3500 W. River
Road
Thursday, June 7,
2007
8:00 a.m.
The following is a summary of the June 7, 2007
meeting. Audiotapes of the meeting are
available upon request.
|
Committee Members Present |
Committee Members Absent |
|
Gary Davidson, Chair John Neis Thomas Six Byron Howard Ted Prezelski |
Carolyn Campbell Tom Warne Terri Hutts |
|
County Staff: Technical Experts Present |
County Administration |
|
Carlo DiPilato,
P&D Division Manager Lauren Harvey,
Program Manager, NRPR |
Nicole Fyffe,
Executive Assistant to the County Administrator |
1. Meeting began at 8:07 a.m. with a
quorum.
2. Mr.
Six made a motion to approve, with corrections, the minutes of the last meeting
held on May 3, 2007, which was seconded by Mr. Neis. The motion was accepted.
Mr. Howard who was not present at the last meeting abstained.
3. Mr. DiPilato reviewed all the projects in
District 5, including their scope. Several questions were raised with regard to
the shooting sports program site improvements as there is a similar project in District
4. Mr. DiPilato explained that the shooting sports program site improvements
covered several ranges in different districts, and also explained the reasons
for them. He was also asked about usage, which he will provide figures for
later, and specific details about the various ranges. Mr. DiPilato was also
asked about what the impact of the ranges would have in deterring wildcat
shooting now that shooting and hunting are under consideration to be banned in
areas like the Ironwood Monument. He replied that it would greatly reduce the
destructive nature of wildcat shooting.
It was also explained that this package looks at the needs of the whole
community and upgrades the county’s facilities to provide safe venues for this
sport.
Mr. DiPilato was
also asked questions about the BMX Track at Manzanita Park and whether it
should be considered to be of regional significance rather than local. There was also an explanation of what was
meant by Tournament sites. There were also questions about the priorities where
similar projects in other districts had “A” priorities and these were “B’s” and
“C’s”. Mr. Davidson explained that with the town the rankings were in order of
their priorities, with the county there were many more projects so that there
could be something important that would be ranked as B. Mr. Gray also gave an
explanation of the City’s ranking of projects. Mr. Davidson said all the
projects will be given carefully consideration taking the various criteria into
account and the committee will try to decide which are the most important projects.
Mr. DiPilato
reviewed the projects in the “All” category.
These are all encompassing and impact all the districts and cover
projects like ADA upgrades, swimming pool sanitizer upgrades, sports field
lighting, playgrounds, reclaimed waterline extensions, flood prone and riparian
land acquisitions, pedestrian underpass ramps, etc. Mr. DiPilato was asked whether some of these were eligible for
other funding and he said that some could apply for grant funding. It was also noted that some grant funding needed
matching funding, therefore there had to be some money allocated to the project
for at least the matching portion. Regarding the ADA compliance upgrades, Mr. Davidson asked whether
the parks that had individual project sheets and were also listed here would be
thus not need to be listed if the larger project was undertaken. He was assured that this was so. Regarding the ADA upgrades, Mr. DiPilato was
asked if the county would be compelled to find funding for these projects if
the Bond committee did not approve them. It was explained that earlier projects
from the 1997 and 2004 Bonds were made ADA compliant, and the county was trying
to now make all parks compliant. Also,
some parks are over 15 years old and in need of urgent repairs as well.
Regarding reclaimed water, the sub-committee was advised that the City owns the
reclaimed water lines and the County would work with them to extend the lines.
4. Jurisdictional comments
about PC BOS District 5 and “All” projects:
Mr. Roy Schoonover, bicyclist
for many years, has been meeting with the Bicycle Advisory Committee, GABA and
Pima Bicyclist Association to prioritize the list of projects which they
support. BAC has provided the county
with a letter and a list explaining their reasons for the projects they
support. They emphasize the importance
of land acquisition to fill in the gaps and complete a network of shared use, and
the importance of river park improvements that would improve the network of
shared use paths. Safety, education and connectivity are also very important
issues for the BAC.
Mr. Mark Flint – board
member of the Sonoran Desert Bicyclist and segment steward and project
coordinator of the Arizona Trails project spoke of the importance of trails for
recreational and health purposes. Also
there is a perception in the community of the county acquiring open space and
locking people out, but by building trails and providing access, this counters
that perception.
Ms. Sue Clark,
President of Pima Trails Association along with Ms. Linda Anderson-McKee, Chair
of the Urban Trails Coalition, spoke for the Pima Trails association which
works with pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. They consider the linear parks to be the backbone of the trails
system and hence are 100% behind all the projects connected to the river parks. Another project which is important is the
Arizona Trail which is a nationally recognized trail system. Also Representative Gabrielle Giffords is
promoting the Colossal Cave portion of the Arizona Trail as a scenic
destination. Connectivity is another
very important issue which could also provide alternative means of
transportation.
Mr. Michael Lurie,
President, Tucson Children’s Museum gave a brief overview of the Museum which
is located downtown at the old Carnegie Library. They currently serve of 80,000 people annually and have outgrown
their facility and are anticipating building a new 40,000 square foot museum as
part of the Rio Nuevo Cultural Complex. The museum serves a wide and diverse
group of children of which 50% are Hispanic and 40% low income, fulfilling a
need of the community. The new museum
is expected to cost 22 million, of which there is a commitment of 10 million
from the City of Tucson. When open, it is expected to have at least 150,000
visitors annually.
5. Public comments about PC BOS District 5
projects
James Stevenson spoke on behalf of the Benson
Highway Park Project and also hoped the sub-committee would not overemphasize
regional projects especially if it would mean eliminating a lot of neighborhood
projects. Some neighborhoods would not
have access to the regional projects and thus the neighborhoods would continue
to have underserved, underprivileged communities. Also since District 2 has
almost 50% of unmet needs of the whole community as well as one of the youngest
populations, the youth of the area need something better than amusing
themselves with vandalism and brush fires.
Richard deBernardis, founder of the Perimeter
Bicyclist Association spoke in favor of the Arizona Velodrome Project which
will offer training, racing and other opportunities. The Association has
prepared a detailed draft plan for this project with market analysis, community
benefits, sources of income and concept plans for the sub-committee’s
consideration.
Mac Hudson, President of the Menlo Park
Neighborhood Association and is representing the Friends of 'A' Mountain. Mr.
Hudson pointed out an error in the bond funds requested, which is 2.5 million
and not 5 million dollars. The Friends
have identified other sources of funding for the project. The project is
primarily a safely issue. The group is
working with the city and other agencies as well.
Margo Hurst spoke in support of all the ADA
compliance issues and on behalf of the adaptive recreation center which is the
only facility in this community specifically for persons with disabilities. At
the moment only the aquatic portion has been completed, and are looking forward
to Phase 2 being covered by this bond issue. The center serves many seniors and
disabled persons who are a large part of the community.
Tish Finnegan, a parent, spoke of the importance of
the adaptive recreation center where the programs are tailored to people with
disabilities. Ms. Finnegan spoke of the great need for facilities for disabled
kids and adults, of which Arizona is lacking.
She realized this when her son Rio was born with a disability and the
hardship she and other parents like her face trying to get the optimum benefits
for these children and wishes the facility could be expanded for the benefit of
the whole community.
Mr. Fred Gray, Parks & Recreation, City of
Tucson said he would provide a break down of the projects like the river parks,
sports fields, park facility revitalization and safety enhancements to show how
the money was being allocated. Also,
there have been significant additions to the bond package for land
acquisition. Mr. Gray will also provide
more details about the specific projects later. Mr. Gray spoke of land
acquisition and said they would have to rely on partnership opportunities with
YMCA’s schools, churches or other agencies in wards where opportunities are
minimal. With regard to the four new projects included, Ms. Julie Parizek,
Planner for the City of Tucson, provided further details on the Ormsby Park
expansion which would expand the park from 5 to about 30 acres. It would provide
connectivity between the Santa Cruz River Park and the El Paso Greenway. Another
project is the Sonora Desert Park at the base of 'A' mountain which was
formerly a landfill site, and is proposed to be turned into a natural resource
park to celebrate and interpret the Sonoran Desert. It is an opportunity for ecological connectivity between 'A'
mountain, Tucson Mountain Park and the Santa Cruz River. It could be turned into an important
regional attraction. The next project is the De Anza Trail between 22nd
Street and Congress, which ties into the Sonoran Desert Park as well. The Wildlife and Pedestrian corridor would
connect the ecologically sensitive 'A' mountain, Tucson Mountain Park and the
Santa Cruz River.
6. Other
Business, Future Agenda Items and Meeting Dates
Mr. Davidson made suggestions on prioritizing the
projects. He proposed that each of the sub committee members prepare a
list of the priorities in their district with in put from their supervisors, and
could also take on certain other types of projects, for example, trails. That
person would speak first. The other
members could then make suggestions and comment on the project list and then
possibly vote on the projects. This would be a 4 level process. The first level
will include considering 15 to 25 million dollars of projects per
District. Mr. Davidson also requested to re-read the criteria while deciding on
their project list and consider the neighborhood issues as well as a balance is
needed. The maximum total of this level will be 125 million. Mr. Davidson hopes
that each of the 5 members from the 5 Districts will agree to first propose or
nominate a 15 to 25 million dollar package of projects from their own District.
This will provide local expertise on the highest priority projects in
that District. Everyone on the subcommittee will then be free to suggest
their own 15 to 25 million dollar package for that District or modifications or
adjustments to the proposal. After discussion, a vote on a package for that
District could be taken. It could be held in numerical order assuming everyone
is present. After the District 1 package is discussed and approved, we will
move to District 2, etc. This is suggested to create this first level of
priorities on a District by District basis in order to provide a manageable
framework to start the process. There are certainly more than enough priority
needs in each District to fill this level. However only District interests need
not be considered in making proposals as this is a County-wide bond election
and all of the criteria that has been agreed upon should be considered
including broad community support and regional significance. After completing
the first level, the sub-committee can proceed to develop a second level of
about 125 million dollars. This package will have no geographic boundaries or
other limitations. This will allow the committee to consider some of the larger
projects that did not get completed in the first level and to address other
high priority unmet needs. He suggested a third and fourth level of about 100
million dollars each. The 4 levels will also represent priorities 1
through 4 so that when the Advisory Committee decides how much to recommend
for Parks the projects at a given funding level are already prioritized.
Mr. Howard commented that there was no
way of knowing how many times projects had been dumped because of lack of the
right kind of support, stress indices, etc., and would prefer more dialogue
with the committee members. Mr. Neis mentioned that it was very hard to make
decisions not knowing the full picture, for example one jurisdiction may ask
only for parks and not libraries or other projects, and thus get a smaller
share of the funding. Mr. Davidson said that it was the sub-committee’s job to
set the priorities, as if they did not do that, it would be decided by raw
political power which meant that some areas would not get anything even if
there is a great deal of need. Ms. Fyffe said that administration could provide
more information on selections from other sub-committees which had already made
their recommendations. Mr. Prezelski felt that the full committee could handle
making the final decisions, instead he would like to know which areas did not
get any projects in previous bond elections. Mr. Davidson was asked several
questions on why these figures were chosen.
He said that this way, the final bond committee will have to choose from
at least the top two tiers, which would help ensure that the district’s top
priorities have a better chance of being met. Mr. Davidson repeated that these
are only suggestions for having a manageable list to work with and the
sub-committee could make changes as they go along. Mr. Gray asked a question
about county and city-wide projects and how they would be considered. Mr. Six told him that when he went over his
project list, he kept a projects of regional significance or city and
county-wide projects separately, and that the committee could also keep that in
mind when choosing projects.
7. Meeting
Adjourned at 11:52 a.m.