Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges city to probe Paradigm contractor over proprietary reporting, conflict-of-interest and lighting violations
Summary
A Sierra Vista resident told the council July 10 she believes the municipal golf-range contractor is claiming excessive proprietary protections for monthly reports, may have a conflict of interest in hiring, and has installed unshielded lights that trespass into nearby homes.
At the council's July 10 meeting, Karen Flynn, a resident who lives adjacent to the new driving range at the municipal golf course, told council members she is concerned the contractor, Paradigm, is claiming most line-item monthly information is proprietary and that the city has been too quick to accept contractor requests.
Flynn said that, in her view, monthly reports generally do not include the sort of cost and indirect rate data that would normally be treated as proprietary and asked the city to publicly clarify whether it is accepting a broad proprietary designation for routine monthly reporting. She also told the council she had been told Paradigm hired the son of the parks-and-recreation director and asked who is monitoring the contractor's compliance with terms such as a free youth golf program, an annual agronomic plan, irrigation practices and approved operating hours.
Flynn also raised repeated lighting concerns. Citing a city exterior-lighting ordinance, she said fixtures under the range roof and the range's 12 freestanding 'lightsabers' are not fully shielded, create light trespass into adjoining properties and remain on until 9:30 p.m. She demonstrated examples to the council during her remarks. Flynn asked the city to require additional shielding where standard fixtures are insufficient and to confirm the contractor has provided required plans and is meeting operating hours and program obligations.
The item was raised during the public-comment period; no council action on the contractor was taken at the meeting. City staff did not provide a public response on the record during the meeting.
Why it matters: The complaint raises potential contract-compliance, conflict-of-interest and municipal-code enforcement issues. Council members and staff should clarify monitoring responsibilities and whether the contractor is meeting its contractual obligations and lighting standards.
