MINUTES
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
Town Council Study Session
January 14, 2009
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER - 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL
|
PRESENT: |
Paul Loomis, Mayor
K.C. Carter, Vice Mayor
Paula Abbott, Council Member
Bill Garner, Council Member
Barry Gillaspie, Council Member
Al Kunisch, Council Member
Salette Latas, Council Member
|
| 1. |
Discussion on the future of the Naranja Town Site (NTS) |
Parks and Recreation Director Ainsley Legner noted that the November 4, 2008 Naranja Town Site bond election question which asked voters for authority to issue $46.8 million in bonds to construct the first phase of the park did not pass. Ms. Legner then reviewed several options for consideration regarding how the Council may wish to proceed:
1) Joint Development with another agency or organization
- Combine funding, property or other resources to help develop the park.
2) Phasing the development of the Master Plan
- 7 phase plan
- Consider alternate funding sources (Bonds, Heritage Funds, Private foundations)
3) Put the Bond Election on the Ballot a second time
4) No action
5) Other Town uses for the property
- Public Works or Police Department operations and administrative facilities
- Zoo
6) Selling the property
Ms. Legner reported that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has voiced two preferences: 1) Phasing option with less phases and more elements included in each phase, or 2) No action at this time but preserve the park for future park development.
Building Safety Director Susanne Smith reviewed Phases 1 and 2 of the seven phase plan. She then explained that the estimated costs included projected construction costs, engineering costs and inflation costs. She stated that by developing the 7 phases over 16 years, the original $48 million bond question would inflate to $59 million.
Discussion followed regarding:
- Status regarding the possibility of the Tucson Museum of Art locating in Oro Valley.
- 7 step phasing plan only includes those items included in the ballot question.
Council Member Garner then reviewed a conceptual plan for the Naranja Town Site in which he suggested that the park could be sectioned in half to create a 80-100 acre Campus Park Industrial (CPI) area which would allow for additional bio-tech, high-tech industrial businesses along with a park area. He also commented that the Town could sell the CPI zoned property but include deed restrictions that would require infrastructure. He also suggested that the Town could retain ownership of the property and become landowners by leasing the property.
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen commented that Council Member Garner’s concepts were legally feasible. He then reviewed the requirements for selling the property and the aspect of public/private partnership and the long term lease of a portion of the park.
Further discussion followed regarding:
- Infrastructure of the park - start immediately as CPI interests would want to see something happening in the park area.
- Natural spaces would be kept. Surrounding neighbors would not see park area.
- Performing Arts Center - not a fruitful endeavor at this time due to economic situation.
- Concern expressed regarding the possible use of hazardous materials in a CPI area. (Concept at this point. Applications for bio-tech, high-tech businesses would contain stipulations addressing such concerns.)
- Consider Community Center as a stand alone phase.
- Proposed cost of full build-out was approximately $150 million. Phase I with the infrastructure was approximately $48.6 million. Approximate costs of: Multi-generational community center -$42 million, music pavilion - $13 million, aquatics center - $3 million.
- First goal was to focus on recreational facilities (trails, fields).
- Naranja Town Site Master Plan focused on recreational pool facilities not competitive pool facilities. Olympic-sized pool was not included in the original Master Plan but a lap pool was included.
- Alternate funding sources - Pima County Bond funds (Can structure bond request in any format. May be prudent to split the request into smaller,
identifiable pieces). (Staff will be presenting a comprehensive view to Council regarding future Pima County bonds. Bond election has been delayed to at least 2009).
- CPI zoning would require a General Plan amendment.
- Funding - staff recommends finding outside funding sources.
Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment.
Doug McKee, Oro Valley resident, stated that the Naranja Town Site Master Plan was prepared several years ago. He stated that there has been no discussion regarding the number and types of fields needed so he felt that a new needs analysis should be updated.
Zev Cywan, Oro Valley resident, stated that he has given the Council a packet which includes his thoughts.
Art Segal, Oro Valley resident, stated that the voters spoke on the $48 million ballot question. He said that the majority of voters were against funding the park with property tax. He stated that not funding the park with Town money would relieve public concerns. He further said that people want fields for the youth but questioned how many fields were needed.
John Musolf, Oro Valley resident, referenced the staff’s six recommendations and Council Member Garner’s idea and stated that the Council should solicit input from the community for additional ideas.
Al Cook, Oro Valley resident, suggested going back to the voters in 2010. He stated that a public/private partnership would lead to public input, bring the community together and further represent a vision of excellence.
Dick Johnson, Oro Valley resident, stated that based on the economic situation, there are very little corporate dollars available at this time. He felt that in the future, the Town should be able to build public/private partnerships to construct the park. He commented that the $250,000 Wal-Mart donation could be used in some capacity in the park so that people can come to the park and see something viable. He also commented that he felt that $48 million was high and that the Town needed another estimate.
Tom Moser, Oro Valley resident, commented that if corporations looked at the site, they would not be excited as it is lacking vision. He suggested that the Council appoint a group that could look into a performing arts facility that would be self funding and could be built on a smaller scale.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that the Town should use the economic slow down period to come up with particulars for the Tucson Museum of Art to use the property in the future. He stated that the Town and the Museum are not in positions to act now but a conceptual agreement could be drafted. He stated that the Town should not back off from the Museum’s expressed interest. He commented that the Museum would be a good use for the park, good for Oro Valley and it would bring in other sources of funding.
Further discussion followed regarding:
- Conduct a formal survey and a needs analysis.
- Naranja Town Site has been looked at for many years. Trails are available at the park. Have time to get community input and ideas. Revisit the issue in a few years when economy has recovered.
- Would be remiss if the Town did not look into partnerships including the Tucson Museum of Art.
- Keep all options open. Do not sell property. Hundreds of people worked on the Master Plan and it is still a good plan.
- Not enthusiastic about placing CPI zoning in the middle of the town. Continue to evaluate the park, solicit public opinion.
- There are not a lot of funding options available. May still require a secondary property tax to pay for the park.
Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:05 p.m.
Jane Peterson, Oro Valley Library Administrator, reviewed the background of the Oro Valley Public Library. She then reviewed the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Pima County and stated that the IGA is in effect until June 30, 2012.
Discussion followed regarding:
- Library tax - Statute provides that if a municipality assesses their own library district tax it would be $.15 per 100 dollars of assessed valuation (current Pima County library tax is about 34 cents per 100 dollars of assessed valuation).
- IGA states that in event of termination, the Town shall remit to the District 50% of replacement value of the then current equipment value (estimated at $2 million so the Town would owe the District approximately $1 million). Computer hardware and software is almost entirely owned by the Town but replacement value would be approximately $12,000 or $6,000 owed to the District).
- If agreement is terminated, options would be: 1) Town runs the library as a stand alone entity and pays for everything associated with the library, or 2) turn the library over to Pima County and it would become a branch in the County’s library system.
- $2.3 million is contributed to the Pima County Library system through the net assessed valuation of which $620,000 was returned back to the Town in 2008/09. It costs $1.3 million to operate the current library.
- IGA’s termination clause.
- Ownership of the building and land:
- Town bought the land in 1996 (issued Certificates of Participation)
- Shared funding sources for library construction: Town ($4+ million), Pima County Bond Funds ($3.1 million), Friends of the Library ($181,000).
Nancy Ledeboer, Pima County Library Director, addressed questions and concerns as follows:
- City of Tucson continues to own the library buildings regardless of whether they were built with Pima County Bond funds or a combination of funds. The libraries were given to Pima County to operate. If buildings ever cease to be used as a library, they will revert back to the City of Tucson. Pima County pays for some services for the City to maintain building.
- Their libraries are fully funded by secondary property taxes. Since Pima County took over Tucson’s libraries, they have added hours and collection budgets have increased. There have been many improvements in the libraries operations.
- Pima County was very fair with staff as they transitioned from the City of Tucson to Pima County (salaries, longevity, etc. were maintained).
- Operating conservatively but have funds to work through the next few difficult years.
- Meeting rooms are available for use by city/town staff and citizens.
- Understand passion and investment in the library but is true of all the libraries. Town has a wonderful library and it is misconception that if Pima County operated the library, things would change or would close down.
- If IGA is terminated, IGA could be renegotiated.
- Friends of the Library would not go away as Pima County also encourages volunteers.
- Pima County is not interested in a "hostile takeover".
Further discussion followed regarding residents from other counties using Pima County libraries and possibly charging them for library services, Pima County library hours, services provided by volunteers and personnel rotation policy.
Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment.
Doug McKee, Oro Valley resident, commented that the financial data does not include contributions made by the Friends of the Oro Valley Library. He stated that the Town needs to ensure the capability for the Friends to continue to run their book shop. He suggested that the Town work with the State legislature to possibly get the law changed so that the Town can withdraw from Pima County’s library district.
Art Segal, Oro Valley resident, stated that he has conducted an unofficial poll regarding ownership of the library. He stated that 58% recommended turning it over to Pima County and 18% recommended keeping it in Oro Valley. He stated that the facts as presented by Nancy Ledeboer put misconceptions to rest.
John Musolf, Oro Valley resident, suggested appointing the Town’s Library Administrator and Pima County’s Library Administrator to study the advantages or disadvantages regarding the Town’s ownership of the library. He stated that he saw nothing in the IGA regarding why it was originally decided that the library should be run by Oro Valley.
Robert Schumann, Oro Valley resident, stated that the library is a source of low cost entertainment for the Town’s residents. He commented that the Town should keep the library and questioned why Pima County would increase their budget by $2.3 million to include the Oro Valley library.
Martha Briggs, Oro Valley resident, and Board of Directors member for the Friends of the Oro Valley Library, stated that over the years, she has conducted her own survey and asked people what means the most to them. She stated that the Oro Valley Police Department and the Oro Valley Library were the two top responses. She commented that many patrons of the Oro Valley Library are not residents of Oro Valley but they want to come to the Town’s Library.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that he was less concerned about costs and more concerned about keeping the level of services at the library. He stated that additional services are costly and we must be willing to pay to maintain that level of service that we rely upon.
Dick Johnson, Oro Valley resident, stated that the library was built while he served on the Town Council and the intention was to have the library run by the Town. He stated that we need to work with Pima County and be willing to pay to keep the library under the Oro Valley brand. He said that the Oro Valley Library is one of the most attractive assets the Town has.
Susan Mears, Oro Valley resident, stated that she supported the Oro Valley Library becoming a branch of the Pima County Library District. She stated concerns have been addressed by the Pima County Library Administrator and she felt that more supervision from experienced people would help address issues.
Alisdair Innes, Oro Valley resident, Fund Chair for the Friends of the Oro Valley Library, stated that Oro Valley was not Tucson; it is a unique society. He commented that they would lose interest from those that help raise funds if the library was turned over to Pima County. He felt that the library would also lose volunteers and community participation.
Jayne Kunnemeier, Oro Valley resident, stated that when the library was built, the Council wanted control of the staff and running of the library so they could respond to any constituent issues. She stated the library makes Oro Valley a "community" and its public art is a destination. She also commented that the Friends Book Store makes over $60,000 per year for the library.
Further discussion followed regarding:
- Library programs.
- Contractual agreement regarding space for the Friends of the Library.
- Friends groups at libraries in the Pima County Library District. (Books donated by these groups become a part of the overall collection that serves everyone in Pima County. There are "express" collections that are designated to stay in particular libraries,)
- RFID system vs. Checkpoint system (cost and time savings analysis).
- Possibly create a Task Force to review the IGA, additional library tax (include a Friends representative, Oro Valley Librarian and Pima County representative, public, businesses, etc.
- Information technology - build matrix that attaches relationship with Pima County and projected potiential for cost savings regarding vitual technology. (Currently work cooperatively with Pima County and the Town’s I.T. department for services for virtual customers).
ACTION ITEMS: Bring back additional information to Council at a future Study Session (end of February or early March). Identify and answer questions with respect to who owns the library building.
- Bring back recommendation of items that should be tasked to a review committee regarding comparison of advantages and/or disadvantages of turning the library over to Pima County or keeping it under Oro Valley control as an affiliate or even if the Town should have a library. Look at all options.
- Identify the make up of the Task Force and what staff support would be necessary.
- Complete an initial study to come back to the Council in May/June for this next fiscal year budget. Also, complete a timetable with respect to the current IGA for consideration by Council in the July 2010 budget.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Carter and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to adjourn at 8:34 p.m.
MOTION carried, 7-0.