jacobs stated that the town will provide more information on how these meetings and those of the town’s boards and commission will take place.