HomeMy WebLinkAboutManagement Records - Capital Improvement Plans (5) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 1997-98
FEBRUARY, 1997
ix\A.EY
AA/`>4
<Z% '1/
(G)'Ai I ( 41%-_--,
4 /r 6. , N
1ct
°UN D ED 1g
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
TOWN COUNCIL
CHERYL SKALSKY
Mayor
PAUL PARISI
Vice-Mayor
FRANK BUTRICO
Councilmember
AL JAKUBAUSKAS
Councilmember
BILL KAUTENBURGER
Councilmember
Acknowledgments
The following persons were instrumental in the preparation of the Town of Oro Valley Capital
Improvements Plan:
Town Council
Mayor Cheryl Skalsky
Vice Mayor Paul Parisi Councilmember Al Jakubauskas
Councilmember Frank Butrico Councilmember William N. Kautenburger
Oro Valley Technical Advisory Committee
David Andrews, Finance Director
Gary Chandler, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Don Chatfield, Planning and Zoning Director
Kathi Cuvelier, Town Clerk
Tom Davis, Planning and Zoning Commissioner
Dick Eggerding, Arts Advisory Board Member
Dr. Katie Frey, Associate Superintendent Amphitheater School District
Norm Henderson, Public
David Hook, Public Works Director
Bill Kautenburger, Council
Ken Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Administrator
Charlie Lentner, OVPD
Bob Maassen, Building Official
Patti Morris, TEP Co.
Matthew Moutafis, Development Review Board
Bryant Nodine, Senior Planner(Staff Support)
Mary Rallis, Accountant II (Staff Support)
Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney
Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
Facilitator
Nina Trasoff, Nina Trasoff& Associates
I
I
Y
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
11
Purpose and Mission Statement 1
What is a Capital Project and a Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)? 1
Policies and Assumptions 2
II. The CIP Process 5
Technical Advisory Committee Meetings 5
Public Information Program 6
III. Evaluation Criteria and Weights ................................................................................
7
IV. 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program .......................................................................10
FY 1997/98 Capital Improvements Program Funding 10
FY 1997/98 CIP Assumption Projects 13
FY 1997/98 CIP Prioritized Capital Projects 14
Funded in FY1997/98 14
Not Funded in FY1997/98 15
FY 1998/99 - FY 2001/02 CIP 16
Project Requests Pulled From the FY 1997/98 CIP 16
V. Implementation 18
General Guidelines 18
Implementation of the Decision Making Matrix 19
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 22
Appendix B: Project Requests: Descriptions and Five-Year Financial Summary 26
I. INTRODUCTION
Providing infrastructure is a primary function of local government. Maintaining public safety,
town services, parks and recreation facilities, an adequate transportation system, and the
community's quality of life are all items heavily dependent on how the Town deals with
infrastructure issues.
PURPOSE
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is to assist in the implementation of the Oro Valley General
Plan by developing a prioritized schedule of short- and long-range community capital needs,
providing a means for evaluating projects, and analyzing the community's ability and willingness
to pay for them in the most cost effective way. The CIP is the method by which Oro Valley will
determine future infrastructure requirements and plan the financing of facilities and equipment to
provide services over a five (5) year period.
MISSION STATEMENT
"To define five year capital improvement priorities and financial feasibility by
creating a process and producing a document that responds to public desires and
IP needs."
WHAT IS A CAPITAL PROJECT ANDA CIP?
Capital Projects are those which:
cost over $10,000,
have an expected useful life of two years or more, and
become an asset of the Town.
The only exception to this definition is police patrol units which may have a useful life of less
than two years but will still be considered capital projects.
A Capital Improvements Plan is a multi-year plan that projects spending for all anticipated
capital projects for the Town. The Plan programs, by fiscal year, repair and replacement of
existing infrastructure as well as the development of new facilities to accommodate both current
needs and future growth. The CIP looks at competing needs, costs and potential funding sources.
BR The CIP process and plan resolves the choices about what to build or buy, where and when to
build or buy it, and how much to spend on it.
The CIP links the Town's planning and budgeting functions by providing a separate policy
document to address the Town's capital needs. It establishes the FY 1997-98 Capital Budget
no
1
which will be submitted as the capital outlay portion of the FY 1997-98 Town Budget.
There are five basic components to the CIP:
1. Infrastructure inventory which identifies existing infrastructure.
2. Needs assessment which identifies all needed and planned community infrastructure.
3. Financial analysis and determination of options and projected costs.
4. An infrastructure plan that programs infrastructure by year for a five year period.
5. A capital budget for the first year of the CIP.
POLICIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
Over the years, the Town of Oro Valley has financed a substantial portion of capital
improvements through operating revenue and use of reserves. The pay-as-you-go financial
policy has been the Town's "modus operandi" in the past. The goal of the Oro Valley debt
management policy is to maintain the Town's ability to incur present and future debt at the most
beneficial interest rates in amounts needed for financing the CIP, without adversely affecting the
Town's ability to finance essential community services.
Policy Statements
* The Town will maintain, at a minimum, a contingency reserve in the General Fund which
represents 25% of the General Fund's and the Highway Fund's combined annual
expenditures. Contingency reserves in excess of the minimum may, at the discretion of the
Council, be used to fund "one-time non-recurring" expenditures, including capital
improvment plan items.
* The Town will develop an annual budget whereby recurring Town revenues will be
sufficient to support recurring operational expenditures with no use of the General Fund
Contingency to support ongoing operational expenses.
* The Town of Oro Valley shall allocate at least $1,000,000 annually out of available surplus
funds for the implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan. Surplus funds shall be
considered all moneys accumulated from overestimated cost projections, unspent funds, or
operational surpluses. Funds will be available only after the minimum fund balances have
been preserved.
* A five year capital improvements plan will be developed and updated annually along with
corresponding anticipated funding sources.
* The Town shall open a separate CIP Capital Account. Barring an emergency, funds can
only be disbursed from this account if the project has been through the CIP Evaluation
Process.
* The CIP Capital Account shall maintain a $50,000 emergency fund balance at all times.
2
Should this emergency fund be used, Town Council shall reimburse the emergency fund as
soon as possible. Requests to tap into the emergency fund will be screened by the Town
Manager with Council approval necessary for disbursement.
* The CIP Capital Account shall maintain an $25,000 balance for the completion of traffic
signal projects when they are warranted. When this fund is used, Town Council shall
allocate funds to reimburse the traffic signal fund as soon as possible.
* Pay-as-you-go financing will be an integral part of the Oro Valley CIP.
* Efforts will be made to maintain or improve the Town's bond rating.
* Capital projects and improvement districts financed through the issuance of bonded debt will
be financed for a period not to exceed the useful life of the project.
* The Town shall consider forming improvement districts upon the request of residents based
on public benefit, debt equity, and need.
* All Town departments will investigate ways and strive to become more self supporting.
* The Town shall avoid utilizing lease purchase agreements to finance relatively small
purchases, such as vehicles.
* The Town shall work aggressively with developers to help future development pay for itself
* Raised pavement markers will be included in all new street project proposals.
* Department Heads shall meet prior to the annual CIP Update Process to discuss the best use
of equipment and vehicle replacement program funds. These recommendations shall be
submitted to the TAC for review and discussion.
* Using open lines of communication, departments shall consolidate purchases whenever
possible to maximize funds.
* When purchasing equipment, thought will be given to compatibility with equipment in other
departments.
3
Policy Regarding "Rollover"of Capital Improvement Projects
The Town of Oro Valley recognizes that some capital projects require a lengthy process to
prepare bid specifications, interview contractors and suppliers, and execute the work. In some
cases, a capital project may be approved for a fiscal year but a contract is not ready for
completion by the end of that fiscal year. In these cases, department heads need assurances that
such projects can "rollover" into the next fiscal year, due to the fact that CIP priorities for that
year will have been established several months earlier.
The Oro Valley Capital Improvements Plan permits the "rollover" of projects from one fiscal
year to the next, under the following provisions:
1. once a department head has determined that a project will not be awarded by the end of a
fiscal year, that department head is responsible for requesting that the CIP be amended by the
Town Council as part of the budget process for the coming fiscal year, and
2. the department head must demonstrate that the budget funds are still available and may be
retained for the following year without detrimental impacts on approved CIP projects for the
coming fiscal year, and
3. each project is allowed no more than one such rollover.
CIP Assumptions
In addition to the above policy statements, the following assumptions were made in the
development of the Oro Valley CIP.
* State shared sales and income tax revenues are estimated to increase by 6% to 8% in FY
1997/98.
* Local sales tax proceeds are estimated to remain constant at around $3.4M. Due to the high
reliance of home sales on sales tax revenues, this figure should continue to be monitored
closely.
* Highway User Revenue Fund proceeds to be $1.5M.
* LTAF to be $115,000.
MOO
4
II. THE CIP PROCESS
Section V, Implementation, outlines the steps established by the Town to create and implement
the CIP. This section covers the process, and schedule, used this year to compete those steps.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE(TAC) MEETINGS
The TAC is an integral part of the CIP process. It consists of citizens, a utility representative, a
council representative, department representatives, board and commission representatives, and
town staff. The TAC held several meetings, as summarized below, to develop the CIP.
Month Task
August Preparatory work including revisiting the approach, drafting project sheets, and
& creating the recommended Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members list.
September This was done by key staff and the Planning and Zoning Commisssion.
Monthly Updates provided to the Commission.
September Hired consultant. Inventoried existing, large, capital items and submitted this
inventory along with a request for project sheets from Department Heads.
October TAC member list approved by the Council.
Held first TAC meeting on 10/18 with an overview of the process and a review
of the project sheets submitted.
November The TAC met twice to consider and revise the evaluation criteria, set meeting
ground rules, consider a new policy on budget carryovers (rollovers) review the
project sheets, discuss the current and projected capital budget, and approve a
public participation program.
The TAC hosted a public workshop on the projects and evaluation criteria.
December The TAC revised the evaluation criteria and wieghts based on the public
workshop and submitted them to the Council for approval. They were approved
as submitted. The Council also received a summary of the project requests.
January The TAC met early in the month to rank the projects. They also discussed how
to handle multi-year and multi-juridictionally funded projects.
The TAC presented the budget and the projects as ranked to the Council and the
Commission, and then to the public in a combined study session/publci
workshop.
The TAC met late in the month consider additional project requests received
from the public after the workshop. They then considered the available budget
and determined which projects would be recommended for funding in FY
1997/98.
February Public Hearings on the CIP were held before the Commission and the Council
for adoption.
Note: Meeting notes from the TAC meetings and the public workshops are available in the
Planning and Zoning Department.
5
PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM
Early in the process the TAC developed the following public information program to involve
citizens in the process:
For 11/19 Public Meeting and 12/18 Council
Date Item Comments
11/5 Identification Package for consistency
11/ Press release What the CIP is; what it means to "you";
schedule.
11/11 CH Water Bill Mailing three lines 3" long/ 104 spaces
11/1 RV describe and announce meeting
For 1/15 Study Session and February Public Hearings
Date Item Comments
1/3 Press Release Results of earlier work. Study session and
hearings schedule.
1/11 CH Water Bill Mailing three lines 3" long/ 104 spaces
12/22RV status and announce meetings
12/1 Oro Valley Newsletter see above press releases
For Wrap-up Report
Date Item Comments
TBD Press release results of the process.
Oro Valley Newsletter see press release
The identification package was, ultimately, not considered necessary and the second water bill
mailing was replaced with public service announcements (PSAs) on local radio stations. In spite
of the PSAs, three articles in the Arizona Daily Star, and front-page coverage in the Explorer
attendance at the workshops ranged from 9 to 12 persons.
6
HI. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS
One of the most important requirements for an effective selection process is the establishment of
clearly defined, pre-specified criteria upon which the assessment and subsequent selection of
capital projects will be based. The evaluation criteria become the guidelines for the capital
improvements decision making process. They were determined "up front" in the process to
allow objective decisions to subsequently be made.
Clearly written policies make capital allocation decisions easier. Most decision makers
intuitively have such policies in mind but seldom put them in writing. Each year, discussion of
the policies begins the CIP process. This usually results in changes to the policies which reflect
changes in priorities.
The 1997-98 evaluation criteria were selected on the following basis:
1. They refer to issues important to local governments inasmuch as ignoring them could
have potentially serious consequences.
2. They refer to items generally measurable in one form or other.
3. They are realistic.
4. They permit at least some degree of objectivity in ratings.
5. Most importantly, in their generic form, they represent criteria applicable to a wide
variety of capital projects.
The 1997-98 Oro Valley Technical Advisory Committee selected the following ten criteria for
use in the formation of the Capital Improvements Plan. Since some criteria are associated with
more critical operations of the Town, each criteria has been assigned "Weighting Points". For
instance, Criteria 1: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare (95 Weighting Points) will have a greater
emphasis than Criteria 9: Legal Ramifications (58 Weighting Points) when the capital projects
are evaluated. Every project is evaluated against these same criteria and weightings. This
assures the most objective process possible and leads to consistent decision making.
EVALUATION CRITERION 1: PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND
ENVIRONMENT
95 Weighting Points
*How does the project improve the health, safety, and welfare in the community?
*Does the project specifically address a health, safety, or welfare problem within the
community?
*Does the project specifically address a pressing and growing need?
*Will the project positively effect the environment?
*Will the project help the town to deal with an environmental issue/problem/mandate?
EVALUATION CRITERION 2: FISCAL IMPACT
88 Weighting Points
* Is the project a negative or positive impact on town revenues?
* Does the request bring in additional outside funds in some proportion?
* Is there a strong probability that other sources of funding other than local revenues can be
found?
* Does the request generate a large recurring impact on the operating budget?
* Are budget figures and cost estimates contained in the request realistic and appropriate?
* Is the project realistic from a financial standpoint?
* Are funds already dedicated or available for the project?
* Is the project timely or does it provide a critical "window" of opportunity?
* Is the project an efficiency improvement project(see Glossary)?
EVALUATION CRITERION 3:ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
86 Weighting Points
* Does the project positively impact local economic development efforts as defined in the
General Plan?
* Does the project promote economic growth as defined in the General Plan?
EVALUATION CRITERION 4:PUBLIC DESIRE
82 Weighting Points
*
Has the project been specifically identified by the public in a previous community forum,
surveys, etc.?
* If the request is to expand or enhance an existing service, to what extent is the need for
the expansion demonstrated?
* If the request is to provide a new service, to what extent is the need for the new service
demonstrated?
* Have citizen groups provided input or expressed a need for the request?
* How does the project support community needs?
EVALUATION CRITERION 5:IMPACT ON SERVICE LEVELS
73 Weighting Points
* How does the project positively or negatively impact current service levels?
* Does the project bring the town up to a required service level?
* Does the project improve service levels?
* If the project is not funded, what are the effects on community services?
EVALUATION CRITERION 6:IMPACT ON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
71 Weighting Points
* What impact does the project have on current town operations?
* How does the project impact maintenance?
AMP8
* Does it require extraordinary maintenance costs?
* Is the project doable from an operations and maintenance standpoint?
* Will the project improve the efficiency of town staff?
* Does the project require additional Town staff?
EVALUATION CRITERION 7:ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
69 Weighting Points
* Does the project help to promote and/or protect the town's natural environment?
* Does the project help to protect the town's sensitive desert environment?
EVALUATION CRITERION 8:IMPLEMENTS LOCALLY ADOPTED PLANS
66 Weighting Points
* Does the project work to implement current adopted local plans?
* Is the project a part of or consistent with an articulated, acceptable mid-short or long-
range program?
* Does the request implement some or all of the recommendations of a previous study?
* Does the project have high, medium, or low departmental priority?
EVALUATION CRITERION 9:LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
58 Weighting Points
* Does the project increase or decrease the town's exposure to liability actions?
* Is the project required to address a federal, state or local mandate?
* How does the project meet local regulations?
EVALUATION CRITERION 10:RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS
/COORDINATION
49 Weighting Points
* How does this project relate to other projects underway?
* Can the project be effectively coordinated with other projects? i.e. water and/or sewer line
repairs done in conjunction with road work?
* Is there another project that has to be completed before this project can be done?
* What is the duration and severity of possible disruption and inconvenience to the public
during construction of the project?
* Are there additional costs associated with providing alternate or temporary services
during construction?
9
IV. 1997/98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The purpose of this Chapter is to present the Oro Valley CIP for the the next five fiscal years. It
presents the FY 1997/98 capital budget in detail and then a summary of the following four years.
FY 1997/98 Capital Improvements Program Funding
The following is a summary of the recommended funding level for the Town of Oro Valley's FY
1997/98 Capital Improvements Program:
Funding Sources:
FY 1997/98 General/Highway Fund Contributions $1,300,000
Carry forward from prior years 281,377
COP Funds for Parks Development 500,000
Impact Fees 50,000
Total Funding $2,131,377
Funding Uses:
Debt Service - Street Sweeper $22,430
Debt Service - Town Hall 182,095
Debt Service - Land Acquisition 420,031
Funds Obligated for Parks Development(COPs) 500,000
Traffic Signal Installation Reserve 25,000
Contingency Reserve 50,000
Banked Projects 25,000
Impact Fee Projects 50,000
Amount Obligated for FY 1997/98 $1,274,556 —
Amount Available for Allocation $856,821
Current revenues are inadequate to fund all of the projects in the CIP. In developing the CIP, a
comprehensive review of all available financial resources was done. The following options were
considered when analyzing potential funding sources for CIP Projects:
1. Pay as you go out of current revenues
2. Borrowing, which could include issuance of bonds
3. Certificates of participation, paid back by town revenues
4. Lease purchase agreements
5. Improvement districts, where residents who benefit from the improvements pay for them
10
over time.
6. Development Impact Fee Ordinances where developers are obligated to pay for a portion
p p
of the infrastructure needed to service their projects.
7. Federal and State Grants
8. Donations, volunteer efforts, intergovernmental agreements
9. User fees
Current Situation:
Town revenues are heavily dependent on local sales tax, residential building permits, and state
shared revenues. Much of this income is directly related to rapid housing development. The
challenge for the Town will be to develop funding sources to replace this income when a slow
down in housing development inevitably comes.
Non construction retail sales tax revenues, other than those related to the tourism industry, have
been relatively low, accounting for approximately 25% for the Town's local sales tax base. This
can be attributed to not only retail leakage to the Tucson Area, but the fact that a large portion of
the local retail sales is in non-taxable food items. Construction sales taxes are subject to industry
volatility and are not a recommended as a long-term funding vehicle for capital improvements.
State Shared Highway User Revenue Funds of$1.5 million should remain at or above this level.
Most communities utilize a portion of this fuel tax to pay for administration in the Public Works
Department. The intent of this fund is to pay for road improvements and equipment. Currently,
Oro Valley spends a high percentage of its HURF funds to pay for maintenance. The coming
years are going to place more stress on the area's roads. Additional HURF funds are going to be
needed for roadway ;improvments, maintenance, and equipment.
The FY 1996-97 budget contains $1.9 million allocated for capital outlays. Budget projections
indicate that it will be difficult for the Town to make this large of a contribution to the CIP on an
annual basis. As the community grows, staffing issues and operating costs will place additional
pressure on the budget.
After careful review, it was determined that the FY 1997-98 contribution to the capital account
would be $2,131,000. This figure includes funding of$1,506,000 for all capital projects, vehicle
and equipment replacement programs, and street projects, plus debt service of $625,000 on
projects from previous years.
Current Long Term Debt
Lease purchase agreements have been sparingly used to purchase equipment and spread the
payments out over a period of years. The only current lease purchase agreement is for a street
sweeper. The annual debt service on this equipment is $22,430. The agreement will be paid off
in June, 1998.
11
The Town Municipal Property Corporation issued $28.4 million of municipal water aquisition
bonds in April, 1996. Water revenues wil be used to repay the bonds. Later, the Town issued
$5.1 million of Certificates of Participation in September, 1996 to purchase three parcels of land
and provide funds for parks development.
The Town utilized a Certificates of Participation to finance the current Town Hall facility.
Annual debt service on these certificates is $182,095 for FY 1997/98. They will be paid off in
June, 2000.
The total long term debt outstanding principal will be $5.9 million as of June 30, 1997. This
figure includes $360,000 in assessment district debt. Total annual debt service is $625,000.
Current Bonding Capacity
Although it is the goal of the Oro Valley CIP to finance projects without borrowing (pay-as-you-
go), some projects may need to be financed. Oro Valley, currently, has no Town property tax, so
the Town's only taxing authority is on discretionary items (sales tax, bed tax, etc.).
Many communities utilize the issuance of bonds to pay for large capital projects that cannot be
financed by current reserves. The State of Arizona places limits on the amount a municipality
can borrow or bond. This is reflected as the bonding capacity (or credit line) of the municipality.
The following are the parameters that the Town of Oro Valley must utilize in determining their
bonding capacity.
1. Based upon a secondary assessed value of$130 million on June 30, 1996.
2. 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$26 million.
3. Under Arizona Law, municipalities may issue general obligation bonds for general
municipal purposes up to an amount not exceeding 6% of the secondary assessed value. This
would allow the Town of Oro Valley to bond for an amount of$7.8 million.
Any bonds issued by the Town are subject to a vote by the people.
12
FY 1997/98 CIP Assumption Projects
Assumption Projects are those which are deemed absolutely essential to the operation of the
Town, involve ongoing operating capital purchases to replace existing equipment outlined by the
g g
departmentalequipment e ui ment replacement program, or have designated funding for all or a majority of
theJro'ect. These projects will receive priority funding from the CIP and do not go through the
p
project evaluation and prioritization process.
The FY 1997/98 CIP Assumption Projects are summarized in the following table.
# Title Description 97/98 $
Funds Available $856,821
1 Replacement Program for These three cars serve all departments. The one for $16,000
Town-wide Pool Cars replacement next year has 140,000 miles on it. The
other two are eight years old.
3 Marked Police and Admin. To replace existing vehicles as they go over 100,000 $159,000
Vehicle Replacement miles.
Auction off vehicles as they are replaced to reduce
costs to Town.
4 Service Truck Replacement To replace the 1986 Chevy C-20 which has 111,000 $29,000
miles on it. Part of PWD equipment replacement
program.
7 Replacement of Parks&Rec. This vehicle which is used by the Maintenance $15,000
Maintenance Vehicle Supervisor has over 150,000 miles on it.
19 Dennis Weaver Park Upgrade the park facilities including new lighting, $150,000
Renovations replacement of play equipment, and expansion of
pool support facilities. This may be matched by a
$150,000 Heritage Fund grant.
23 Development of CDO To develop facilities at the park. This is in 2 phases see
Riverfront Park the first for—$250,000 is being funded by COPs that comments
were earmarked as seed money to start park
development.
Use$250,000 from Parks Development COPs.
25 Development of West Lambert To develop facilities at the park. This is in 2 phases see
Lane Park the first for $250,000 is being funded by COPs that comments
were earmarked as seed money to start park
development.
Use $250,000 from Parks Development COPs.
29 Tangerine- 1st to Monterra To improve the existing safety and drainage, and add $7,000
bike lanes. Most funded by PAG.
30 Rancho Feliz Drainageway To replace the existing soil cement drainage bottom $40,000
which could effect the safety of 36 homes. This is a
5-year banked project that was first funded last year.
31 La Canada Drainage To stop the undercutting and erosion and improve $15,000
Improvement safety. This is a 3-year banked project that was first
funded last year.
13
32 La Canada Drive Extension To relieve congestion on Ranch Vistoso Boulevard $50,000
and First by providing a connection from Tangerine
to Moore Road.
Total $481,000
Remaining $375,821
Note: Numbers (#) relate to the financial summary in Appendix B. Comments by the TAC are
shown in italics.
FY 1997/98 CIP Prioritized Projects
All projects which are not assumption projects were rated using the evaluation criteria and
ranked accordingly. They are presented, by order they were ranked, in the following two tables:
1) those which were ranked higher and could be funded in the FY 1997/98 budget; and 2) those
which were ranked lower and could not be funded in FY 1997/98. During this funding process,
the TAC recommended that the implementation process be modified so that, as projects are
funded in order from the ranked list, if there are not sufficient funds for the next ranked project
but there are funds remaining, those funds are to be placed as carry-over, non-project-specific, in
the next fiscal year's budget. This recommendation has been incorporated into a revised Section
V: Implementation.
CIP Prioritized Projects -Funded in FY 1997/98
Rank # Title Description 97/98 $
Funds Available $375,821
1 42 Community Center Construct a building to house performing arts, $20,000
local arts and crafts, classrooms, conference
rooms, food service, and other services.
This would provide for a feasibility/preliminary
design study for what is expected to be a project
with shared funding and/or grants.
2 21 Parking Lot Lighting at Pulled out of CIP after ranked. See pulled $0
DWP projects.
3 20 Water Storage Facility at To install a water storage facility and booster $50,000
DWP station to provide adequate water service to turf
areas and restrooms.
4 12 Caterpillar 950 Wheel This is used for storm drainage clean-up. It has $40,000
Loader reached a point where is needs major repairs of $170,000
potentially$50,000. Part of PWD equipment original
replacement program.
Use a five-year lease purchase (—$40,000/yr).
5 26 First Avenue and Lambert Add 2 bike lanes and make safety improvements. $186,000
& Lane Bike Lanes and This will provide connection to the CDO
27 Safety Improvements. Riverfront Park,the future CDO linear park, and
bike lanes on Oracle. Most of the Funds may
come from a PAG grant.
14
6 14 Aerial Mapping Part of a 3-year plan to provide aerial mapping $33,000
(including topography) for the Town's GIS.
Look for others to share the costs with.
7 43 New 5120SF Town Admin. To house the water utility, Public Works $22,000
Building (exclusive of road maintenance),transit, and
facilities maintenance in a building adjacent to
the current Town Admin area. The anticipated
construction costs could be handled by a COP
when the Town Hall COP is retired.
Utilize funds from transit, water (50% of total),
and HURF to help pay COPs.
8 9 Mobile Data Terminals Install MDT laptop computers in patrol vehicles $20,000
to run checks and by sensitive information. ($70,000
Allows a potential reduction in dispatchers. original)
Use a lease to reduce the funds needed($20,000
per year estimated).
Funds Available $4,821
Note: Numbers (#) relate to the financial summary in Appendix B. Comments by the TAC are
shown in italics.
CIP Prioritized Projects - Not Funded in FY 1997/98
Rank # Title Description 97/98 $
Funds Available $4,821
9 34 Improvements to Linda Grading, drainage, and turn lanes to improve $300,000
Vista and Calle Eggleston traffic flow around CDO HS. This is an estimated
50/50 cooperative effort with Amphi School
District.
10 44 Prisoner/Processing To provide—400SF addition to handle prisoners $72,500
Release Area separately from victims and witnesses.
11 11 Special Operations To create a special operations frequency for $17,000
Repeater Site Rental surveillance and SWAT operations outside the
Town. There are currently no reliable radio
_ communications outside the Town.
12 33 Lambert Lane To improve sight visibility at the intersection of $40,000
Reconstruction Lambert and La Canada.
The TAC recommended strongly that the Town
should have a policy to have developers provide
improvements, or funds for improvments, to this
corner as it is developed
13 45 Expand DPW Street 1600 SF addition to meet growth, storage, and $36,000
Maintenance Building crew quarter needs. $115,000 requested.
Fund$36,000 to determine the best approach to
meet the needs--new site or addition.
Note: Numbers (#) relate to the financial summary in Appendix B. Comments by the TAC are
15
shown in italics.
FY 1998/99-FY 2001/02 CIP
The projected budget for capital projects in future years is expected to remain at the current level
of approximately $1 million. The capital project requests for future years are shown in Appendix
B. When projecting future budgets two considerations are important: 1) projects not funded this
year will be pushed back to the next year, and 2) more new projects will be identified. Thus, it is
clear that $2 million to $3 million of requests will not be funded each fiscal year.
Project Requests Pulled From the FY 1997/98 CIP
In some cases part way through the process the submitter or the TAC determined that a request
was not appropriate for inclusion in the CIP. Those projects were pulled from further
consideration and are summarized in the table below.
# Title Description
21 Parking Lot Lighting at DWP Replace, inadequate lighting in the parking lot. This will increase
light levels and reduce maintenance.
The TAC moved this up to 97-98 from 98-99 and recommended
tying this into the DWP improvements to reduce costs. Originally
it was ranked#2 and recommended for funding. Later it was
pulled when it was determined that TEP would install and lease the
lighting to the Town for a monthly charge of$150 to$200
(including power costs). The original project estimate was for
$50,000.
8 Large Document Copier Replace the 8 year old copier used by a number of departments to
copy large documents. ~
Lease using O&M.
10 34 Channel Tape Logger To replace the departments 20-channel logger which is 9 years old,
has no warrantee, and is costly to maintain.
Lease this using O&M.
13 Crack Sealer Replacement Replacement of street crack sealer which slow and thus requires
extra man hours. Part of PWD equipment replacement program.
Rent this as needed($4,000 to$6,000 per year).
28 Hardy-Northern Realignment To line up the 4 approaches at the intersections to improve safety.
Most funded by PAG.
This will be funded with carryover from the 1996/97 CIP.
39 Traffic Signal Hardy-Oracle Joint project with ADOT for a new signal.
Funded in 96/97. Carryover if not constructed.
40 Traffic Signal Linda Vista- New signal to handle expansion of CDO HS and DWP north
Oracle access.
Funded in 96/97. Carryover if not constructed.
16
46 New DPW Street Maintenance To relocate the field operations from a residential neighborhood
Building and expand to meet growth needs.
No viable site yet identified. Fund$36,000 to determine the best
approach to meet the needs--new site or addition (see ranked
projects).
47 Vehicle Maintenance Building New, 2000SF,centralized shop maintenance building for all Town
vehicles. Land costs not included.
Need better cost information. Centralize vehicle maintenance
records and study all options.
48 Parks and Recreation Office Remodel DPW building to provide a separate, distinct entrance and
a customer service counter for Parks and Recreation.
This may be a temporary fix if the staff is housed centrally. Reduce
the scope to less than$10,000 and use O&M.
Note: Numbers (#) relate to the financial summary in Appendix B. Comments by the TAC are
shown in italics.
17
V. IMPLEMENTATION
The success of a plan or a planning process is measured by the success of its implementation. It
is critical that Oro Valley seriously plan and prudently allocate financial resources in accordance
with the Oro Valley Capital Improvement Plan. The strategic planning process utilized in the
development of this CIP resulted in an objective process and a community-wide team approach.
To effectively implement the CIP the following program was developed. WIN
General Guidelines
Adoption - The Oro Valley CIP five year program capital budget shall be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and adopted by the Town Council. Upon adoption, the Oro
Valley CIP will be published and widely distributed. The Oro Valley CIP will be annually
updated, reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and adopted by the Town Council
by March of each year.
Capital Budget - The capital budget will be used in developing the annual Town budget. The
capital budget of the Oro Valley CIP will be the foundation for capital expenditures for the FY
1996-97 Town budget.
Quarterly Reports - Department Heads are responsible for preparing quarterly reports on the
status of capital projects in the first year capital budget. The reports shall be made to the Town
Manager and the Finance Director shall document the status. The Town Manager shall make a
report to the Town Council quarterly, or more often if deemed necessary, on the status of the
CIP.
Technical Advisory Committee - The Technical Advisory Committee, which is comprised of
citizens, a utility representative, a council representative, department representatives, board and
commission representatives, and town staff shall reconvene at least three months prior to the
adoption of the CIP each year. The purpose of the TAC will be to identify new capital projects
to be added to the CIP, review and/or modify of evaluation criteria, evaluate CIP projects, and
produce an updated CIP. The Town of Oro Valley may want to utilize an outside facilitator each
year during the project evaluation process to ensure objectivity and consistency in ranking of the
projects. (See Implementation of the Decision Making Matrix below for more detail)
Public Involvement - Citizen involvement should be sought in future updates of the plan. This
involvement could entail participation at Town Hall meetings, community surveys, public
hearings, focus group meetings, membership on the TAC, newspaper articles, etc.
18
Implementation of the Decision Making Matrix
The Decision Making Matrix is composed of the evaluation criteria and the wieghts. It is used to
rank all projects, excluding assumption projects, for the next fiscal year. This is done by rating
each project against each criterion on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the most favorable. The
rates are then multiplied by the weight of the criterion and the results are totaled to yield a total
rating for each project. The projects are then ranked, highest to lowest, according to their total
ratings. They are funded in order or rank until there is no more projected capital budget
available.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) works as a team to evaluate and rank the projects.
They first determe if a project is an assumption project per the definition. Then, if it is not, they
rate using the decision matrix. These decisions are made by a consensus of the TAC.
The following is the process for carrying out this phase of the Capital Improvements Plan:
Step 1:Re-visit the Evaluation Criteria.
The TAC shall meet to discuss the Evaluation Criteria. At this meeting, it will be decided if the
criteria used the previous year are still appropriate to the Town's current situation. Influences
from both inside the Town and from external forces could necessitate the elimination, change, or
addition of evaluation criteria.
After the Evaluation Criteria are agreed upon, the TAC must then analyze the Numerical
Weighting Factor given to each criteria. It is the purpose of this factor to prioritize the
Evaluation Criteria in order of importance. Factors such as, citizen's changing attitudes and/or
governmental mandates may force a change in the Numerical Weighting Factor.
When the Evaluation Criteria and their appropriate Numerical Weightings have been agreed
upon by the TAC, any changes must be presented to the Town Council for approval before the
process can proceed. Presenters to the Council should have the ability to substantiate any
changes with factual data.
Step 2:Creation of New and Re-evaluation of Existing Project Sheets
Project Sheets will be submitted by Department Heads to the TAC for evaluation. Additionally,
any projects which were submitted in a previous year(s) and are still considered needs, should be
updated and re-submitted. Any changes to the status of the project (i.e. new funding source
found, change in departmental priority, etc.) should be included on the Project Sheets to ensure
proper evaluation. Department Heads are encouraged throughout the year to aggressively pursue
new avenues to enhance the feasibility of projects.
Project Sheets must contain the following information to be considered for evaluation:
1. Project name and department.
19
2. Description of the project and why it is necessary.
3. Time line of the proposed project.
4. Project budget tied into the time line.
5. Potential and/or existing funding sources.
6. Projected operating and maintenance costs of the capital item.
7. Projected cost savings due to increased efficiency, decreased maintenance, etc.
Step 3:Determining the Capital Budget
The Town Finance Director shall determine the amount of funds that can be placed in the CIP
Capital Account for the pending year. Funding for additional projects can only be allocated after
all projects currently underway are accounted for.
Step 4:Committee and Department Head Meetings
All Assumption Projects which have dedicated annual funding (vehicle and equipment
replacement programs, maintenance programs, etc.) shall have a committee formed to evaluate
the best use of the next year's funding. A report of recommendations shall be submitted to the
entire TAC for review and discussion at the Project Evaluation Meeting.
Step 5:Evaluation of Projects by the Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC shall evaluate all new and re-submitted Project Sheets. Each Project will receive a
score from 0-10 in relation to each of the evaluation criteria. The projects will then be given a
numerical total (the sum of the critieria weights times the scores) and placed in order of priority
on a report named CIP Prioritized Projects. This prioritized list will the be broken down into
another report named CIP Prioritized Projects - Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year.
Step 6:Creation of Fiscal Year Capital Budget
After the projects have been prioritized and reports distributed to the TAC, a meeting will be
held to determine the Fiscal Year Capital Budget. This budget will recommend which projects
should be funded in the next year. The following steps must be taken to evaluate and finance the
projects:
1. All Assumed Projects must be funded first and deducted from the Capital Budget.
2. If there are more funds available for Capital Projects, the TAC must then use the CIP
Prioritized Projects List to determine which project(s) should be funded.
3. The highest priority project on the CIP Prioritized Projects List must then be identified.
These questions need to be asked:
Are there other projects rated higher that will be competing for the same funding source in later
years? If so, should this money be banked for these projects instead of being spent on this year's
20
top priority? Does this project need to be completed as a preamble to a higher-rated project in
the future? Is there a financing alternative that could be combined with a higher rated project,
which may be a better way to fund the project?
If it is determined that the year's top priority project is financially feasible and will not jeopardize
the ability to fund future projects which are rated higher, the Project may be included in the
Capital Budget of that year.
Should funds remain at this point, the second highest rated Project from the CIP Prioritized
Projects List shall be examined in the same fashion. This procedure shall continue until all of
that year's Capital Fund has been exhausted or allocated to fund future projects, or all projects
have been funded. If there are not sufficient funds for the next ranked project but there are funds
remaining, those funds are to be placed as carry-over, non-project-specific, in the next fiscal
year's budget.
Step 7:Disposition of Unfunded Projects
In most cases, there will be quite a few projects that do not make it into the Annual Capital
Budget either because there is not adequate funding or they have not come out of the Decision
Making Matrix with a high priority. These Projects may be updated and re-submitted for the
next year, or subsequent years, when the TAC Evaluation Process begins for the next Fiscal
Year.
Step 8:Annual Review of the Capital Improvements Plan
Update the five-year CIP by adding or revising capital projects and adding an additional fiscal
year and a new Capital Budget for the first fiscal year. The updated CIP is presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for review and to the Town Council for review and adoption.
21
i
i
1
1
1
f
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following is a Glossary of Terms to be used in reviewing the Oro Valley Capital
Improvement Plan. The terms are used throughout the document and are important in the
infrastructure planning process.
Assumption projects - Projects which are deemed absolutely essential to the operation of the
Town, ongoing operating capital purchases which replace existing equipment outlined by the
departmental equipment replacement program, projects which have designated funding for all or
a majority of the project. These projects will receive priority funding from the CIP Capital
Account and will not go through the project evaluation matrix.
Bond - A written promise to pay (debt) a specified sum of money (called principal or face value)
at a specified future date (called the maturity date(s)) along with periodic interest paid at a
specified percentage of the principal (interest rate). Bonds are typically used for long-term debt.
Capital Account/Budget - The capital budget is the approved fiscal commitment to develop
capital projects within the current fiscal year and appears in the annual financial plan.
Capital Improvement Plan - The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a comprehensive, five-
year plan of capital projects which identifies priorities as to need, method of financing, and cost
and revenues that will result during the five years. The plan is a guide for identifying current and
future fiscal year requirements and becomes the basis for determining the annual capital budget.
The CIP is reviewed, updated and annually adopted by the Town Council.
Capital improvement policies - Locally accepted policies that identify the amount of funds to
be expended annually through budget and borrowing as well as terms and conditions for
obligating those funds. These policies also outline how the Town does business in dealing with
• infrastructure planning.
Capital Projects - Projects which cost over $10,000, have an expected useful life of two years or
more, and become an asset of the Town. The only exception to this definition is police patrol
units which may have a useful life of less than two years but will still be considered capital
projects.
Certificate of Participation (COP) - Obligation of a public entity based on a lease or
• installment sale agreement.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) - Arizona Department of Commerce grants
to communities which can be used for a wide range of activities including infrastructure, housing
rehabilitation, economic development, planning and public services. Exact activity must either
principally: benefit low and moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight or,
meet other urgent community needs.
Credit ratings - An independent rating service's evaluation of the credit worthiness of notes and
22
bonds. Ratings influence the cost of borrowing.
Debt - Funds owed as a result of borrowing.
Debt financing - The financial policy of borrowing capital to develop a public facility and pay
off the debt over a set number of years.
Debt service - The amount of funds needed to pay principal and interest on outstanding bonds
for a given year or series of years.
Development Impact Fee Ordinance (DIFO) - A town ordinance that requires a monetary
charge on development to recoup a proportionate share of the public capital costs required to
accommodate that development with necessary public facilities.
Discretionary revenues - Revenues that are not obligated for particular expenditures.
Efficiency Improvement Projects - Projects that provide a positive cost/benefit ratio
through the improvement of efficiencies. Specifically they will have less than a three
year payback and their life span will be greater than their payback period. To qualify
for this designation, a project's benefits must be quantified.
Financial analysis - A study of the cash flow and financial capabilities of a jurisdiction to
determine its funding capacity and fiscal health.
Fiscal Year (FY) - The Town's business year beginning July 1st and running through June 30th.
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds - A bond secured by the pledge of Oro Valley's full faith,
credit, and taxing power.
General Fund - Discretionary funds that are not specifically earmarked for a project and may be
used for the Town's operations.
Grants - This funding source includes State and Federal grants.
Heritage Fund - Arizona State Parks matching grant programs for acquisition or development of
public outdoor recreation areas and facilities.
Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) - Established by state legislation and is administered
by the State Department of Revenue. Revenue for the fund is derived from gasoline tax, truck
weight fees, and various license fees imposed on motor vehicles.
Infrastructure - Public support structures such as roads, street lighting, and water
lines/facilities.
Impact fees - Monetary payments made by builders or developers to defray the public costs of
23
providing infrastructure to a development.
Improvement District - An area of the community where infrastructure improvements have
been made and are being paid for by the citizens who directly benefit from the improvements
over a period of years.
Lease payment - The rent or service fee paid for the use of a facility.
Lease purchase - This method of financing allows the Town to construct or acquire property and
pay for it over a period of time by installment payments rather than an outright purchase. The
time payments include an interest charge which is typically reduced because the recipient does
not have to pay income tax on the interest.
Long-term debt - Borrowed funding with a maturity of at least one year.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) - Funds generated from the Arizona State
Lottery and are earmarked for transportation purposes to towns and cities in Arizona. The LTAF
is distributed to cities based on the percentage of population.
Matching requirements - The Town's contribution to a project or function required by a
funding source as the basis for the funder's contribution. Matching requirements are frequently
imposed as a proportionate share of the overall contribution.
Operating budget - The planned expenditure of funds, excluding capital expenditures, for
operations, i.e., salaries, routine maintenance, and supplies.
Operational Capital - Funding made available for the overall day to day operations of the
Town, such as lease purchase programs for Police Department vehicles.
Pay-as-you-go - The financial policy of capital outlays from current revenues rather than from
borrowed funds.
Property tax - The traditional system of local taxation under which owners of property pay taxes
based on the value of their property.
Public facilities - Facilities, such as libraries, civic centers, and police and fire stations
sponsored by the locality for public use and service.
Public/Private ventures - Cooperative projects in which both the public and private sectors
contribute to the development, operation, and use of a facility.
Public utilities - Basic public services such as water, electricity, and telephones that may be
provided by either the public or private sector but that are publicly regulated to provide
widespread service and to protect the public interest.
Rated projects - Projects which are rated by the Decision Making Matrix and placed in their
24
prioritized order.
Revenue bonds - A bond payable solely from revenues derived from tolls, charges, or rents paid
by users of a facility constructed with the proceeds of the bond issue. For example, parking fees
often pay off a bond used to construct parking facilities.
Service levels - The amount or standard of service Oro Valley provides to its citizens.
Special assessment districts - Charges assessed against properties in a limited area in exchange
for special benefits conferred by a public improvement in the same section of the community.
Special taxes - Usually voter-approved taxes whose revenues are designated for a particular
project.
Strategic planning - The planning process used to capitalize on currently optimum needs and
opportunities.
Taxable bonds - Municipal bonds whose interest earnings are subject to federal income taxation
under the Internal Revenue Code.
Tax base - A community's total property, resources, and wealth subject to taxation.
Tax-exempt financing - The financing of a project through the use of bonds that exempts
bondholders from taxes on interest earned from the bonds.
Transfer payment - Gifts of money from one government entity to another, typically from the
federal or state government to a local government.
User charge - A fee imposed on facility or service users for upkeep and operations.
Useful life - The number of years a facility or capital item is expected to last before it must be
replaced or undergo major renovation.
25
APPENDIX B
PROJECT REQUESTS:DESCRIPTIONS AND FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL S UMMAR Y
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
VEHICLES
1 Pool Car Replacement for old pool car used for on-
j ob travel.
2 Compact Pick-up Trucks Replace trucks used by building
inspectors.
4 Police Cars Replace police cars as they go over
100,000 miles.
5 Service Truck Replace 1986 Public Works service
vehicle.
6 Service Truck Replacement Replace existing PW service truck w/
>150,000 miles.
7 Van Replacement Replace van with>100,000 miles.
8 Maintenance Vehicle Replace Park and Rec. maintenance
vehicle with>150,000 miles.
EQUIPMENT
9 Large Document Copier Replacment for poorly functioning copier.
10 Mobile Data Terminals Install computers in patrol vehicles to run
checks and pass sensitive info.
11 Digital Tape Logger Replace 9-year old logger that is off
warantee maintenance.
12 Special Operations Repeater For special police operations outside the
Town.
13 Loader Replacement Replace 1974 loader used for storm
damage clean-up, etc.
14 Crack Sealer Replacment Replace old pavement crack sealer
equipment.
15 Aerial Mapping Provide data and equipment for multiple
planning and design applications.
16 Backhoe Replacement Replace fatigued equipment.
17 Street Broom Replacement Replace exisiting street sweeper.
18 Water Truck Replacement s Replace 1974 water truck.
19 2000-2002 Equipment Replacement Long-range estimates of Public Works
equipment replacment needs.
26
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
:.:...... .::..
:::..... :
:P..
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
20 Dennis Weaver Park Renovations Upgrade aging parks facilities.
21 Water Storage Facility Provide better watering options for Dennis
Weaver Park.
22 Parking Lighting Replace existing lighting at Dennis
Weaver Park.
23 Dennis Weaver Park Expansion Develop 4 vacant acres on east side.
24 Park Development Develop a park on Lambert east of La
(CDO Park) Canada.
25 Park Development Develop a park on south of Copper Creek
(Copper Creek) School.
26 Park Development Develop a park on Lambert west of La
(W Lambert Lane) Canada. ..�
BIKE LANES
27 1st Avenue Bike Lane. For safety and recreation.
28 Lambert Lane Bike Lane For safety, recreation, and park access.
STREET/ROAD WA Y/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
29 Road Realignment Hardy and Northen
30 Tangerine Road Improvement Fix dips and hills, improve drainage, add
(the 1 mile west of 1st) bike lane.
31 Ranch Feliz Drainageway Reduce flooding potential by replacing
channel bottom.
32 La Canada Drainage Improve safety and erosion by eliminating
drainageway north of Naranj a.
33 La Canada Extension Entend La Canada from Tangerine to
Moore to relieve congestion on First.
34 Lambert Lane Reconstruction Safety improvements to Lambert Lane
west of La Canada.
35 Road Improvements For northen access to Dennis Weaver Park
Linda Vista& C. Eggleston and CDO HS.
36 Rancho Vistoso by Oracle Rd. Road Reconstruction to correct structural
deficiencies.
37 Left-turn Bay Bay to reduce likelihood of accidents and
Naranja and First improve flow.
38 Left-turn Bay Bay to reduce likelihood of accidents and
La Canada and Tangerine improve flow.
39 Tangerine Road Improvement Fix dips and hills, improve drainage, add
(the 1 mile east of La Canada) bike lane.
27
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
40 New Traffic Signal Hardy and Oracle
41 New Traffic Signal Linda Vista and Oracle
42 New Traffic Signals One every other year at various locations.
43 Community Center Building to serve as community resource
for civic/entertainment activities.
FACILITIES
44 General Admin. Building Additional building to provide space for
public works, water, transit, and
maintenance staff.
45 Prisoner Processing Area To separate arrestees from victims and
witnesses.
46 Expand PW Maintenance Expand existing shop (alternative to 47).
47 New Street Maintenance Bldg. Relocate Public Works field operations
out of residential area and expand for
growth (alternative to 46).
48 New Vehicle Maintenance Bldg. Provide capability of in-house vehicle
maintenance to reduce contract work.
49 Office Remodel Provide Parks & Rec space in the public
works building
28
U
C
O O O 0 O O OO :0 O 0 O O O
O O O O 0 O O O :0:. O O O O O ..
O O O O O O O O :p:: O 0 O O O.
C vs a
.:1 iriri of c•i O o
tri i .. O O N_ O t)
Q Q Tt CO CO N M N :t
) .-• 0) ..:::, CO :tit' r' 0 N U
CC 0 . a
C7 � Z
Li
0:
W
a
I0CC
O
4If N
C ° LI-
r- 0 0 0 0
E o c O O O 0
NgCtr O
I.. et
N N
1.1
0
Z.,
41)� O
O_
C p 0
E N 0 0 0
'Q''3` _ ` 0 0 0 0
V
I. N N Cy)
'Cr��I
0
144 I
cg 2 O
n a
O
0
w cc o�
_. . ..
0
� O0O
000 O0o0 00 00W }, OQ
LU o N 0) 0 Co,
10 d
Cq � may N
Co. 0
O W ac 1
W cn CC id cotC
Q, 'Z.
® W a)
.
'T t".•' LI" 0h E0) ® 0 0 0 0 0
E.., O CC oft C O O O o O O
kr •
z a. 3 ei N ri et to p
r r- r- c0 ch an et
N
CO,
Q . o
A 1- :0::
I
II a::
C•
a' c :
E.., < .►,CO : a.
0 >a ) CN
O
0 cn
F cn O O O O O p:.' O O O 0:::
O O O O O o: O :: O O 0
CN V P O O fl; O O O ?:
[. V m O� o� tti �) #o: O N O :::
"V r- in N i.0°‘.i' N Vin!: of Ol
a)
r� r j
V
W U
o a u' o f o r):: O
p a. m a a. a a a Ea Vit:::: a
.= i
>, •
.O a :°
a
= 10 m 'Q
V a > a) ` : im
C C > C) O .>
cn C eEa 11 �E aa)i na) c �' = m
V
O 0 A. = CO w =. 03 .
E
C6 co • ac E v .'V p a) aa .
4. E .. a -c ac tu E eo : N i`- :ns
m U U c" a as ID a
1-. li ....--- :iti; . ti -11:•:
VD "le
a. Vi Q 0 2 Cl)> Cl) CO ac z • . r u)i CS 0 U
S'..)
at W 1111 en et to O r. 0 *1::: gr. N W.
c
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A
O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _Q
o f r O O O vi O O O O O O O d -0
Q ~ Nm 0) 0C") L0 it) 0N N Lt) Tr N Z
O N a
O F, z
C.
era.
0 0 cc
O
v> N
0
o 0 0 0 O O
c O 0 O 0
< N ° U) U) 6 d
O 0
0- N CO
U) to
0 0
I
O
h.-
..•
C C
0 00 ,
< N 0 0 0
O O 0 0
o 00 N 10 CO
.- N .- w
0 0
I
S
b O
C 0 ..r
Q Ea) 0 0 0 0 0
cc Q '' c o o O o o
p
vo V tri
o 0
IC)
W Cr 010
-ia co
0,
Q ,--1.7 =, 0 0
� Z m d
0WCC &
C ..
C:
O
O W co _ 41> O
0Li- an 0 E a 0 0 o 0 0
CC O) Q c 0 0 O o 0
N N N
O ,.iLL
Ci. 0 0 0
O
V0
I 6 0
5 ..-
ifs
h co O
a•� M
• C
> C ^ _
0 E O" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.� Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
i cl cti d d ci d ci d
(f) 1- Cr r N N
a)
a)
U
ID
Q. IL a. a (es CC
Cr 0 0 0 0
p a a. a. a. a. a. a.
a)
T3 O
4) 2 2
'B0
co
�' Cf w 0 a.cn d — h
a) p) �. F' > O J C
a O Cd 0 0 E g .. O
CZ
a � E 1'3 o _ i � v atoo
a) a W CH
— tv) . e a = yl► crc 0. 0. ...1 4
O ° 0 Uv m Z ag Cb
0.
`° o 2 o W c a a > > a
a)-o v E c - :• N 2 H c, a a) a)
0 4. Li ..r, 4) 6- cli
Q co cn > N Z 0 > a. 0 0 a. a_
et to CO N oD Q) 0 g.. N c') Tr to
it
.- r- .- .- .- N N N N N N
C. 1
.. c
O O O 0 0 0 • • 00000
o O O O O O • • • • o o O 0 0 L
in O t) 0: 0 0 . • • • 0 0 O 0 0 1
O J cc O N N.: N 0 . • et O O N o 'i
Z et in 0) M.:: NCO • • n co m P W
.4. a0 ::. C) P to N CO c.)
CC• 0 N �O Q
c.
Q
a
O II
O O
I
II
o O
o
0 o
111
C)-
co �
P w
O o Tr
O o 0
0 0 0 0
o 0
o� P to
toP
IO A O
O O O
P O) o
11 of N
irk 0 et N N 000
Q O o 0 0 0 0 0
CC 4te- 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7 O a �/ M
W If;
IC;
W� �1
V. NCO CO P
N
W 0
m .. .
Q Q,� 0 o 0 0
> Z O O 0
Q WCC 2 c•i a
cc W _ n ao
U.Ooc v O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a) . . o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ID
O ..I i P
Q . ,
H 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q c0 in v7 O O 0
IC; cG N -: et O Qi
• in to w ::: P O
n
r•') C.) 1. ::: P C� co
M
_ i
O O 0
O
O A O g. 8 O O O O O O
.0 cc
C) N w 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t5
v N C7 t0 ::: n 0 to O A A a
a) co i QO *#.iii , to It 0
(/) 4t
a)
a)
U I.Q S.
O a. a. 0. a. 0. as M. a. Cl. CL a
CD 6.
W Lb
"0 '" � `C. a a
y ` :g, A co ...
to b
cu CU C W d ; 0. Wcb _ R3 J
C m 4 No c 3 E LL. 1v c
3 p C Q O O '� C 13 •O
v, •- ° 4 Z 2 r a) O d To > •c to C E
a) -= CO Y m :: :.. ♦' .4' C C O A CO 2 of
.� V _ ° •. a t1 H y Z J C c
O m x m O •,
a) ~ > t :ie•.:. C W Z7 - C C C_ep e
C C U V E a C C c
.. ZIL z = to CO CO CO 03 a E Q H
kJ W y
P N Cr) et to CO N CO
ils N N (#) C+il.:. N C') C') C.) C') C') C') t") C) t')
f
U
C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 o
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 O 0 on 0 0 0 Q to 0• O U
0 J ?O.. �)
0 0 0 0 o N cc co m tri
Z Q r.)*: N et cC c') 0 N c') N c') ..- co N Q1 !i
:: .- N (0 c"') et N .- N 0 nJ U
CC(7 0 4 z
Q
W
1
IP
O O O
O O
0 0 3
v> NO OOG �0
EQ N cticN
03
N
1 III
II! ;N N N .T
•
w
1 III O O 0 00
O
o. 0
o ^ co
c � CD
8 S II
III O O O O e-
<
Eo OO
CC a '"
C� gri o (Ni0
N
Ja 0
J m
. QQ
. ""
1!! . 0 O 0 0
W 0 -a O O O 0
O ac Ei III ci
0 ri
Oet to di
LL cc v E �. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
p� Q � 00 0 O 0 0 0 0
Z cs
N N o O oit 0
CO 0
Oyu. ci
F- Q
H 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0
CL. O: o 0 o O 0 0
P.: o 0 0 o v 0
Q
3:. o O co co 0 N
N
n co •= O N
con 'CI: M
o ^ '
OO O O O0E O O OO
,,,,,.,
0Q ''' �::: O O O to O O O In to
c.) iiii O O O N 6 m N so . w
0 :tel:: m N NN cn cn 0)
C/) 'n: w cti
Na)
0
V a a Q o °C
Q
E-. G a a C7 C7 a a a a a
a)
Q
a): A : �, ° m o �.
Jai:: �o 0 j O F-
-0::; p h E m co co p
cl' 4t io H E
L a7 0)
cu C XiOs . is. a7 13 - 'C) C v Z 0
0 -' c `° °' - Z
Vii::
0 b c �- 'c u- °; E E E aEi CC
:: : of 'v�
w:: ... .... E Z
V Z .�:: !0 as °-,.., a)
-0 • O ,...:: : C to c Q. > o
= 7 y i 3 3 (a > H a 3 3 CC
:m:: CD ID 4c 0 a) •c x n, a) to
'z:s Z Z F- Z a to Z Z a
ki
i! Zsti: 0 ..- C) N c ') et tr) CO NCO
L'i'1: et et et et et et et et et
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
q711Y C) ?
-piro et,vv,
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: December 18, 1996
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT• PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
SUMMARY:
Since October, the Capital Improvements Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been meeting
to compile a five-year needs assessment (list of capital projects) and develop criteria and weights to
rank each project for funding. The TAC intends to rate each project (on a scale of 1 to 10) against
the criteria and then multiply the ratings by the weights assigned to that criteria. The sum of these
will give each project a number which, compared to other numbers will rank the project. Higher
ranked projects for each fiscal year will be recommended for funding first.
To this end, the TAC reviewed the evaluation criteriaand weights from the last CIP. After comparing
them with the General Plan Core Community Goals the TAC refined them and adjusted the weights.
The TAC also discussed the project requests submitted by the various Town departments to determine
which were capital projects and to ensure that all pertinent information was provided and all sources
of funding and costs were identified.
On November 19th, the TAC held a public workshop to present the evaluation criteria, weights, and
projects to the public and solicit feedback. The notes from that meeting are attached herewith. On
December 6th, the TAC considered the public comments and adjusted the evaluation criteria, weights,
and projects accordingly.
The resulting criteria and weights are submitted as attachments for you approval. The TAC will then
use these to rank the projects and present the recommended 1997-98 Capital Budget to you in January.
The projects are also submitted for your information and direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached evaluation criteria and weights.
ti _
f
s
• 4
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the attached Capital Improvement Plan evaluation criteria and weights.
OR
I move to approve the attached Capital Improvement Plan evaluation criteria and weights with the
following changes .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. November 19, 1996 CIP Public Workshop Notes.
2. 1997-98 Capital Improvement Plan Evaluation Criteria And Weights.
3. 1997-98 Capital Improvement Plan Project Summary.
F:\...\WP\CIP\C1;P1218.TCC
A 1 O'
L ` �
.t i���
0 e s ai ent Head quip
ell e/ de
Town Manager
f
9
I
•
a
b
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 19, 1996
Public Workshop Notes
Attendance
Besides the TAC, 12 public signed in to the meeting.
Agenda
Don welcomed,Nina facilitated, Bryant provided CIP background information, and
David Andrews went over the budget. Then Bryant and David Hook presented a
summary of the project sheets by category. During and after each presentation Nina
solicited input from the audience.
Public Comments
Look at lease options not just for cars, but for copiers, etc.
Compare last years requests to this years for the same years.
Can major purchases (i.e. the road sealer) be subcontracted/privatized?
Need more lighted field space NOW.
Need more soccer fields NOW.
Dennis Weaver Park --make no plans for roads and parking and hold off on projects until
more is known about the development to the east. Do we need to buffer DWP from
it?
Bike paths need to be where kids travel--Calle Concordia and others closer to the parks;
La Canada; people at Sun City use bike lanes too. Bike lanes are needed for safety
on these streets.
Show Town and other funds rather than combining.
Regarding vehicle maintenance: Consider the County/City decision to out-source vehicle
maintenance.
There needs to be more weight on Public Health, Safety and Welfare (or less weight on
others). A second: Look at "needs vs. wants."
There needs to be more weight on the Environment. A second: "It was #1 in the General
Plan."
How much RICO money does the Town get each year? Use it to offset budget needs.
OV needs a library. We pay for County libraries with a tax.
Calle Eggleston is a large percentage of the total budget; need to determine Amphi's
commitment.
There needs to be a light at Linda Vista.
Consider renting equipment based on how much it is used.
Oracle Road needs to have signals synchronized.
Putting Calle Eggleston all the way through would cause a safety problem.
Need to consider the routing of kids and safety on Calle Eggleston and around DWP.
F\WP\CIP\1119.MTG
y
1997-98 CAPITAL IMPRu VEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRI 1 ERIA AND WEIGHTS
The 1997-98 evaluation criteria were selected on the following basis:
1. They refer to issues important to local governments inasmuch as ignoring them could have
potentially serious consequences.
2. They refer to items generally measurable in one form or other.
3. They are realistic.
4. They permit at least some degree of objectivity in ratings.
5. Most importantly, in their generic form, they represent criteria applicable to a wide variety
of capital projects.
The 1997-98 Oro Valley Technical Advisory Committee selected the following ten criteria for
use in the formation of the Capital Improvements Plan. Since some criteria are associated with
more critical operations of the Town, each criteria has been assigned "Weighting Points". For
instance, Criteria 1: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare (95 Weighting Points) will have a greater
emphasis than Criteria 9: Legal Ramifications (58 Weighting Points) when the capital projects
are evaluated. Every project is evaluated against these same criteria and weightings. This assures
the most objective process possible and leads to consistent decision making.
EVALUATION CRITERION 1: PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND
ENVIRONMENT
95 Weighting Points
* How does the project improve the health, safety, and welfare in the community?
* Does the project specifically address a health, safety, or welfare problem within the
community?
* Does the project specifically address a pressing and growing need?
* Will the project positively effect the environment?
* Will the project help the town to deal with an environmental issue/problem/mandate?
EVALUATION CRITERION 2: FISCAL IMPACT
88 Weighting Points
* Is the project a negative or positive impact on town revenues?
* Does the request bring in additional outside funds in some proportion?
* Is there a strong probability that other sources of funding other than local revenues can
be found?
* Does the request generate a large recurring impact on the operating budget?
* Are budget figures and cost estimates contained in the request realistic and appropriate?
* Is the project realistic from a financial standpoint?
* Are funds already dedicated or available for the project?
* Is the project timely or does it provide a critical "window" of opportunity?
* Is the project an efficiency improvement project (see Glossary)?
EVALUATION CRITERION 3: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
86 Weighting Points
* Does the project positively impact local economic development efforts as defined in the
General Plan?
* Does the project promote economic growth as defined in the General Plan?
S
EVALUATION CRITERION 4: PUBLIC DESIRE
82 Weighting Points
* Has the project been specifically identified by the public in a previous community forum,
surveys, etc.?
* If the request is to expand or enhance an existing service, to what extent is the need for
the expansion demonstrated?
* If the request is to provide a new service, to what extent is the need for the new service
demonstrated?
* Have citizen groups provided input or expressed a need for the request?
* How does the project support community needs?
EVALUATION CRITERION 5: IMPACT ON SERVICE LEVELS
73 Weighting Points
* How does the project positively or negatively impact current service levels?
* Does the project bring the town up to a required service level?
* Does the project improve service levels?
* If the project is not funded, what are the effects on community services?
EVALUATION CRITERION 6: IMPACT ON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
71 Weighting Points
* What impact does the project have on current town operations?
* How does the project impact maintenance?
* Does it require extraordinary maintenance costs?
* Is the project doable from an operations and maintenance standpoint?
* Will the project improve the efficiency of town staff?
* Does the project require additional Town staff?
EVALUATION CRITERION 7: ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
69 Weighting Points
* Does the project help to promote and/or protect the town's natural environment?
* Does the project help to protect the town's sensitive desert environment?
EVALUATION CRITERION 8: IMPLEMENTS LOCALLY ADOPTED PLANS
66 Weighting Points
* Does the project work to implement current adopted local plans?
* Is the project a part of or consistent with an articulated, acceptable mid-short or long-
range program?
* Does the request implement some or all of the recommendations of a previous study?
* Does the project have high, medium, or low departmental priority?
EVALUATION CRITERION 9: LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
58 Weighting Points
* Does the project increase or decrease the town's exposure to liability actions?
* Is the project required to address a federal, state or local mandate?
* How does the project meet local regulations?
1
n
EVALUATION CRI TERI vN 10: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER 1 IWJECTS
/COORDINATION
49 Weighting Points
* How does this project relate to other projects underway?
* Can thep roj ect be effectively coordinated with other projects? i.e. water and/or sewer line
repairs done in conjunction with road work?
* Is there another project that has to be completed before this project can be done?
* What is the duration and severity of possible disruption and inconvenience to the public
during construction of the project?
* Are there additional costs associated with providing alternate or temporary services
during construction?
f:\data\wp\cip\evalcrit.wp
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
VEHICLES
1 Pool Car Replacement for old pool car used for on-
job travel.
2 Compact Pick-up Trucks Replace trucks used by building
inspectors.
4 Police Cars Replace police cars as they go over
100,000 miles.
5 Service Truck Replace 1986 Public Works service
vehicle.
6 Service Truck Replacement Replace existing PW service truck w/
>150,000 miles.
7 Van Replacement Replace van with>100,000 miles.
8 Maintenance Vehicle : Replace Park and Rec. maintenance
vehicle with>150,000 miles.
EQUIPMENT
9 Large Document Copier Replacment for poorly functioning copier.
10 Mobile Data Terminals Install computers in patrol vehicles to run
checks and pass sensitive info.
11 Digital Tape Logger Replace 9-year old logger that is off
warantee maintenance.
12 Special Operations Repeater For special police operations outside the
Town.
13 Loader Replacement Replace 1974 loader used for storm
damage clean-up, etc.
14 Crack Sealer Replacment Replace old pavement crack sealer
equipment.
15 Aerial Mapping Provide data and equipment for multiple
planning and design applications.
16 Backhoe Replacement Replace fatigued equipment.
17 Street Broom Replacement Replace exisiting street sweeper.
18 Water Truck Replacement Replace 1974 water truck.
19 2000-2002 Equipment Replacement Long-range estimates of Public Works
equipment replacment needs.
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY
psi•
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
20 Dennis Weaver Park Renovations Upgrade aging parks facilities.
21 Water Storage Facility Provide better watering options for Dennis
Weaver Park.
22 Parking Lighting Replace existing lighting at Dennis
Weaver Park.
23 Dennis Weaver Park Expansion Develop 4 vacant acres on east side.
24 Park Development Develop a park on Lambert east of La
(CDO Park) Canada.
25 Park Development Develop a park on south of Copper Creek
(Copper Creek) School.
26 Park Development Develop a park on Lambert west of La
(W Lambert Lane) Canada.
BIKE LANES
27 1st Avenue Bike Lane For safety and recreation.
28 Lambert Lane Bike Lane For safety, recreation, and park access.
STREET/ROAD WA Y/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
29 Road Realignment Hardy and Northen
30 Tangerine Road Improvement Fix dips and hills, improve drainage, add
(the 1 mile west of 1st) bike lane.
31 Ranch Feliz Drainageway Reduce flooding potential by replacing
channel bottom.
32 La Canada Drainage Improve safety and erosion by eliminating
drainageway north of Naranj a.
33 La Canada Extension Entend La Canada from Tangerine to
Moore to relieve congestion on First.
34 Lambert Lane Reconstruction Safety improvements to Lambert Lane
west of La Canada.
35 Road Improvements For northen access to Dennis Weaver Park
Linda Vista& C. Eggleston and CDO HS.
36 Rancho Vistoso by Oracle Rd. Road Reconstruction to correct structural
deficiencies.
37 Left-turn Bay Bay to reduce likelihood of accidents and
Naranja and First improve flow.
38 Left-turn Bay Bay to reduce likelihood of accidents and
La Canada and Tangerine improve flow.
39 Tangerine Road Improvement Fix dips and hills, improve drainage, add
(the 1 mile east of La Canada) bike lane.
\
\
�
. . q
�
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
40 New Traffic Signal Hardy and Oracle
41 New Traffic Signal Linda Vista and Oracle
42 New Traffic Signals One every other year at various locations.
43 Community Center Building to serve as community resource
for civic/entertainment activities.
FACILITIES
44 General Admin. Building Additional building to provide space for
public works, water, transit, and
maintenance staff.
45 Prisoner Processing Area To separate arrestees from victims and
witnesses.
46 Expand PW Maintenance Expand existing shop (alternative to 47).
47 New Street Maintenance Bldg. Relocate Public Works field operations
out of residential area and expand for
growth (alternative to 46).
48 New Vehicle Maintenance Bldg. Provide capability of in-house vehicle
maintenance to reduce contract work.
49 Office Remodel Provide Parks & Rec space in the public
works building
F:\DATA\WP\CIP\PROD SUM.WP
fk
ppf
B{[
yy
is
FF
r
1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY
•' e•
fin.:
., fit•of ..................: ................;.....................::::......
VEHICLES
1 Pool Car Replacement for old pool car used for on-
j ob travel.
2 Compact Pick-up Trucks Replace trucks used by building
inspectors.
4 Police Cars Replace police cars as they go over
100,000 miles.
5 Service Truck Replace 1986 Public Works service
vehicle.
6 Service Truck Replacement Replace existing PW service truck w/
>150,000 miles.
7 Van Replacement Replace van with>100,000 miles.
8 Maintenance Vehicle Replace Park and Rec. maintenance
vehicle with>150,000 miles.
EQUIPMENT
9 Large Document Copier Replacment for poorly functioning copier.
10 Mobile Data Terminals Install computers in patrol vehicles to run
checks and pass sensitive info.
11 Digital Tape Logger Replace 9-year old logger that is off
warantee maintenance.
12 Special Operations Repeater For special police operations outside the
Town.
13 Loader Replacement Replace 1974 loader used for storm
damage clean-up, etc.
14 Crack Sealer Replacment Replace old pavement crack sealer
equipment.
15 Aerial Mapping Provide data and equipment for multiple
planning and design applications.
16 Backhoe Replacement Replace fatigued equipment.
17 Street Broom Replacement Replace exisiting street sweeper.
18 Water Truck Replacement Replace 1974 water truck.
19 2000-2002 Equipment Replacement Long-range estimates of Public Works
equipment replacment needs.
C O