Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (5)         *AMENDED (1/5/16, 4:45 PM) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION January 6, 2016 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE         REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   *EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) for the purposes of discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorneys for the public body regarding existing contracts and obligations with HSL for public facilities   REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   COUNCIL REPORTS   DEPARTMENT REPORTS   The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING   CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   PRESENTATIONS   1. Presentation - Youth Art Program by the Arts and Culture Ambassadors           CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A. Minutes - December 2, 2015   B. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through October 2015   C. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through November 2015   D. Reappointment to the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee   E. Resolution No. (R)16-01, approving the Town's annual Legislative Agenda, protocols guiding the Town’s priorities for the upcoming legislative session and any lobbying activities   REGULAR AGENDA   1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH TOHONO CHUL PARK TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 OF THE 420-SEATED EVENT PAVILION   2. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-02, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING INCREASES IN WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY   3. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-01, REZONING AN EXISTING 26.3 ACRE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE AND ORACLE ROAD FROM R1-144 TO VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD)   4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING A MEMORIAL FOR BILL ADLER   5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DEVELOP EQUINE THERAPY AT STEAM PUMP RANCH TO INCLUDE PARTNERING WITH NON-PROFITS AND 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS   6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING PARTNERING WITH HOST COMPLIANCE LLC TO ASSIST WITH IDENTIFYING PRIVATELY-OWNED, SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE PERMITTING AND LODGING TAX PAYMENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS   7. *DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RESEARCH THE FEASIBILITY OF ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY INTEGRITY GOLF COMPANY LLC TO MANAGE THE TOWN’S GOLF FACILITIES   8. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 DIRECTION GIVEN TO DEVELOP SIGN LIGHTING STANDARDS   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H)   CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: 12/30/15 at 5:00 p.m. by mrs AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 1/5/16 at 4:45 p.m. by mrs When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229-4700. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience”, please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During “Call to Audience” you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Presentation of the Youth Art Program Information Subject Presentation - Youth Art Program by the Arts and Culture Ambassadors Summary Town Council Regular Session Item # A. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Julie Bower Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Minutes - December 2, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with the following changes) the December 2, 2015 minutes.  Attachments 12/2/15 Draft Minutes 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION December 2, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Satish Hiremath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Councilmember Bill Garner, Councilmember Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Communications Administrator Misti Nowak announced the upcoming Town meetings and events. COUNCIL REPORTS and Spotlight on Youth Councilmember Hornat reported that he and Vice Mayor Waters attended the American Kennel Club Dog Show held at Naranja Park a couple of weekends ago, where Vice Mayor Waters presented the best of show. He stated it was a great event and was very well attended. Councilmember Hornat attended the 107th Arizona Town Hall held in Mesa, Arizona, where they addressed what actions would help to successfully manage the current and future water needs of the state. Councilmember Hornat attended the Veterans Day Event at Pusch Ridge Christian Academy with the Legion Color Guard. He said it was a great event and very patriotic. 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2 Councilmember Zinkin encouraged citizens to contact their congressman regarding the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) which authorized federal surface transportation programs through fiscal year (FY) 2020. Councilmember Snider encouraged citizens to participate in the Amphi Schools Stuff the Amphi Bus event held December 5-13, 2015. Councilmember Snider recognized Hannah Semon, Senior at Ironwood Ridge High School, for her outstanding grades and her service and contributions to the community. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Economic Development Director Amanda Jacobs introduced Dick Eggerding and Sasha Case as the Arts and Culture Ambassadors. Dick Eggerding and Sasha Case introduced the artwork on display in the Council Chambers which included pieces of artwork created by students from Immaculate Heart School, Wilson Elementary School, Copper Creek Elementary, Basis, and Painted Sky Elementary. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Hiremath reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1.Letter of Appreciation - Oro Valley Police Department 2.Councilmember Zinkin - 2015 NLC Congress of Cities Trip Report 3.Councilmember Hornat - 2015 Arizona Town Hall Trip Report CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Zinkin requested that items (B) and (F) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Councilmember Garner requested that item (E) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A.Minutes - November 18, 2015 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3 C.Approval of the 2016 regular Town Council meeting schedule D.Approval of Council liaison assignments G.Council approval of M3S Sports' request for in-kind support for the Arizona Distance Classic H.(Re)appointments to various boards and commissions: Board of Adjustment (BOA), Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB), Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), Storm Water Utility Commission (SWUC) and Water Utility Commission (WUC) MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Garner to approve Consent Agenda items (A), (C-D), (G-H). MOTION carried, 7-0. B.Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015 Councilmember Zinkin inquired about the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015 and discussed his concerns with the Community Center and Golf Fund revenues, Capital Improvement Projects and funding. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to accept item (B). MOTION carried, 7-0. E.Resolution No. (R)15-70, authorizing and approving a one (1) year extension to the lease between the Town of Oro Valley and Town West Realty, Inc. Councilmember Garner asked for clarification regarding the proposed lease agreement including the total square footage and cost for the property located at Mountain View Plaza. Deputy Chief Larry Stevens clarified the square footage of the property was 1,200 square feet at $16.00 per square foot of rental space. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed lease extension for the Police Department Substation. 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4 MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to approve item (E). MOTION carried, 6-1 with Councilmember Zinkin opposed. F.Resolution No. (R)15-71, providing Notice of Intent to increase water rates, fees and charges for the Oro Valley Water Utility Councilmember Zinkin requested clarification and understanding of item (F). Water Utility Director Philip Saletta explained the purpose for the Notice of Intent to increase water rates, fees and charges for the Oro Valley Water Utility. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Garner to approve item (F). MOTION carried, 7-0. REGULAR AGENDA 1.NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR Councilmember Hornat nominated Vice Mayor Lou Waters to serve as Vice Mayor for 2016, seconded by Councilmember Snider. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the nomination of Vice Mayor Lou Waters as Vice Mayor for 2016. MOTION carried, 6-0 with Councilmember Zinkin abstained. 2.PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TOWN'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 Town Finance Director Stacey Lemos gave an overview of the Town's annual financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 and introduced Mr. Corey Arvizu, CPA and Partner with Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C. Mr. Arvizu gave an overview of the process and highlights regarding the completed financial audit for the Town for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff, and Mr. Arvizu regarding the annual financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to accept the Town's financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5 MOTION carried, 7-0. 3.PRESENTATION BY THE TOWN’S INSURANCE CONSULTANT, CBIZ, REGARDING THE EMPLOYEE SELF-FUNDED HEALTHCARE PLAN PERFORMANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 Human Resource Director Gary Bridget gave a brief introduction of the Self-Funded Healthcare Plan Performance for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and introduced CBIZ Senior Vice President Oscar Diaz. Mr. Diaz gave an overview of the Self-Funded Healthcare Plan Performance that included the following: - Self-funding of Program and its Advantages - Three Year History of Total Medical Plan Costs - Historical Cost Drivers - Future Strategy Considerations to Mitigate Increases in Future Costs Discussion ensued amongst Council, Mr. Diaz and staff regarding the Employee Self- Funded Healthcare Plan Performance for Fiscal Year 2014-15. 4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, GOLF COURSE SETBACK REDUCTIONS AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 28-LOT SHORT-TERM RENTAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HOHOKAM VILLAGE DRIVE IN THE STONE CANYON COMMUNITY Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano gave an overview of the proposed Conceptual Site Plan, Golf Course Setback Reductions and Conceptual Landscape Plan for a Proposed 28-Lot Short-Term Rental Development that included the following: - Purpose - Conceptual Site Plan - Landscape Plan - Public Participation - Summary / Recommendation Zach Hilgart, Civil Engineer, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the proposed business plan for item #4. MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to approve the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the 28-lot short- term rental development, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1, finding that the request is consistent with the Rancho Vistoso PAD and Design Principals, and Standards of the Zoning Code. 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 6 Stone Canyon Golf Casitas Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan Conditions of Approval. Attachment 1 1. The final Site Plan shall incorporate pedestrian easements for all proposed sidewalks and trails. MOTION carried, 7-0. MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to approve the golf course setback reductions for the 28-lot short-term rental development, finding that the request meets the intent of the Golf Course Overlay Zone District. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 5.PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF THE JAMES D. KRIEGH PARK CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan gave an overview of the James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan that included the following: - The Property - Review - Conceptual Site Plan Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan. MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan as presented. MOTION carried, 7-0. 6.SIGN LIGHTING CODE AMENDMENT UPDATE AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION Senior Planning Technician Patty Hayes gave an overview of the sign lighting code amendment update that included the following: - Purpose - Signs - Typical Sign for Nit Measurement - Typical Wall Sign for Kelvin Measurements - Direction and Next Steps 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 7 Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the sign lighting code amendment update and possible direction. The following individual spoke on item #6. Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding the sign lighting code amendment update and possible direction. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to direct staff to work with Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander to determine the most effective way to measure sign brightness and also develop a sign lighting standard. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Mayor Hiremath opposed. 7.MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2015 PERSONNEL ACTION REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER ZINKIN Councilmember Zinkin recused himself from item (7). Councilmember Garner presented item #7. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Councilmember Burns to reconsider the November 18, 2015 personnel action regarding Councilmember Zinkin. MOTION failed, 2-4 with Mayor Hiremath, Vice Mayor Waters, Councilmember Hornat, and Councilmember Snider opposed and Councilmember Zinkin recused. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. CALL TO AUDIENCE Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander spoke about the Wilson Robotics Competition to be held at Wilson Elementary on December 5, 2015. ADJOURNMENT MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. MOTION carried, 6-0 with Councilmember Zinkin absent. 12/2/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 8 Prepared by: __________________________ Michelle Stine Senior Office Specialist I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 2nd day of December, 2015. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2015. ___________________________ Julie K. Bower, MMC Town Clerk Town Council Regular Session Item # B. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Stacey Lemos Submitted By:Wendy Gomez, Finance Department:Finance Information SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through October 2015 RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the General Fund (see attachment A), revenues collected through October totaled $9.6 million or 29.7% of the budget amount of $32.2 million. Year-to-date expenditures through October totaled $9.8 million or 30.7% of the budget amount of $32.1 million. Please note that expenditures through October include one-third, or approximately $345,000 of the planned transfer out of one-time construction sales tax and permitting dollars to the CIP Fund for CIP projects. This is a reduced amount that reflects revised one-time revenue projections as discussed in the September financials and referenced below. In the Highway Fund (see attachment B), revenues collected through October totaled $1.1 million or 33.5% of the budget amount of $3.2 million. Year-to-date expenditures through October totaled $1.2 million or 23.9% of the budget amount of $4.9 million. It is important to note that the Highway Fund budget included the planned use of $1.7 million in reserves, as all construction sales tax revenues are now fully accounted for in the General Fund. In the Bed Tax Fund (see attachment C), revenues collected through October totaled $245,010 or 25.8% of the budget amount of $950,000. Year-to-date expenditures through October totaled $322,840 or 29.7% of the budget amount of $1.1 million. Please note that expenditures through October include the budgeted transfer of approximately $230,000 to the Municipal Debt Service Fund for debt service due on the Aquatic Center bonds.   In the Community Center & Golf Fund (see attachments D-1, D-2 and D-3), revenues collected through October totaled $1.5 million or 20.5% of the budget amount of $7.4 million. Year-to-date expenditures through October totaled $2.6 million or 32.1% of the budget amount of $8.2 million. It is important to note that the year-end estimates for the Troon-managed operations have been revised lower to reflect actual revenue trends observed in the first quarter of this fiscal year and operational changes taking effect in December and remaining in place through the end of the fiscal year. These operational changes include closing the golf courses and restaurant on Mondays, reduced hours at the restaurant, closing the Garden Café, closing the lap pool through May and reduced hours in the fitness and tennis operations. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: GENERAL FUND GENERAL FUND Attachment A shows General Fund revenues and expenditures through October, as well as year-end estimates for each category. The estimated year-end projections in the General Fund are as follows: Revenues                                                    $31,551,593 Less: Expenditures                                              ($31,441,980) Less: Council-Approved Use of Contingency:      - 8.8 Acre Land Purchase                    ($   265,000)  Approved September 2, 2015      - Lawsuit Settlement                             ($    30,000)  Approved September 16, 2015      - Special Election Costs                       ($    30,000)  Approved June 17, 2015 Est. Decrease in Fund Balance                ($  215,387) General Fund Revenues Local sales tax collections in the General Fund total $4.3 million or 28.3% of the budget amount of $15.4 million. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $576,000 or 3.8% due entirely to one-time construction sales taxes from updated projections on single family residential building activity and slower commercial development than planned. Single family residential permits for FY 15/16 are estimated at 165, versus 200 budgeted. All other local sales tax categories are trending on budget. Please see Attachment F for a monthly tracking of General Fund local sales tax collections, including construction and utility sales tax.   License and permit revenues total $407,729 or 23.1% of the budget amount of $1.8 million. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $218,000 or 12.4% due to updated projections on residential and commercial building activity, as referenced above. Federal grant revenues total $255,806 or 46.4% of the budget amount of $551,545. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $73,000 or 13.2% due to recent financial changes at the Counter Narcotics Alliance (CNA). The loss in revenue will be offset with vacancy savings in the Police Department.    State shared revenues total $3.4 million or 32.5% of the budget amount of $10.4 million, and are estimated to come in over budget by roughly $145,000 or 1.4%, based on projections from the Arizona Department of Revenue and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.       Charges for Services revenues total $664,268 or 35.4% of the budget amount of $1.9 million. These revenues are anticipated to come in over budget by about $90,000 or 4.8% due mostly to revenues at the Aquatic Center. Revenues from fines total $51,817 or 43.2% of the budget amount of $120,000, and are estimated to come in over budget by $20,000 or 16.7%, based on observed trends. General Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by approximately $630,000 or 2.0%. Of this amount, approximately $475,000 was planned for one-time CIP projects, to be funded entirely with one-time construction sales taxes and permitting revenues. As noted in the Executive Summary, several projects have been slowed down or placed on hold temporarily due to the updated projections on single family residential and commercial construction activity. Should construction activity increase, these projects can be resumed and may be rolled over into next year's budget if not completed this year. The remaining expenditure budget variance is due to estimated personnel and department operating savings. Please note that these savings are estimates and are subject to change.          HIGHWAY FUND Highway Fund Revenues State shared highway user revenue funds (HURF) total $953,779 or 31.9% of the budget amount of $3.0 million. Highway Fund revenues in total are estimated to come in over budget by nearly $53,000 or 1.6% due to one-time insurance recoveries and reimbursement from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) for Transportation Art by Youth (TABY) program expenditures.     Highway Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $14,000 or 0.3% due to anticipated personnel savings. Please note that these personnel savings are estimates and are subject to change.  BED TAX FUND Bed Tax Revenues Bed tax revenues total $243,758 or 25.8% of the budget amount of $945,000, and are estimated to come in on budget at this time. Bed Tax Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $5,600 or 0.5% due to projected personnel savings. Please note that personnel savings are estimates and are subject to change. COMMUNITY CENTER & GOLF FUND Attachment D-1 shows the consolidated financial status of the Community Center and Golf Fund with all revenues and expenditures from Troon and Town-managed operations. Attachment D-2 shows the monthly line item detail for the Troon-managed operations, specifically revenues and expenditures associated with the golf, tennis, food and beverage and lifeguard operations. The totals in the revenue and expenditure categories in Attachment D-2 tie to the Contracted Operating Revenues and Expenditures in Attachment D-1. Attachment D-3 shows the revenues and expenditures for the Troon-managed food and beverage operations only.  Please note that the negative fund balance of $80,576 shown on Attachment F for the Community Center & Golf Fund is projected to turn positive following an anticipated increase in winter and spring activity for golf season and holiday sales tax collections. Community Center & Golf Fund Revenues Revenues in the Community Center & Golf Fund total $1.5 million or 20.5% of the budget amount of $7.4 million. Contracted operating revenues from Troon total $754,231 and Town operating revenues total $198,478. Local sales tax revenues from the dedicated half-cent sales tax total $566,952 or 28.3% of the budget amount of $2,000,000. Contracted operating revenues from Troon are estimated to come in under budget by about $1,376,000 or 29.0%, based on the revised forecast from Troon through the remainder of the fiscal year. Original budgeted revenues for the Troon-managed functions of golf, food and beverage and tennis operations totaled $4.7 million for the fiscal year. These revenue estimates have been revised downward to $3.4 million based on observed trends in the first quarter of this fiscal year. Town operating revenues are estimated to come in slightly under budget by about $14,000 or 2.2% due to revised estimates for tennis court and facility rental income. Community Center & Golf Fund Expenditures Expenditures in the Community Center & Golf Fund total $2.6 million or 32.1% of the budget amount of $8.2 million. Contracted operating expenditures from Troon total $2.2 million and Town operating expenditures total $199,204. Capital outlay expenditures total $184,109. Contracted operating expenditures from Troon are estimated to come in under budget by about $928,000 or 14.8% based on the updated forecast from Troon through the remainder of the fiscal year reflecting savings from operational changes that were implemented in December, including closure of the golf courses on Mondays, reduced hours at The Overlook restaurant, reductions in staffing levels in the golf maintenance and restaurant operations, closure of the lap pool through May and reduced hours at the tennis facilities. Original budgeted expenditures for the Troon-managed operations totaled $6.2 million for the fiscal year. The year-end estimates have been revised downward to $5.3 million. Accordingly, the year-end net loss for the Troon-managed operations has been revised from $1.5 million to approximately $1.96 million. The ending fund balance in the Community Center and Golf Fund is estimated at $259,000. Please see attachments A, B and C for additional details on the General Fund, Highway Fund and Bed Tax Fund, respectively. See attachments D-1, D-2 and D-3 for additional details on the Community Center & Golf Fund. See Attachment E for a fiscal year-to-date consolidated summary of all Town funds. In addition, as noted earlier, Attachment F includes a breakdown of monthly local sales tax collections for the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information only. Attachments Attachment A - General Fund Attachment B - Highway Fund Attachment C - Bed Tax Fund Attachment D-1 CC & Golf Fund Attachment D-2 Troon Cash Flow Attachment D-3 Troon F&B Attachment E - Summary All Funds Attachment F - Gen Fund Local Sales Tax ATTACHMENT A October YTD Financial Status General Fund % Budget Completion through October --- 33.3% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: LOCAL SALES TAX 4,341,398 15,350,654 28.3% 14,774,654 -3.8% LICENSES & PERMITS 407,729 1,764,000 23.1% 1,546,000 -12.4% FEDERAL GRANTS 255,806 551,545 46.4% 478,760 -13.2% STATE GRANTS 358,354 1,434,300 25.0% 1,434,300 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 3,393,748 10,428,531 32.5% 10,574,275 1.4% OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 33,803 105,000 32.2% 105,000 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 664,268 1,873,834 35.4% 1,964,204 4.8% FINES 51,817 120,000 43.2% 140,000 16.7% INTEREST INCOME 18,021 94,400 19.1% 94,400 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 37,486 135,000 27.8% 135,000 0.0% TRANSFERS IN - 305,000 0.0%305,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 9,562,430 32,162,264 29.7% 31,551,593 -1.9% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: COUNCIL 92,360 211,995 43.6% 211,995 0.0% CLERK 107,755 407,900 26.4% 372,900 -8.6% MANAGER 227,043 769,521 29.5% 769,521 0.0% HUMAN RESOURCES 93,598 366,775 25.5% 366,775 0.0% FINANCE 213,883 779,760 27.4% 745,659 -4.4% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 596,129 1,571,326 37.9% 1,571,326 0.0% GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 645,981 1,804,970 35.8% 1,804,970 0.0% LEGAL 203,550 764,837 26.6% 764,837 0.0% COURT 242,042 837,629 28.9% 837,629 0.0% DEV & INFRASTRUCTURE SVCS 1,338,346 4,596,216 29.1% 4,593,230 -0.1% PARKS & RECREATION 952,972 3,004,988 31.7% 3,004,988 0.0% POLICE 4,579,372 15,250,016 30.0% 15,166,635 -0.5% TRANSFERS OUT 542,378 1,706,810 31.8%1,231,515 -27.8% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,835,410 32,072,743 30.7% 31,441,980 -2.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (272,980) 89,521 109,613 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 10,151,872 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)109,613 Less: Approved Use of Contingency Reserves during FY 15/16: 8.8 Acre Land Purchase (Proximity to JDK Park and CDO High School)(265,000) Special Election Costs (30,000) Lawsuit Settlement - Mora v. Town of Oro Valley (30,000) ENDING FUND BALANCE ** 9,936,485 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 10/2015 Actuals thru 10/2015 Budget F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Oct\OctFY 16 Monthly Report 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT B October YTD Financial Status FY 2015/2016 % Budget Completion through October --- 33.3% Actuals thru 10/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to BudgetREVENUES: LICENSES & PERMITS 14,386 51,000 28.2% 51,000 0.0% STATE GRANTS 23,999 - 0.0% 23,999 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 953,779 2,985,464 31.9% 2,985,464 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 44,667 134,000 33.3% 134,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 6,736 22,400 30.1% 22,400 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 29,565 10,000 295.6%38,582 285.8% TOTAL REVENUES 1,073,131 3,202,864 33.5% 3,255,445 1.6% Actuals thru 10/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATION 428,147 880,396 48.6% 880,396 0.0% TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 165,319 561,772 29.4% 561,772 0.0% PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 36,396 1,473,581 2.5% 1,473,581 0.0% STREET MAINTENANCE 382,307 1,159,510 33.0% 1,145,256 -1.2% TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 146,932 783,419 18.8%783,419 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,159,102 4,858,678 23.9% 4,844,424 -0.3% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (85,970) (1,655,814) (1,588,979) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3,291,083 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(1,588,979) ENDING FUND BALANCE **1,702,104 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision Highway Fund F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Oct\OctFY 16 Monthly Report 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT C October YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through October --- 33.3% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: BED TAXES 243,758 945,000 25.8% 945,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 1,251 4,800 26.1%4,800 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 245,010 949,800 25.8% 949,800 0.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 93,296 672,732 13.9% 667,104 -0.8% TRANSFERS OUT 229,544 414,544 55.4%414,544 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 322,840 1,087,276 29.7% 1,081,648 -0.5% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (77,830) (137,476) (131,848) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 464,626 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(131,848) ENDING FUND BALANCE **332,778 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Bed Tax Fund Budget Actuals thru 10/2015 Actuals thru 10/2015 F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Oct\OctFY 16 Monthly Report 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT D-1 October YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through October --- 33.3% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: CONTRACTED OPERATING REVENUES Golf Revenues 189,117 1,771,106 10.7% 1,208,619 -31.8% Member Dues (Golf) 257,852 1,370,867 18.8% 1,042,852 -23.9% Tennis Revenues 113,231 279,837 40.5% 294,054 5.1% Food & Beverage 142,990 850,852 16.8% 618,468 -27.3% Merchandise & Other 51,041 469,671 10.9%202,541 -56.9% 754,231 4,742,333 15.9% 3,366,534 -29.0% TOWN OPERATING REVENUES Daily Drop-Ins 5,828 27,550 21.2% 27,550 0.0% Member Dues 175,007 526,480 33.2% 526,480 0.0% Recreation Programs 16,973 84,000 20.2% 84,000 0.0% Tennis Court Rentals - 7,200 0.0% 4,000 -44.4% Facility Rental Income 297 13,200 2.3% 1,000 -92.4% Concession Sales 373 - 0.0%1,000 0.0% 198,478 658,430 30.1% 644,030 -2.2% OTHER REVENUES Local Sales Tax 566,952 2,000,000 28.3% 2,000,000 0.0% Donations 100 - 0.0%100 0.0% 567,052 2,000,000 28.4% 2,000,100 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 1,519,761 7,400,763 20.5% 6,010,664 -18.8% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: CONTRACTED OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 914,528 2,638,457 34.7% 2,193,707 -16.9% Operations & Maintenance 1,198,345 3,289,219 36.4% 2,837,991 -13.7% Equipment Leases 129,373 333,000 38.9%301,209 -9.5% 2,242,246 6,260,676 35.8% 5,332,907 -14.8% TOWN OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 148,745 462,517 32.2% 462,517 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 50,459 225,140 22.4%225,140 0.0% 199,204 687,657 29.0% 687,657 0.0% CAPITAL OUTLAY 184,109 1,115,000 16.5% 650,000 -41.7% TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND - 120,000 0.0% 120,000 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,625,559 8,183,333 32.1% 6,790,564 -17.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (1,105,798) (782,570) (779,900) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 1,025,222 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(779,900) ENDING FUND BALANCE **245,322 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Actuals thru 10/2015 Budget Year End Estimate * Community Center & Golf Fund Actuals thru 10/2015 Budget Year End Estimate * F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Oct\OctFY 16 Monthly Report 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT D-2 TR O O N El C o n q ui s t a d o r C a s h F l o w S t a t e m e n t A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l O r i g in a l B u d g et F o r e c a s t Ju l - 1 5 A u g -1 5 S e p -1 5 O c t - 1 5 T O T A L T OT A L T OTAL R e v e n u e s : Go l f F e e s , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 41 , 0 9 7 3 5 , 5 4 9 5 1 , 7 2 2 5 0 , 5 5 2 1 7 8 , 9 2 0 1 , 4 5 6 , 2 7 1 9 8 2 , 3 8 0 Me m b e r G o l f F e e s , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s - - - - 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 4 0 , 4 0 0 Go l f - G r o u p S e r v i c e s - - (55 0 ) (55 0 ) - (550 ) Ra n g e, R e n t a l s , O t h e r G o l f r e l a t e d 1, 3 6 8 1 , 5 9 3 1 , 9 8 4 2 , 7 1 2 7 , 6 5 7 1 2 7 , 7 3 5 7 7 , 6 5 4 Go l f L e s s o n s 7 8 5 5 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 6 8 0 3 , 0 9 0 7 , 1 0 0 8 , 7 3 5 To t a l M e m b e r D u e s 65 , 3 7 7 5 7 , 7 8 6 6 4 , 7 1 9 6 9 , 9 7 0 2 5 7 , 8 5 2 1 , 3 7 0 , 8 6 7 1 , 0 4 2 , 8 5 2 Sw i m / T e n n i s R e v e n u e s 2 4 , 9 2 3 9 , 1 7 2 2 7 , 5 9 3 5 1 , 5 4 3 1 1 3 , 2 3 1 2 7 9 , 8 3 7 2 9 4 , 0 5 4 Sa l o n / S p a R e v e n u e s - 1 5 0 4 0 0 - 5 5 0 - 5 5 0 GO L F P U S C H R I D G E R e v e n u e s - 2 0 - - 2 0 - 2 0 Me r c h a n d i s e , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 1 1 , 1 1 2 9 , 3 4 2 1 2 , 4 6 2 1 7 , 5 5 5 5 0 , 4 7 1 4 6 9 , 6 7 1 2 0 1 , 9 7 1 Fo o d a n d B e v e r a g e, n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 3 4 , 0 0 2 2 9 , 4 3 0 3 5 , 0 7 7 4 4 , 4 8 1 1 4 2 , 9 9 0 8 5 0 , 8 5 2 6 1 8 , 4 6 8 To t a l R e v e n u e s 1 7 8 , 6 6 4 1 4 3 , 5 5 2 1 9 5 , 0 7 2 2 3 6 , 9 4 3 7 5 4 , 2 3 1 4 , 7 4 2 , 3 3 3 3 , 3 6 6 , 5 3 4 C o s t o f S a l e s : CO S - G o l f - - - - - 1 7 , 6 9 0 9 , 7 4 7 CO S - G o l f L e s s o n s 6 9 2 2 8 2 1 0 0 9 3 7 2 , 0 1 1 5 , 6 8 0 6 , 5 2 7 CO S - S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n s 1 4 , 2 6 8 1 0 , 0 2 3 1 4 , 4 7 7 2 1 , 7 8 3 6 0 , 5 5 1 1 6 1 , 7 9 1 1 6 6 , 3 8 4 CO S - M e r c h a n d i s e , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 9 , 8 7 7 5 , 5 1 7 6 , 3 3 5 1 0 , 1 9 6 3 1 , 9 2 5 2 9 9 , 5 2 7 1 5 3 , 1 2 5 CO S - F o o d & B e v e r a g e 1 4 , 1 7 2 1 1 , 4 8 4 1 5 , 1 5 0 1 4 , 8 7 5 5 5 , 6 8 1 2 6 7 , 4 1 8 2 0 7 , 8 3 4 To t a l C o s t o f S a l e s 3 9 , 0 0 9 2 7 , 3 0 6 3 6 , 0 6 2 4 7 , 7 9 1 1 5 0 , 1 6 8 7 5 2 , 1 0 5 5 4 3 , 6 1 7 Gr o s s P r o f i t 1 3 9 , 6 5 5 1 1 6 , 2 4 6 1 5 9 , 0 1 0 1 8 9 , 1 5 2 6 0 4 , 0 6 3 3 , 9 9 0 , 2 2 8 2 , 8 2 2 , 9 1 7 O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s : Pa y ro l l 1 9 3 , 3 2 5 1 8 2 , 6 9 4 1 7 2 , 7 3 1 1 9 3 , 5 1 4 7 4 2 , 2 6 4 2 , 1 8 2 , 8 5 9 1 , 7 7 2 , 2 6 4 Em p lo y ee B e n e f i t s 4 0 , 6 3 0 3 8 , 5 3 1 4 5 , 4 6 6 3 1 , 7 2 9 1 5 6 , 3 5 6 4 0 6 , 3 1 4 3 7 0 , 6 0 6 Em p lo y ee R e l a t e d 5 , 6 4 4 3 , 8 7 3 3 , 2 0 4 3 , 1 8 7 1 5 , 9 0 8 4 9 , 2 8 4 5 0 , 8 3 7 Pr o f e s s i o n a l F e e s - 3 0 6 1 0 3 1 6 3 , 9 7 5 3 , 8 4 1 A dv e r t i s i n g & M a r k e t i n g 5, 2 1 3 2 , 3 5 9 1 4 , 3 1 8 2 1 , 8 9 0 7 7 , 7 6 8 6 5 , 0 8 3 Co m p E x p en s e 3 , 3 4 0 - - 3 , 3 4 0 - 3 , 3 4 0 Re p ai r & M a i n t e n a n c e 5 3 , 8 1 7 6 1 , 6 6 2 8 4 , 3 5 3 8 2 , 9 0 3 2 8 2 , 7 3 5 4 8 8 , 0 5 0 4 8 1 , 0 2 1 O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 2 7 , 6 2 7 2 5 , 8 5 8 2 0 , 4 7 8 2 1 , 4 8 8 9 5 , 4 5 1 4 1 3 , 7 9 1 2 8 5 , 6 2 6 To t a l O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 3 2 6 , 2 5 6 3 1 5 , 9 5 8 3 2 8 , 8 9 7 3 4 7 , 1 4 9 1 , 3 1 8 , 2 6 0 3 , 6 2 2 , 0 4 1 3 , 0 3 2 , 6 1 8 O p er a t i n g P r o f i t (18 6 , 6 0 1 ) (19 9 , 7 1 2 ) (16 9 , 8 8 7 ) (15 7 , 9 9 7 ) (71 4 , 1 9 7 ) 3 6 8 , 1 8 6 (209,701 ) Le a s e s - C a r t s 1 6 , 4 4 0 1 6 , 4 4 0 1 6 , 3 6 4 1 6 , 3 6 4 6 5 , 6 0 8 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 9 , 6 0 8 Le a s e s - E q ui p me n t 1 9 , 6 0 5 2 2 , 3 5 7 5 , 1 6 3 (4, 3 2 4 ) 4 2 , 8 0 1 2 2 8 , 0 0 0 1 7 1 , 6 0 1 Ut i l i t i e s 1 6 8 , 4 7 2 1 4 1 , 5 8 9 1 4 8 , 5 6 7 1 3 4 , 2 5 9 5 9 2 , 8 8 7 1 , 3 2 0 , 3 9 1 1 , 3 0 4 , 9 3 4 Fi x e d O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 2 0 4 , 5 1 7 1 8 0 , 3 8 6 1 7 0 , 0 9 4 1 4 6 , 2 9 9 7 0 1 , 2 9 6 1 , 6 5 3 , 3 9 1 1 , 6 0 6 , 1 4 3 Gr o s s O p er a t i n g P r o f i t (39 1 , 1 1 8 ) (38 0 , 0 9 8 ) (33 9 , 9 8 1 ) (30 4 , 2 9 6 ) (1, 4 1 5 , 4 9 3 ) (1, 2 8 5 , 2 0 5 ) (1,815,844 ) In s u r a n c e 86 - 8 6 1 7 2 8 5 , 5 2 0 1 7 2 Pr o p er t y T a x e s - 1 , 0 1 1 - 1 , 0 1 1 - 1 , 0 1 1 Fe e s , P e r m i t s & L i c e n s e s 9 2 5 0 8 6 8 0 4 2 5 3 , 6 1 9 3 , 3 9 6 Ba s e M a n a g em e n t F e e s 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 4 8 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 Ba d D e b t 1, 0 8 0 2 7 0 6 0 0 1 , 9 5 0 - 1 , 9 5 0 To t a l O t h e r E x p en s e s 1 2 , 0 0 9 1 3 , 4 1 6 1 3 , 3 6 7 1 2 , 7 6 6 5 1 , 5 5 8 2 3 3 , 1 3 9 1 5 0 , 5 2 9 Ne t I n c o m e (Lo s s ) (40 3 , 1 2 9 ) (39 3 , 5 1 4 ) (35 3 , 3 4 8 ) (31 7 , 0 6 2 ) (1, 4 6 7 , 0 5 3 ) (1, 5 1 8 , 3 4 3 ) (1,966,373 ) 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT D-3 ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET MONTH MONTH Y-T-D Y-T-D FOOD & BEVERAGE REVENUE 44,381 69,422 142,890 193,632 TOTAL REVENUES 44,381 69,422 142,890 193,632 COST OF SALES 14,875 22,264 55,682 62,682 PAYROLL & BENEFITS 50,771 37,832 181,963 148,305 OPERATING EXPENSES 10,236 7,501 31,227 30,004 NET INCOME (LOSS) (31,501) 1,825 (125,982) (47,359) EL CONQUISTADOR INCOME STATEMENT CONSOLIDATED - RESTAURANT/GRILLE - OCTOBER 2015 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT E Co n s o l i d a t e d Y e a r - t o - D a t e F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t t h r o u g h O c t o b e r , 2 0 1 5 FY 2015/201 6 FY 1 5 / 1 6 C a p i t a l L e a s e s / Left in Accounts Be g i n B a l . T r a n s f e r O u t Thru Oct 2015 Ge n e r a l F u n d - Un a s s i g n e d 8 , 5 9 7 , 8 7 3 9 , 5 6 2 , 4 3 0 - 9 , 5 6 2 , 4 3 0 5 4 2 , 3 7 8 6 , 7 6 8 , 7 5 4 2 , 4 8 5 , 4 9 4 3 8 , 7 8 4 - - 9,835,410 8,324,893 Ge n e r a l F u n d - A s s i g n e d 1 , 5 5 3 , 9 9 9 - 1,553,999 Hi g h w a y F u n d - R e s t r i c t e d 3 , 2 9 1 , 0 8 3 1 , 0 7 3 , 1 3 1 - 1 , 0 7 3 , 1 3 1 2 2 8 , 3 6 6 5 6 2 , 9 0 9 2 0 3 , 0 2 2 1 6 4 , 8 0 4 - - 1,159,102 3,205,113 Se i z u r e & F o r f e i t u r e - J u s t i c e / S t a t e 2 3 5 , 9 5 2 4 6 , 1 6 0 - 4 6 , 1 6 0 - 5 9 , 1 2 0 9 3 9 1 5 , 0 5 4 - - 75,112 206,999 Be d T a x F u n d - C o m m i t t e d 4 6 4 , 6 2 6 2 4 5 , 0 1 0 - 2 4 5 , 0 1 0 2 2 9 , 5 4 4 6 9 , 5 5 1 2 3 , 7 4 5 - - - 322,840 386,796 Im p o u n d F e e F u n d 2 8 , 4 3 5 2 1 , 6 0 0 - 2 1 , 6 0 0 - 8 , 4 6 0 - - - - 8,460 41,575 Co m m u n i t y C e n t e r & G o l f F u n d 1 , 0 2 5 , 2 2 2 1 , 5 1 9 , 7 6 1 - 1 , 5 1 9 , 7 6 1 2 0 , 9 6 4 1 4 8 , 7 4 5 2 , 2 7 1 , 7 4 2 1 8 4 , 1 0 9 - - 2,625,559 (80,576) Mu n i c i p a l D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 1 6 6 , 7 9 8 3 5 , 0 6 9 6 5 5 , 7 5 0 6 9 0 , 8 1 9 - - 5 , 0 5 0 - - 711,153 716,203 141,414 Or a c l e R o a d D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 1 , 9 4 6 - 3 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 - - - - - - - 4,946 Al t e r n a t i v e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 4 , 0 2 1 , 7 9 3 3 0 7 , 6 4 7 - 3 0 7 , 6 4 7 - - 4 0 , 9 0 6 1 7 4 - - 41,080 4,288,360 Po t a b l e W a t e r S y s t e m D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 4 , 8 0 0 , 1 5 3 1 5 9 , 0 8 2 - 1 5 9 , 0 8 2 - - - - - - - 4,959,235 To w n w i d e R o a d w a y D e v e l o p m en t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 , 6 7 7 , 8 5 2 1 8 7 , 6 1 2 - 1 8 7 , 6 1 2 - - - - - - - 2,865,464 Pa r k s & R e c r e a t i o n I m p a c t F e e F u n d 1 3 6 , 1 0 3 4 1 , 0 2 5 - 4 1 , 0 2 5 - - - - - - - 177,128 Li b r a r y I m p a c t F e e F u n d 9 4 , 7 9 8 - - - - - - - - - - 94,798 Po l i c e I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 5 4 , 5 7 7 2 2 , 3 0 4 - 2 2 , 3 0 4 - - - - - - - 276,881 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 3 , 5 0 5 2 - 2 - - - - - - - 3,507 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t C I P F u n d 1 , 4 2 1 , 5 9 3 - 3 4 4 , 5 6 8 3 4 4 , 5 6 8 - - - 8 1 9 , 8 3 6 - - 819,836 946,325 PA G / R T A F u n d - 1 , 8 9 2 , 4 3 0 - 1 , 8 9 2 , 4 3 0 - 9 , 9 5 9 - 1 , 6 1 0 , 9 5 7 - - 1,620,916 271,514 Wa t e r U t i l i t y 13 , 8 6 4 , 3 5 9 5 , 5 0 1 , 5 2 5 - 5 , 5 0 1 , 5 2 5 3 , 0 3 0 8 7 1 , 9 5 1 2 , 4 0 0 , 2 7 1 1 , 0 2 3 , 8 2 0 - - 4,299,072 15,066,812 St o r m w a t e r U t i l i t y 27 9 , 3 5 3 2 7 6 , 5 0 1 - 2 7 6 , 5 0 1 - 1 0 4 , 5 4 4 1 1 9 , 9 0 6 5 8 , 3 3 8 - - 282,788 273,066 Fl e e t F u n d 2 9 8 , 9 2 2 3 7 2 , 0 8 8 - 3 7 2 , 0 8 8 - 2 5 , 1 9 5 1 6 3 , 9 3 7 1 2 1 , 5 1 3 - - 310,645 360,365 Be n e f i t S e l f I n s u r a n c e F u n d 2 4 4 , 1 6 2 8 5 7 , 4 4 7 - 8 5 7 , 4 4 7 - - 8 4 1 , 7 6 6 - - - 841,766 259,843 Re c r e a t i o n I n - L i e u F e e F u n d 6 , 1 9 0 2 1 , 7 2 8 - 2 1 , 7 2 8 - - - - - - - 27,918 To t a l 4 3 , 4 6 9 , 2 9 4 2 2 , 1 4 2 , 5 5 0 1 , 0 0 3 , 3 1 8 2 3 , 1 4 5 , 8 6 9 1 , 0 2 4 , 2 8 2 8 , 6 2 9 , 1 8 8 8 , 5 5 6 , 7 7 7 4 , 0 3 7 , 3 9 0 - 711,153 22,958,789 43,656,375 Total Out Pe r s o n n e l O & M C a p i t a l C o n t i n g e n c y Fu n d R e v e n u e Ot h e r F i n So u r c e s / T f r s To t a l I n Debt Service F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 6 \ 2 Q \ O c t \ A t t a c h m e n t E - S u m m a r y A l l F u n d s 12/18/2015 ATTACHMENT F Ge n e r a l F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x C o l l e c t i o n s FY 2015/201 6 CA T E G O R Y J U L Y A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R AP R MAY J U N E T O T A L Co n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s T a x 1 9 3 , 4 9 7 1 6 0 , 7 5 9 1 9 0 , 8 1 2 2 3 4 , 7 6 3 779,831 Ut i l i t y S a l e s T a x 2 5 7 , 5 5 2 3 1 2 , 4 9 4 3 0 4 , 6 6 6 2 8 6 , 6 6 7 1,161,379 Re t a i l S a l e s T a x 4 4 1 , 5 5 7 4 1 5 , 2 0 9 3 9 3 , 6 9 0 4 0 3 , 1 9 3 1,653,649 Al l O t h e r L o c a l S a l e s T a x * 23 9 , 7 3 9 2 2 9 , 7 6 6 1 8 2 , 4 8 4 2 1 6 , 3 6 1 868,351 TO T A L 1 , 1 3 2 , 3 4 6 $ 1 , 1 1 8 , 2 2 8 $ 1 , 0 7 1 , 6 5 2 $ 1 , 1 4 0 , 9 8 4 $ 4,463,210 $ * N o t e : D o e s n o t i n c l u d e c a b l e f r a n c h i s e f e e s o r s a l e s t a x a u d i t r e v e n u e s F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 6 \ 2 Q \ O c t \ A t t a c h m e n t F - G e n F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x 12/18/2015 Town Council Regular Session Item # C. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Stacey Lemos Submitted By:Wendy Gomez, Finance Department:Finance Information SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through November 2015 RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the General Fund (see attachment A), revenues collected through November totaled $11.8 million or 36.7% of the budget amount of $32.2 million. Year-to-date expenditures through November totaled $12.0 million or 37.5% of the budget amount of $32.1 million. Please note that expenditures through November include one-third or approximately $345,000 of the planned transfer out of one-time construction sales tax and permitting dollars to the CIP Fund for CIP projects. This is a reduced amount that reflects revised one-time revenue projections as referenced below. In the Highway Fund (see attachment B), revenues collected through November totaled $1.3 million or 41.2% of the budget amount of $3.2 million. Year-to-date expenditures through November totaled $1.7 million or 35.4% of the budget amount of $4.9 million. It is important to note that the Highway Fund budget included the planned use of $1.7 million in reserves, as all construction sales tax revenues are now fully accounted for in the General Fund. In the Bed Tax Fund (see attachment C), revenues collected through November totaled $335,569 or 35.3% of the budget amount of $950,000. Year-to-date expenditures through November totaled $411,369 or 37.8% of the budget amount of $1.1 million. Please note that expenditures through November include the budgeted transfer of approximately $230,000 to the Municipal Debt Service Fund for debt service due on the Aquatic Center bonds.   In the Community Center & Golf Fund (see attachments D-1, D-2 and D-3), revenues collected through November totaled $2.0 million or 27.0% of the budget amount of $7.4 million. Year-to-date expenditures through November totaled $3.2 million or 38.6% of the budget amount of $8.2 million. It is important to note that the year-end estimates for the Troon-managed operations have been revised lower to reflect actual revenue trends observed in the first quarter of this fiscal year and operational changes taking effect in December and remaining in place through the end of the fiscal year. These operational changes include closing the golf courses and restaurant on Mondays, reduced hours at the restaurant, closing the Garden Café, closing the lap pool through May and reduced hours in the fitness and tennis operations. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: GENERAL FUND GENERAL FUND Attachment A shows General Fund revenues and expenditures through November, as well as year-end estimates for each category. The estimated year-end projections in the General Fund are as follows: Revenues                                                    $31,555,542 Less: Expenditures                                              ($31,435,154) Less: Council-Approved Use of Contingency:      - 8.8 Acre Land Purchase                    ($   265,000)  Approved September 2, 2015      - Lawsuit Settlement                             ($    30,000)  Approved September 16, 2015      - Special Election Costs                       ($    30,000)  Approved June 17, 2015 Est. Decrease in Fund Balance                ($  204,612) General Fund Revenues Local sales tax collections in the General Fund total $5.3 million or 34.8% of the budget amount of $15.4 million. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $576,000 or 3.8% due entirely to one-time construction sales taxes from updated projections on single family residential building activity and slower commercial development than planned. Single family residential permits for FY 15/16 are estimated at 165, versus 200 budgeted. All other local sales tax categories are trending on budget. Please see Attachment F for a monthly tracking of General Fund local sales tax collections, including construction and utility sales tax.   License and permit revenues total $494,542 or 28.0% of the budget amount of $1.8 million. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $218,000 or 12.4% due to updated projections on residential and commercial building activity, as referenced above. Federal grant revenues total $284,937 or 51.7% of the budget amount of $551,545. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $73,000 or 13.3% due to recent financial changes at the Counter Narcotics Alliance (CNA). The loss in revenue will be offset with vacancy savings in the Police Department.    State shared revenues total $4.2 million or 40.7% of the budget amount of $10.4 million, and are estimated to come in over budget by roughly $145,000 or 1.4%, based on projections from the Arizona Department of Revenue and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.       Charges for Services revenues total $801,767 or 42.8% of the budget amount of $1.9 million. These revenues are anticipated to come in over budget by about $90,000 or 4.8% due mostly to revenues at the Aquatic Center. Revenues from fines total $63,984 or 53.3% of the budget amount of $120,000, and are estimated to come in over budget by $20,000 or 16.7% based on observed trends. Interest income revenues are negative due to recent unrealized losses attributable to market fluctuations in the Town's investment portfolio as interest rates move. This activity occurs routinely in the Town's portfolio, and any realized losses and gains are finalized and posted at year-end. At this point, staff is projecting to end the year on budget in this category. General Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by approximately $638,000 or 2.0%. Of this amount, approximately $475,000 was planned for one-time CIP projects to be funded entirely with one-time construction sales taxes and permitting revenues. Projects have been slowed down or placed on hold temporarily, due to the updated projections on single family residential and placed on hold temporarily, due to the updated projections on single family residential and commercial construction activity. Should construction activity increase, these projects can be resumed and may be rolled over into next year's budget if not completed this year. The remaining expenditure budget variance is due to estimated personnel and department operating savings. Please note that these savings are estimates and are subject to change. HIGHWAY FUND Highway Fund Revenues State shared highway user revenue funds (HURF) total $1.2 million or 40.0% of the budget amount of $3.0 million. Highway Fund revenues in total are estimated to come in over budget by nearly $53,000 or 1.6%, due to one-time insurance recoveries and reimbursement from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) for Transportation Art by Youth (TABY) program expenditures.     Highway Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $14,000 or 0.3% due to anticipated personnel savings. Please note that these personnel savings are estimates and are subject to change.  BED TAX FUND Bed Tax Revenues Bed tax revenues total $335,622 or 35.5% of the budget amount of $945,000, and are estimated to come in on budget at this time. Bed Tax Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $5,600 or 0.5% due to projected personnel savings. Please note that personnel savings are estimates and are subject to change. COMMUNITY CENTER & GOLF FUND Attachment D-1 shows the consolidated financial status of the Community Center and Golf Fund with all revenues and expenditures from Troon and Town-managed operations. Attachment D-2 shows the monthly line item detail for the Troon-managed operations, specifically revenues and expenditures associated with the golf, tennis, food and beverage and lifeguard operations. The totals in the revenue and expenditure categories in Attachment D-2 tie to the Contracted Operating Revenues and Expenditures in Attachment D-1. Attachment D-3 shows the revenues and expenditures for the Troon-managed food and beverage operations only.  Please note that the negative fund balance of $135,389 shown on Attachment F for the Community Center & Golf Fund is projected to turn positive following an anticipated increase in winter and spring activity for golf season and holiday sales tax collections. Community Center & Golf Fund Revenues Revenues in the Community Center & Golf Fund total $2.0 million or 27.0% of the budget amount of $7.4 million. Contracted operating revenues from Troon total $1,044,121 and Town operating revenues total $232,748. Local sales tax revenues from the dedicated half-cent sales tax total $724,667 or 36.2% of the budget amount of $2,000,000. Contracted operating revenues from Troon are estimated to come in under budget by about $1.4 million or 29.6%, based on the updated forecast from Troon through the remainder of the fiscal year. These revenue estimates have been revised downward to $3.3 million from the original budgeted amount of $4.7 million based on lower revenue trends observed in the first quarter of the fiscal year. Town operating revenues are estimated to come in slightly under budget by about $14,000 or 2.2% due to revised estimates for tennis court and facility rental income. Community Center & Golf Fund Expenditures Expenditures in the Community Center & Golf Fund total $3.2 million or 38.6% of the budget amount of $8.2 million. Contracted operating expenditures from Troon total $2.7 million and Town operating expenditures total $254,527. Capital outlay expenditures total $249,793. Contracted operating expenditures from Troon are estimated to come in under budget by about $968,000 or 15.5%, based on the updated forecast from Troon through the remainder of the fiscal year reflecting savings from operational changes that were implemented in December, as well as other line item expense reductions in the operations and maintenance categories, including closure of the golf courses on Mondays, reduced hours at The Overlook restaurant, reductions in staffing levels in the golf maintenance and restaurant operations, closure of the lap pool through May and reduced hours at the tennis facilities. The year-end expenditure estimates have been revised downward to $5.3 million from the original budgeted amount of $6.2 million. Accordingly, the year-end net loss for the Troon-managed operations has been revised from the budgeted amount of $1.5 million to approximately $1.95 million. The ending fund balance in the Community Center and Golf Fund is estimated at $259,000. Please see attachments A, B and C for additional details on the General Fund, Highway Fund and Bed Tax Fund, respectively. See attachments D-1, D-2 and D-3 for additional details on the Community Center & Golf Fund. See Attachment E for a fiscal year-to-date consolidated summary of all Town funds. In addition, as noted earlier, Attachment F includes a breakdown of monthly local sales tax collections for the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information only. Attachments Attachment A - General Fund Attachment B - Highway Fund Attachment C - Bed Tax Fund Attachment D-1 CC & Golf Fund Attachment D-2 Troon Cash Flow Attachment D-3 Troon F&B Attachment E - Summary All Funds Attachment F - Gen Fund Local Sales Tax ATTACHMENT A November YTD Financial Status General Fund % Budget Completion through November --- 41.7% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: LOCAL SALES TAX 5,338,560 15,350,654 34.8% 14,774,654 -3.8% LICENSES & PERMITS 494,542 1,764,000 28.0% 1,546,000 -12.4% FEDERAL GRANTS 284,937 551,545 51.7% 478,418 -13.3% STATE GRANTS 488,938 1,434,300 34.1% 1,434,300 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 4,243,967 10,428,531 40.7% 10,574,275 1.4% OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 42,420 105,000 40.4% 105,000 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 801,767 1,873,834 42.8% 1,964,224 4.8% FINES 63,984 120,000 53.3% 140,000 16.7% INTEREST INCOME (774) 94,400 -0.8% 94,400 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 45,750 135,000 33.9% 139,271 3.2% TRANSFERS IN - 305,000 0.0%305,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 11,804,090 32,162,264 36.7% 31,555,542 -1.9% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: COUNCIL 101,042 211,995 47.7% 211,995 0.0% CLERK 134,371 407,900 32.9% 372,900 -8.6% MANAGER 285,770 769,521 37.1% 769,521 0.0% HUMAN RESOURCES 118,673 366,775 32.4% 366,775 0.0% FINANCE 268,809 779,760 34.5% 745,659 -4.4% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 686,113 1,571,326 43.7% 1,571,326 0.0% GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 759,838 1,804,970 42.1% 1,804,970 0.0% LEGAL 258,621 764,837 33.8% 764,837 0.0% COURT 296,122 837,629 35.4% 837,629 0.0% DEV & INFRASTRUCTURE SVCS 1,683,811 4,596,216 36.6% 4,586,404 -0.2% PARKS & RECREATION 1,220,266 3,004,988 40.6% 3,004,988 0.0% POLICE 5,657,311 15,250,016 37.1% 15,166,635 -0.5% TRANSFERS OUT 542,378 1,706,810 31.8%1,231,515 -27.8% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,013,126 32,072,743 37.5% 31,435,154 -2.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (209,035) 89,521 120,388 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 10,151,872 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)120,388 Less: Approved Use of Contingency Reserves during FY 15/16: 8.8 Acre Land Purchase (Proximity to JDK Park and CDO High School)(265,000) Special Election Costs (30,000) Lawsuit Settlement - Mora v. Town of Oro Valley (30,000) ENDING FUND BALANCE ** 9,947,260 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 11/2015 Actuals thru 11/2015 Budget F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Nov\Nov FY 16 Monthly Report 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT B November YTD Financial Status FY 2015/2016 % Budget Completion through November --- 41.7% Actuals thru 11/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to BudgetREVENUES: LICENSES & PERMITS 16,322 51,000 32.0% 51,000 0.0% STATE GRANTS 23,999 - 0.0% 23,999 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 1,193,103 2,985,464 40.0% 2,985,464 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 55,833 134,000 41.7% 134,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 1,026 22,400 4.6% 22,400 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 29,565 10,000 295.6%38,582 285.8% TOTAL REVENUES 1,319,847 3,202,864 41.2% 3,255,445 1.6% Actuals thru 11/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATION 464,298 880,396 52.7% 880,396 0.0% TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 205,402 561,772 36.6% 561,772 0.0% PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 418,035 1,473,581 28.4% 1,473,581 0.0% STREET MAINTENANCE 440,675 1,159,510 38.0% 1,145,256 -1.2% TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 192,492 783,419 24.6%783,419 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,720,901 4,858,678 35.4% 4,844,424 -0.3% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (401,054) (1,655,814) (1,588,979) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3,291,083 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(1,588,979) ENDING FUND BALANCE **1,702,104 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision Highway Fund F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Nov\Nov FY 16 Monthly Report 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT C November YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through November --- 41.7% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: BED TAXES 335,622 945,000 35.5% 945,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME (54) 4,800 -1.1%4,800 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 335,569 949,800 35.3% 949,800 0.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 181,825 672,732 27.0% 667,104 -0.8% TRANSFERS OUT 229,544 414,544 55.4%414,544 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 411,369 1,087,276 37.8% 1,081,648 -0.5% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (75,801) (137,476) (131,848) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 464,626 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(131,848) ENDING FUND BALANCE **332,778 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Bed Tax Fund Budget Actuals thru 11/2015 Actuals thru 11/2015 F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Nov\Nov FY 16 Monthly Report 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT D-1 November YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through November --- 41.7% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: CONTRACTED OPERATING REVENUES Golf Revenues 285,987 1,771,106 16.1% 1,197,889 -32.4% Member Dues (Golf) 333,658 1,370,867 24.3% 1,015,658 -25.9% Tennis Revenues 140,102 279,837 50.1% 300,576 7.4% Food & Beverage 208,695 850,852 24.5% 624,173 -26.6% Merchandise & Other 75,679 469,671 16.1%202,179 -57.0% 1,044,121 4,742,333 22.0% 3,340,475 -29.6% TOWN OPERATING REVENUES Daily Drop-Ins 8,114 27,550 29.5% 27,550 0.0% Member Dues 202,812 526,480 38.5% 526,480 0.0% Recreation Programs 20,614 84,000 24.5% 84,000 0.0% Tennis Court Rentals - 7,200 0.0% 4,000 -44.4% Facility Rental Income 587 13,200 4.4% 1,000 -92.4% Concession Sales 621 - 0.0%1,000 0.0% 232,748 658,430 35.3% 644,030 -2.2% OTHER REVENUES Local Sales Tax 724,667 2,000,000 36.2% 2,000,000 0.0% Donations 100 - 0.0%100 0.0% 724,767 2,000,000 36.2% 2,000,100 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 2,001,635 7,400,763 27.0% 5,984,605 -19.1% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: CONTRACTED OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 1,113,573 2,638,457 42.2% 2,209,765 -16.2% Operations & Maintenance 1,367,282 3,289,219 41.6% 2,795,043 -15.0% Equipment Leases 177,071 333,000 53.2%288,125 -13.5% 2,657,926 6,260,676 42.5% 5,292,933 -15.5% TOWN OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 186,476 462,517 40.3% 462,517 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 68,051 225,140 30.2%225,140 0.0% 254,527 687,657 37.0% 687,657 0.0% CAPITAL OUTLAY 249,793 1,115,000 22.4% 650,000 -41.7% TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND - 120,000 0.0% 120,000 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,162,246 8,183,333 38.6% 6,750,590 -17.5% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (1,160,610) (782,570) (765,985) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 1,025,222 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(765,985) ENDING FUND BALANCE **259,237 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2015/2016 Actuals thru 11/2015 Budget Year End Estimate * Community Center & Golf Fund Actuals thru 11/2015 Budget Year End Estimate * F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2015-2016\2Q\Nov\Nov FY 16 Monthly Report 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT D-2 TR O O N El C o n q ui s t a d o r C a s h F l o w S t a t e m e n t A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l A ct u a l O r i g in a l B u d g et F o r e c a s t Ju l - 1 5 A u g -1 5 S e p -1 5 O c t - 1 5 N o v - 1 5 T O T A L T OT A L T OTAL R e v e n u e s : Go l f F e e s , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 41 , 0 9 7 3 5 , 5 4 9 5 1 , 7 2 2 5 0 , 5 5 2 9 3 , 1 2 4 2 7 2 , 0 4 4 1 , 4 5 6 , 2 7 1 9 9 5 , 5 0 4 Me m b e r G o l f F e e s , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s - - - - - - 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 4 , 2 0 0 Go l f - G r o u p S e r v i c e s - - - (55 0 ) 6 0 (49 0 ) - (490 ) Ra n g e, R e n t a l s , O t h e r G o l f r e l a t e d 1, 3 6 8 1 , 5 9 3 1 , 9 8 4 2 , 7 1 2 2 , 8 3 9 1 0 , 4 9 6 1 2 7 , 7 3 5 6 9 , 6 9 3 Go l f L e s s o n s 7 8 5 5 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 6 8 0 8 4 7 3 , 9 3 7 7 , 1 0 0 8 , 9 8 2 To t a l M e m b e r D u e s 65 , 3 7 7 5 7 , 7 8 6 6 4 , 7 1 9 6 9 , 9 7 0 7 5 , 8 0 6 3 3 3 , 6 5 8 1 , 3 7 0 , 8 6 7 1 , 0 1 5 , 6 5 8 Sw i m / T e n n i s R e v e n u e s 2 4 , 9 2 3 9 , 1 7 2 2 7 , 5 9 3 5 1 , 5 4 3 2 6 , 8 7 1 1 4 0 , 1 0 2 2 7 9 , 8 3 7 3 0 0 , 5 7 6 Sa l o n / S p a R e v e n u e s - 1 5 0 4 0 0 - - 5 5 0 - 5 5 0 GO L F P U S C H R I D G E R e v e n u e s - 2 0 - - - 2 0 - 2 0 Me r c h a n d i s e , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 1 1 , 1 1 2 9 , 3 4 2 1 2 , 4 6 2 1 7 , 5 5 5 2 4 , 6 3 8 7 5 , 1 0 9 4 6 9 , 6 7 1 2 0 1 , 6 0 9 Fo o d a n d B e v e r a g e, n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 3 4 , 0 0 2 2 9 , 4 3 0 3 5 , 0 7 7 4 4 , 4 8 1 6 5 , 7 0 5 2 0 8 , 6 9 5 8 5 0 , 8 5 2 6 2 4 , 1 7 3 To t a l R e v e n u e s 1 7 8 , 6 6 4 1 4 3 , 5 5 2 1 9 5 , 0 7 2 2 3 6 , 9 4 3 2 8 9 , 8 9 0 1 , 0 4 4 , 1 2 1 4 , 7 4 2 , 3 3 3 3 , 3 4 0 , 4 7 5 C o s t o f S a l e s : CO S - G o l f - - - - - - 1 7 , 6 9 0 8 , 1 7 9 CO S - G o l f L e s s o n s 6 9 2 2 8 2 1 0 0 9 3 7 5 4 6 2 , 5 5 7 5 , 6 8 0 6 , 5 9 3 CO S - S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n s 1 4 , 2 6 8 1 0 , 0 2 3 1 4 , 4 7 7 2 1 , 7 8 3 1 6 , 5 1 6 7 7 , 0 6 7 1 6 1 , 7 9 1 1 7 1 , 2 6 1 CO S - M e r c h a n d i s e , n e t o f d i s c o u n t s 9 , 8 7 7 5 , 5 1 7 6 , 3 3 5 1 0 , 1 9 6 1 6 , 9 3 1 4 8 , 8 5 6 2 9 9 , 5 2 7 1 5 0 , 0 5 6 CO S - F o o d & B e v e r a g e 1 4 , 1 7 2 1 1 , 4 8 4 1 5 , 1 5 0 1 4 , 8 7 5 2 6 , 9 1 7 8 2 , 5 9 8 2 6 7 , 4 1 8 2 1 5 , 5 5 1 To t a l C o s t o f S a l e s 3 9 , 0 0 9 2 7 , 3 0 6 3 6 , 0 6 2 4 7 , 7 9 1 6 0 , 9 1 0 2 1 1 , 0 7 8 7 5 2 , 1 0 5 5 5 1 , 6 4 0 Gr o s s P r o f i t 1 3 9 , 6 5 5 1 1 6 , 2 4 6 1 5 9 , 0 1 0 1 8 9 , 1 5 2 2 2 8 , 9 8 0 8 3 3 , 0 4 3 3 , 9 9 0 , 2 2 8 2 , 7 8 8 , 8 3 5 O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s : Pa y ro l l 1 9 3 , 3 2 5 1 8 2 , 6 9 4 1 7 2 , 7 3 1 1 9 3 , 5 1 4 1 5 9 , 4 6 6 9 0 1 , 7 3 0 2 , 1 8 2 , 8 5 9 1 , 7 8 6 , 7 3 0 Em p lo y ee B e n e f i t s 4 0 , 6 3 0 3 8 , 5 3 1 4 5 , 4 6 6 3 1 , 7 2 9 3 5 , 8 7 9 1 9 2 , 2 3 5 4 0 6 , 3 1 4 3 7 1 , 8 3 5 Em p lo y ee R e l a t e d 5 , 6 4 4 3 , 8 7 3 3 , 2 0 4 3 , 1 8 7 3 , 7 0 0 1 9 , 6 0 8 4 9 , 2 8 4 5 1 , 2 0 0 Pr o f e s s i o n a l F e e s - - 3 0 6 1 0 - 3 1 6 3 , 9 7 5 3 , 7 4 1 A dv e r t i s i n g & M a r k e t i n g 5, 2 1 3 2 , 3 5 9 1 4 , 3 1 8 5 , 7 2 5 2 7 , 6 1 5 7 7 , 7 6 8 6 3 , 7 5 9 Co m p E x p en s e - 3 , 3 4 0 - - - 3 , 3 4 0 - 3 , 3 4 0 Re p ai r & M a i n t e n a n c e 5 3 , 8 1 7 6 1 , 6 6 2 8 4 , 3 5 3 8 2 , 9 0 3 3 2 , 5 2 0 3 1 5 , 2 5 5 4 8 8 , 0 5 0 4 9 4 , 6 7 9 O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 2 7 , 6 2 7 2 5 , 8 5 8 2 0 , 4 7 8 2 1 , 4 8 8 1 8 , 5 7 6 1 1 4 , 0 2 7 4 1 3 , 7 9 1 2 7 0 , 8 8 6 To t a l O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 3 2 6 , 2 5 6 3 1 5 , 9 5 8 3 2 8 , 8 9 7 3 4 7 , 1 4 9 2 5 5 , 8 6 6 1 , 5 7 4 , 1 2 6 3 , 6 2 2 , 0 4 1 3 , 0 4 6 , 1 7 0 O p er a t i n g P r o f i t (18 6 , 6 0 1 ) (19 9 , 7 1 2 ) (16 9 , 8 8 7 ) (15 7 , 9 9 7 ) (26 , 8 8 6 ) (74 1 , 0 8 3 ) 3 6 8 , 1 8 6 (257,335 ) Le a s e s - C a r t s 1 6 , 4 4 0 1 6 , 4 4 0 1 6 , 3 6 4 1 6 , 3 6 4 8 , 3 7 7 7 3 , 9 8 5 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 2 , 6 2 4 Le a s e s - E q ui p me n t 1 9 , 6 0 5 2 2 , 3 5 7 5 , 1 6 3 (4, 3 2 4 ) - 4 2 , 8 0 1 2 2 8 , 0 0 0 1 5 5 , 5 0 1 Ut i l i t i e s 1 6 8 , 4 7 2 1 4 1 , 5 8 9 1 4 8 , 5 6 7 1 3 4 , 2 5 9 3 9 , 1 2 0 6 3 2 , 0 0 7 1 , 3 2 0 , 3 9 1 1 , 2 5 6 , 5 4 5 Fi x e d O p er a t i n g E x p en s e s 2 0 4 , 5 1 7 1 8 0 , 3 8 6 1 7 0 , 0 9 4 1 4 6 , 2 9 9 4 7 , 4 9 7 7 4 8 , 7 9 3 1 , 6 5 3 , 3 9 1 1 , 5 4 4 , 6 7 0 Gr o s s O p er a t i n g P r o f i t (39 1 , 1 1 8 ) (38 0 , 0 9 8 ) (33 9 , 9 8 1 ) (30 4 , 2 9 6 ) (74 , 3 8 3 ) (1, 4 8 9 , 8 7 6 ) (1, 2 8 5 , 2 0 5 ) (1,802,005 ) In s u r a n c e - 8 6 - 8 6 8 6 2 5 8 8 5 , 5 2 0 2 5 8 Pr o p er t y T a x e s - - 1 , 0 1 1 - - 1 , 0 1 1 - 1 , 0 1 1 Fe e s , P e r m i t s & L i c e n s e s 9 2 5 0 8 6 8 0 - 4 2 5 3 , 6 1 9 3 , 2 3 4 Ba s e M a n a g em e n t F e e s 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 Ba d D e b t - 1 , 0 8 0 2 7 0 6 0 0 - 1 , 9 5 0 - 1 , 9 5 0 To t a l O t h e r E x p en s e s 1 2 , 0 0 9 1 3 , 4 1 6 1 3 , 3 6 7 1 2 , 7 6 6 1 2 , 0 8 6 6 3 , 6 4 4 2 3 3 , 1 3 9 1 5 0 , 4 5 3 Ne t I n c o m e (Lo s s ) (40 3 , 1 2 9 ) (39 3 , 5 1 4 ) (35 3 , 3 4 8 ) (31 7 , 0 6 2 ) (86 , 4 6 9 ) (1, 5 5 3 , 5 2 2 ) (1, 5 1 8 , 3 4 3 ) (1,952,458 ) 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT D-3 ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET MONTH MONTH Y-T-D Y-T-D FOOD & BEVERAGE REVENUE 65,705 98,514 208,595 292,146 TOTAL REVENUES 65,705 98,514 208,595 292,146 COST OF SALES 26,917 31,248 82,599 93,930 PAYROLL & BENEFITS 51,398 39,601 233,361 187,906 OPERATING EXPENSES 10,291 7,501 41,518 37,505 NET INCOME (LOSS) (22,901) 20,164 (148,883) (27,195) EL CONQUISTADOR INCOME STATEMENT CONSOLIDATED - RESTAURANT/GRILLE - NOVEMBER 2015 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT E Co n s o l i d a t e d Y e a r - t o - D a t e F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t t h r o u g h N o v e m b e r , 2 0 1 5 FY 2015/201 6 FY 1 5 / 1 6 C a p i t a l L e a s e s / Left in Accounts Be g i n B a l . T r a n s f e r O u t Thru Nov 2015 Ge n e r a l F u n d - Un a s s i g n e d 8 , 5 9 7 , 8 7 3 1 1 , 8 0 4 , 0 9 0 - 1 1 , 8 0 4 , 0 9 0 5 4 2 , 3 7 8 8 , 4 3 4 , 4 9 6 2 , 9 8 6 , 7 1 6 4 9 , 5 3 5 - - 12,013,126 8,388,838 Ge n e r a l F u n d - A s s i g n e d 1 , 5 5 3 , 9 9 9 - 1,553,999 Hi g h w a y F u n d - R e s t r i c t e d 3 , 2 9 1 , 0 8 3 1 , 3 1 9 , 8 4 7 - 1 , 3 1 9 , 8 4 7 2 2 8 , 3 6 6 7 0 4 , 8 7 9 2 3 4 , 1 0 0 5 5 3 , 5 5 7 - - 1,720,901 2,890,029 Se i z u r e & F o r f e i t u r e - J u s t i c e / S t a t e 2 3 5 , 9 5 2 4 6 , 2 2 6 - 4 6 , 2 2 6 - 7 5 , 1 6 9 6 , 4 4 0 1 5 , 0 5 4 - - 96,663 185,515 Be d T a x F u n d - C o m m i t t e d 4 6 4 , 6 2 6 3 3 5 , 5 6 9 - 3 3 5 , 5 6 9 2 2 9 , 5 4 4 8 8 , 6 1 9 9 3 , 2 0 6 - - - 411,369 388,825 Im p o u n d F e e F u n d 2 8 , 4 3 5 2 3 , 7 0 0 - 2 3 , 7 0 0 - 1 0 , 5 7 6 - - - - 10,576 41,559 Co m m u n i t y C e n t e r & G o l f F u n d 1 , 0 2 5 , 2 2 2 2 , 0 0 1 , 6 3 5 - 2 , 0 0 1 , 6 3 5 1 7 7 , 0 7 1 1 8 6 , 4 7 6 2 , 5 4 8 , 9 0 6 2 4 9 , 7 9 3 - - 3,162,246 (135,389) Mu n i c i p a l D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 1 6 6 , 7 9 8 6 0 , 9 9 0 6 5 5 , 7 5 0 7 1 6 , 7 4 0 - - 6 , 0 5 0 - - 711,153 717,203 166,335 Or a c l e R o a d D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 1 , 9 4 6 3 6 , 8 2 3 3 , 0 0 0 3 9 , 8 2 3 - - - - - - - 41,769 Al t e r n a t i v e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 4 , 0 2 1 , 7 9 3 3 7 8 , 8 7 9 - 3 7 8 , 8 7 9 - - 4 0 , 9 0 6 1 7 4 - - 41,080 4,359,592 Po t a b l e W a t e r S y s t e m D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 4 , 8 0 0 , 1 5 3 1 9 1 , 2 9 7 - 1 9 1 , 2 9 7 - - - - - - - 4,991,450 To w n w i d e R o a d w a y D e v e l o p m en t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 , 6 7 7 , 8 5 2 2 0 1 , 7 9 1 - 2 0 1 , 7 9 1 - - - 4 7 , 2 5 0 - - 47,250 2,832,393 Pa r k s & R e c r e a t i o n I m p a c t F e e F u n d 1 3 6 , 1 0 3 4 7 , 8 8 9 - 4 7 , 8 8 9 - - - - - - - 183,992 Li b r a r y I m p a c t F e e F u n d 9 4 , 7 9 8 - - - - - - 1 9 , 4 6 5 - - 19,465 75,333 Po l i c e I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 5 4 , 5 7 7 2 4 , 8 0 9 - 2 4 , 8 0 9 - - - - - - - 279,386 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 3 , 5 0 5 2 - 2 - - - - - - - 3,507 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t C I P F u n d 1 , 4 2 1 , 5 9 3 - 3 4 4 , 5 6 8 3 4 4 , 5 6 8 - - - 1 , 0 1 6 , 8 1 1 - - 1,016,811 749,350 PA G / R T A F u n d - 1 , 8 9 4 , 3 0 5 - 1 , 8 9 4 , 3 0 5 - 1 5 , 3 0 3 - 1 , 6 8 8 , 9 6 6 - - 1,704,269 190,036 Wa t e r U t i l i t y 13 , 8 6 4 , 3 5 9 6 , 8 9 5 , 0 5 3 - 6 , 8 9 5 , 0 5 3 3 , 0 3 0 1 , 0 9 5 , 3 4 2 2 , 6 9 6 , 0 0 4 1 , 2 6 7 , 3 5 3 - - 5,061,729 15,697,683 St o r m w a t e r U t i l i t y 27 9 , 3 5 3 3 3 3 , 5 2 5 - 3 3 3 , 5 2 5 - 1 3 0 , 7 6 1 1 4 5 , 2 2 7 6 1 , 5 0 4 - - 337,492 275,386 Fl e e t F u n d 2 9 8 , 9 2 2 4 3 2 , 2 6 2 - 4 3 2 , 2 6 2 - 3 1 , 4 9 3 2 0 0 , 3 3 8 1 2 3 , 6 2 7 - - 355,459 375,726 Be n e f i t S e l f I n s u r a n c e F u n d 2 4 4 , 1 6 2 1 , 0 9 9 , 7 5 7 - 1 , 0 9 9 , 7 5 7 - - 1 , 0 8 2 , 2 1 6 - - - 1,082,216 261,704 Re c r e a t i o n I n - L i e u F e e F u n d 6 , 1 9 0 2 1 , 7 2 8 - 2 1 , 7 2 8 - - - - - - - 27,918 To t a l 4 3 , 4 6 9 , 2 9 4 2 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 7 9 1 , 0 0 3 , 3 1 8 2 8 , 1 5 3 , 4 9 7 1 , 1 8 0 , 3 8 9 1 0 , 7 7 3 , 1 1 5 1 0 , 0 4 0 , 1 0 8 5 , 0 9 3 , 0 8 9 - 711,153 27,797,855 43,824,937 Total Out Pe r s o n n e l O & M C a p i t a l C o n t i n g e n c y Fu n d R e v e n u e Ot h e r F i n So u r c e s / T f r s To t a l I n Debt Service F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 6 \ 2 Q \ N o v \ A t t a c h m e n t E - S u m m a r y A l l F u n d s 12/22/2015 ATTACHMENT F Ge n e r a l F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x C o l l e c t i o n s FY 2015/201 6 CA T E G O R Y J U L Y A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R AP R MAY J U N E T O T A L Co n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s T a x 1 9 3 , 4 9 7 1 6 0 , 7 5 9 1 9 0 , 8 1 2 2 3 4 , 7 6 3 2 2 2 , 5 4 8 1,002,379 Ut i l i t y S a l e s T a x 2 5 7 , 5 5 2 3 1 2 , 4 9 4 3 0 4 , 6 6 6 2 8 6 , 6 6 7 2 4 3 , 8 2 7 1,405,205 Re t a i l S a l e s T a x 4 4 1 , 5 5 7 4 1 5 , 2 0 9 3 9 3 , 6 9 0 4 0 3 , 1 9 3 4 1 3 , 2 3 1 2,066,880 Al l O t h e r L o c a l S a l e s T a x * 23 9 , 7 3 9 2 2 9 , 7 6 6 1 8 2 , 4 8 4 2 1 6 , 3 6 1 2 7 0 , 6 3 7 1,138,988 TO T A L 1 , 1 3 2 , 3 4 6 $ 1 , 1 1 8 , 2 2 8 $ 1 , 0 7 1 , 6 5 2 $ 1 , 1 4 0 , 9 8 4 $ 1 , 1 5 0 , 2 4 2 $ 5,613,451 $ * N o t e : D o e s n o t i n c l u d e c a b l e f r a n c h i s e f e e s o r s a l e s t a x a u d i t r e v e n u e s F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 6 \ 2 Q \ N o v \ A t t a c h m e n t F - G e n F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x 12/22/2015 Town Council Regular Session Item # D. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Julie Bower Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Reappointment to the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the reappointment of Adam Wade to a two-year term that expires December 31, 2017, or until such time as a replacement can be found. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) was formed to provide input to the local jurisdictions on issues of concern to the bicycling community. The Town is responsible for appointing one representative to the BAC to represent the Town and provide a communication link to the BAC.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Adam Wade's term on the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) has expired as of December 31, 2015. Mr. Wade has agreed to remain on the BAC until a replacement is found. The Town is actively seeking applicants. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to reappoint Adam Wade to the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2017. Town Council Regular Session Item # E. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Submitted By:Chris Cornelison, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)16-01, approving the Town's annual Legislative Agenda, protocols guiding the Town’s priorities for the upcoming legislative session and any lobbying activities RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Each year, the Town Council approves a general Town of Oro Valley Legislative Agenda covering state and federal issues. This agenda identifies the recommended legislative priorities of the Town in the upcoming state legislative session and will guide the Town's requests and lobbying activities. Although the Legislative Agenda should remain flexible due to the unknown nature of bills introduced in the State Legislature, the general concepts and direction are provided here for your discussion and approval. More specific information can be provided, as desired and necessary, after bills are actually introduced. The issues discussed in this report are based on the needs of the Town and what is known about anticipated legislation. Town staff and the Council legislative liaison, Councilmember Joe Hornat, will work closely throughout the legislative session in addressing a variety of issues and bills that may arise. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Town staff and the Council liaison, Councilmember Joe Hornat, will work closely throughout the legislative session in addressing a variety of issues and bills that may arise. Council Policy In 2008, the Town Council established protocol for the legislative efforts of the Town by approving the general Legislative Agenda through a resolution and adoption of a Council Communication that describes specific components of the legislative program. A basic principle in any lobbying effort is to speak with one voice, so this resolution establishes guidelines for those who represent the Town. A summary of the elements of the 2016 Legislative Agenda pertaining to the State Legislature is included as Attachment 2. For state legislative efforts, the Council uses staff and designates a Councilmember as Council Liaison to Legislative Districts 9 and 11. The Mayor also frequently interacts with other elected officials at all levels of government during the course of his duties and works with staff in ensuring any legislative efforts regionally, statewide or federally are coordinated in accordance with the Council-adopted agenda. League of Arizona Cities and Towns The Town’s intergovernmental liaison works closely with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, specifically regarding state legislative issues with a strength-in-numbers approach to common interest legislation. The state legislative agenda is developed through involvement in the League resolutions process. The Mayor represents the Town of Oro Valley as a voting member of the Resolutions Committee, which is comprised of mayors from all Arizona municipalities. The adopted League resolutions, included as Attachment 3, represent the mutual interests of Arizona cities and towns, and will guide the League in its lobbying efforts on behalf of all cities and towns in the state. The 52nd State Legislature The complete list of members of the 52nd Legislature is included as Attachment 4. Staff will also provide members of the Council with an updated version of "The Green Book," the Arizona Capitol Times guide to the Legislature, as soon as it becomes available. State Legislative Calendar / Process The Legislature typically operates on a 100-day calendar; however, the Governor also has the authority to call the Legislature into session to address specific issues. The 2nd Regular Session of the 52nd Legislature begins Monday, January 11, 2016. Furthermore, the Legislature typically conducts business Monday through Thursday. The target date for the end of the regular session is April 20, 2016. Over one-thousand bills are introduced in the Legislature each session. In the Senate, all bills must be introduced within three weeks of the start of the session, and in the House, bills must be introduced within four weeks. As a result, all bills will be introduced prior to February 8, 2016, although there are provisions that allow members to submit bill amendments throughout the session, which effectively means that a bill with co-sponsors can be introduced at any time during the regular session. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (adopt or deny) Resolution No. (R)16-01, approving the Town's annual Legislative Agenda and protocols guiding the Town's priorities for the upcoming legislative session and any lobbying activities. Attachments (R)16-01 Legislative Agenda Attachment 2 - Legislative Agenda Summary Attachment 3 - League Resolutions Attachment 4 - 52nd Legislature C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@900BE7D3\@BCL@900BE7D3.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, APPROVING THE ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OF THE TOWN AND PROTOCOLS GUIDING THE TOWN’S PRIORITIES FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, a major objective of the Town Council is to adopt an aggressive legislative program which strengthens local government, promotes Town goals and defends the Town against legislative actions by State and Federal governments that would weaken local government and/or take away traditional revenue sources; and WHEREAS, it is vital to the fiscal health and the self determination of the Town to effectively communicate with State Legislators and Federal representatives in order to favorably influence State and Federal legislation, regulations and grant requests; and WHEREAS, actions taken by the Pima County Board of Supervisors have a direct impact upon the quality of life in Oro Valley, and it is imperative that the Town maintain quality communications with Pima County; and WHEREAS, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns conducts a legislative analysis and advocacy program on behalf of cities and towns for State issues, which is governed annually by the League resolutions process adopted by cities around the state at the annual conference each fall; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to be proactive and involved in governmental decision making processes directly affecting the Town legislative priorities identified in the Council Communication dated January 6, 2016, and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns legislative priorities identified in Exhibit “A,” and other selected issues as may from time to time be recommended by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns; and WHEREAS, a key component of the Town’s legislative program is face to face meetings between Town representatives and elected officials at the Federal, State and County levels, and coordination with similar efforts made by other regional and local entities such as the Pima Association of Governments (PAG), and Sun Corridor, Inc. (formerly Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc. or TREO). C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@900BE7D3\@BCL@900BE7D3.doc NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that the Town Council of Oro Valley does hereby establish the Legislative Agenda for 2016, as set forth in the Council Communication dated January 6, 2016, and authorizes staff to take positions on legislation generally consistent with the Legislative Agenda and such other resolutions and recommendations that from time to time may be presented to the Town. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Town staff is directed to schedule meetings, as appropriate and convenient, with our congressional, state, county and other local officials to discuss and promote the Town’s legislative program, and to continue efforts to improve communications and relationships with the Pima County Board of Supervisors and cities around the state to further our interests in land use, water, transportation, economic development, and public services to our residents. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 6th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@900BE7D3\@BCL@900BE7D3.doc EXHIBIT “A” 2016 Legislative Agenda Summary The following paragraphs provide a summary of key elements of the 2016 Legislative Agenda. Although the legislative agenda should remain flexible due to the unknown nature of bills introduced in the State Legislature, the general concepts and direction are provided here for your discussion and approval. Local Control Decentralized government at the local level represents a fundamental principle of American democracy, recognizing that when it comes to community governance, one size does not fit all. It is in the Town’s best interest to preserve its own local control on issues that affect its citizens and therefore, the Town will endorse legislation that supports and sustains this principle and oppose legislation that conflicts with the autonomy of cities and towns. State Shared Revenues & Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) Possible reductions in state-shared revenues remain a major concern for cities and towns. The revenue sharing system was created through the voter initiative process in order to allow local jurisdictions to fund essential services such as public safety and infrastructure without interference from the State. Protection of the revenue sharing system that has been in place since 1972 is a core principle of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and remains a top priority of the Town’s legislative agenda. In 2014, the Legislature passed SB 1487 (revenue; budget reconciliation; 2014-2015), which authorized the allocation of $30M for FY 2014/15, $30M for FY 2015/16 and $60M for FY 2016/17 to the HURF utilizing a calculation set forth within the statute. Since cities and towns have experienced significant reductions in the HURF during previous legislative sessions, it is a concern that the revenues authorized within SB 1487 will be discontinued due to the State’s current budget deficit projections. As a result, the Town supports legislative efforts to restore or maintain HURF funding and identify permanent, designated funding sources for transportation infrastructure and transit that do not impact other state-shared revenues. Education & Economic Development Although the Town is not directly involved in education issues, public education is important to the long- term health and vitality of our community, and is a fundamental component of economic development. The University of Arizona, Pima Community College, Amphitheater School District, and public charter schools provide the foundation for our future success. The Town does not support efforts to reduce funding for public education. Economic development that creates high-wage jobs and builds on our success as a hub for high-tech and bio-medical research, development and manufacturing is a top priority of the Town. The Town supports state economic development efforts through the Arizona Commerce Authority and efforts to develop the film industry through a tax incentive program. With statewide growing interest in developing Interstate 11 as a major transportation route between Mexico and Canada, the Town supports the passage of legislation or engagement in other activities that support and advocate for resources to improve Arizona’s ports of entry with Mexico and related infrastructure. However, the Town’s top priority is for the southern extension of I-11 to be aligned through the Tucson-metro area. Annexation State statutes regarding municipal annexation have become overly complex and are a barrier to regional development and fiscal sustainability. As a result, the Town supports reforms that remove barriers to annexation and reduce the need for counties to provide municipal services such as public safety, roadway maintenance, and development services. Because the state-shared revenue system is based on the population of incorporated areas, the Tucson metro areas loses out on tens of millions of dollars in sales tax, income tax and highway tax revenue each year. Sensible reforms that facilitate annexation of unincorporated areas and county islands by towns like Oro Valley, Marana and Sahuarita will result in enhanced services to residents and businesses and will bring additional state-shared revenue to the region. The Town supports reforms that remove barriers to annexation and reduce the need for counties to provide municipal services. Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) Pension Reform Reforming PSPRS is one of the most important issues facing taxpayers in Arizona, as the current system is not sustainable. The growing unfunded liability results in increased annual pension costs for employers, resulting in a larger share of an employer’s budget to be spent on pension costs, with fewer resources available for public safety and other essential services. The Town supports evaluation and reform efforts to create a sustainable pension system that will serve to attract the highest quality employees while maintaining affordability for taxpayers. OVERVIEW The 91 incorporated cities and towns of Arizona are ~n$Ne 10 their constituents and efficiently deliver the essential $8rvices their citizens demand through transparent operations, fiscal responsibility and long range planning. Cities and towns are whe ... the majority ol the stale's papulation liws and works and where the economic vitality of the stale thrives. This Municipal Policy Statement represents the 2016 palicy prioriHes adopted 10 ensure cities and towns throughout Arizona continue 10 hCJ'lle the necessary tools to maintain high quality service delivery to residents and businesses. CORE PRINCIPLES The League of Arizona Cities and Towns is governed by two core principles: 11 Preserve locol control, and 21 Protect s~ared revenue. Adherence to these principles is the Foundation of all the league's eIIorts. We will support legislation that reinfcrces these principles, and oppose any that undermines them. ICQNOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUcnJRE Cities and towns are at the forefront of economic vitality and growth. Incorporating these policies would advance financial success. l.egislaliwt I'riorilies o Pmer;o the Highway User Revenue Funds (HURFI allocated to Arizona cities and towns, and follow the statutory formula lor its distribution. o Foster economic ~ by allowi"IJ ciHes and towns ta creole financing mechanisms 10 invest in Infrastructure and other irnpro¥ements in designated areas. • Create renewable ener:w and conservation financing dislricb For commercial properties on a volunlcry basis. o Authorize the creation ol_Han and detention basin irnpr<Mlll1Ol1t dimcts. o Support funding ta acaoIoooto ho desion and construction ol SIOt8 Reule 189 in ADOT's FMt-Year fronsportatioo Facilities Construction Prograrl. GOOD GOVERNANCE Citizens expect local government 10 be fiscally stable, fair and reasonable in its enforcement, and efficient in its procedures. These concepts further enable municipalities 10 achieve those goals. LogiJalivw _ o Support thorough reform of the PSPRS Sy.tem h>t ach ..... ho goals ou~ined by the League's PSPRS Task Force. • AllOW' cities and towns 10 place reasonable baIooc:es on public record requests that are OYerbroad, abusiYe, or incessant. • Make the requirements For annexation a more effective process, especially when property owners and munic~lities are in agreement. • Expand state licensure ~uirements and local enforcement authority for drug rehabilitction and recovery housing. CO_UNITY INVESTMENT Glizens want great places 10 live and thrive. Vibrant communities relain the people 1hOt live there, and attract n8W' citizens as well. LogiJalivw _ • Partner with cities and towns fer the operaIjoo and maintenance of Arizona State Parks under long term leases. • Restore the Arizona Housing Trust Fund and the Arizona Stale Park Heritage Funds. FEDERAL ACTION Wh.., alll ... ls of Il""""ment work tcgeth ... alll ... ls of society oon prosper. We 0011 on the federal gcwemment to help our cities and towns continue to succeed . LogiJalivw _ o Urge Cong"", ta compel the Federal AviaHon AdministraHon (FAA) to improve ill c:ommunirotion with municipalities when studying changes ta Right paths. • Support the enactment of equal laxation of online retail purchases. • Retain the tax exempt status for municipal bonds. • Support Arizona's military installations. League of Arizona ............ tiesAND FOR MORE INFORMATION: CALL 602·258-5786 VISIT: WWW.AllEAGUE.ORG 0 lWITTER: @AZCITIES FOR MORE INFORMAIlON: CAll 602-258-5786 VISIT: WWW.AZJ£AGUE.ORG.TWITTER: @AZOliES League of Arizona FOR MORE INFORMATION: CALL 602-258-5786 VISIT: WWW.AZlEAGUE.ORG.TWITTER: @AZCITIES I@-"""'" @-RIIpr8HIlkIIIv- " As of prir&i;J 11/16/201!! Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Amanda Jacobs Submitted By:Amanda Jacobs, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH TOHONO CHUL PARK TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 OF THE 420-SEATED EVENT PAVILION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item is being brought before Town Council for discussion and direction in regard to moving forward with the remaining work included in Phase 1 (developing the design) of a 420-seated event pavilion. The first portion of Phase 1 was the market analysis for building an event pavilion which included holding stakeholder and community meetings. The cost of the event pavilion will be determined when Phase 1 is completed.  The remaining portion of Phase 1 will consist of developing the design, which is estimated to cost approximately $70,000. The Town's financial contribution would not exceed $7,800 and would include waiving of fees and other associated costs. On March 13, 2015, TCP officials met with Councilmembers to discuss the possibility of entering into a public-private partnership to build an event pavilion, which would proceed in two phases. Phase 2 would be the parking lot expansion and construction of the pavilion.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: At the July 1, 2015 Council meeting, Town Council directed staff to enter into a public-private partnership with TCP to determine the market and feasibility for building an event pavilion, as well as directed staff to hold up to three stakeholder meetings. As a result, TCP and staff held stakeholder meetings on September 3, September 24 and October 26, 2015. Attached to this report are the notes from all three meetings. The event pavilion concept was discussed during the stakeholder meetings. Consequently, input was received that there is a market for this facility and participants concurred the event pavilion provides the following benefits:  Flexible set-up options for a variety of events - concerts, performances, lectures, celebrations, art and plant sales and children activities  Room for stage riser and dance floor Space for 240 seated at 10-top tables (420 seated auditorium style) Shade/rain pavilion Provision for ceiling fans and infrared radiant heaters in the ceiling Pavilion roof can harvest rainwater The parking lot expansion provides the following benefits:  Provides additional spaces for ADA Ensures a safer experience for the public by lessening the need to park along the roadside or Ensures a safer experience for the public by lessening the need to park along the roadside or across the street at night Allows easy access to seniors and disabled volunteers, staff and visitors to the new pavilion, administration building, gallery house and adjacent amenities with parking spaces and drop off area near the back gate FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is $7,800 in waived permitting fees (approved at the July 1, 2015 Council meeting). SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve/deny) the public-private partnership with Tohono Chul Park to complete Phase 1 with the purpose to design a 420-seated event pavilion. Attachments TCP Meeting Notes TCP Public Meeting September 3, 201S 1. Do you feel there i s a need for a pavilion space like thi s in the community? • Musicians (dance groups, ballets, nature) • Yes . The proposed locat ion is great . There is a lack of ve n ues . • Concern from visitors when t here is no rain back u p . This serves as a possibi li ty for ra i n back up. (2) o There has been loss of concerts, due t o rain • The proposa l lends it se lf for mu ltiple uses (2) • Provides f lexibility • Shade/open ness • Can attract co r po rate bus iness/boost economy • Increase sales tax/prov ide additiona l i nfrastructure • Growth phenomenal-attract events and serve as a destination 2. What type of events do you foresee being held in the pavilion? • Concert s • Educationa l cla sses • Culinary/cooking demonstrations • Gem & minera l show • Events nee d to fi t in t o missio n of park • Native American st orytelling/history • Private events/weddi ngs • Plant sa les/cactus soc iet y/lect ures • Craft shows/demonstrations/pottery/water colors • Exercise classes , such as tai chi • Types of programming similar to Western National Parks Associat ion (WNPA)/Exhibits • Partnership with Children 's Museum, Arizona Parks , Town of Oro Valley • Business expos 3. Is the proposed square footage being proposed adequate for the events envisioned? • Yes • Perfec tl y eloquent • Jo h n Do uglas does outstan d ing wo r k/trust h is work • Recomme nd using part it ions for smaller events • Win -w in for To hono Chu l Park and Oro Va ll ey (2) Additional comments : • Recommend painting restrooms next to Chi ldren's ramada • Question about A/C f or summer months o Can rainwater harvesting serve as water misters? • For maximum capac ity, need to have ability to hang other things within pavi lion , i.e . for special events • Partnership needs to be in w r iting/ag r eement TCP Public Meeting September 24, 2015 1. Do you feel there i s a need for a pavilion space like this in the community? • Yes (3) • The space will generate revenues Comments: • With the new community center and meeting rooms , does the Town still see a need for a pavilion? Economic Development Manager replied yes . • Consider sound 2. What type of events do you foresee being held in the pavilion? • Fundraisers • Weddings, funerals, anniversaries , birthday parties and graduations (2) • Musical presentations (2) o Jazz and blues • Arts and craft fairs • Partnerships with non-profits, such as the Children's Museum • Farmers Market • Audio/visual for business meetings • Movie night • Small trade shows • Health fair 3. Is the proposed square footage being proposed adequate for the events envisioned? • Reasonable, balanced and keeps to character of Tohono Chul Park • Relieved with proposal • Intermediate • What is a similar model? Response: Desert Botanica l Gardens • Yes • Just right Additional Comments: • What did hotels say? • Wonderful opportunity for public • Comment about solar • Mitigate trees and light pollution TCP Pavilion Meeting October 26, 2015 • Bob Weede, Co-Founder & Pr es ident Emeritus of So uth e rn Ar izona Arts & Cul t u ra l Alli ance (SAACA) and Oro Val ley r es id ent (became ill the day of the meeting and did not participate) • Tom M o ulton, Ec on omic Development and Touri sm Dir ec to r, Pima County, SAACA Board M ember and Oro Valley r es ident • Sasha Case, Arts and Cultural Ambassador for Town, arti st and Or o Va ll ey r esiden t • Rick Brusca, Cha irman , To ho no Chul Park • Christine Con te, Executive Direc t or, Tohono Chul Park • Amanda Jacobs, Economic Development Manager, Town of Oro Va ll ey 1. Do you feel there i s a need for a pavilion space like this in the community? • Absolutely, you have to go downtown now to see theater or concert • Like the smaller venue • Yes, it's an opportunity to bring in more culture; however, operationally you need to have the ability to grow/expand 2. What type of events do you foresee being held in the pavilion? • Birthday parties • Concerts/Music • Art exhibits/Crafts/Galleries • Weddings • Company picnics • Partnership with local theater • Partnership with non-profits, such as Children 's Museum • Yoga, Tai Chi, Fitness Classes 3. Is the proposed square foot age being proposed adequate for the events envisioned? • Accomplishes goal. Al l for it. How can I he l p? Tohono Chul Park is a special place. • Size is nice. Mid-size. Could expand out a little . Space needs to be flexible . Additional Comments • Place for people to gather • Have free public days Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Philip Saletta Submitted By:Shirley Seng, Water Department:Water Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-02, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING INCREASES IN WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY RECOMMENDATION: On November 9, 2015, the Water Utility Commission voted to recommend that Council approve the proposed increase in water rates, fees and charges included in the Preferred Financial Scenario. Staff also recommends Council approval of the rate increases proposed in the Preferred Financial Scenario detailed in the Water Rates Analysis Report, dated November 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-511.01, the Council adopted a Notice of Intent to increase water rates on December 2, 2015. The Notice of Intent established a public hearing date for January 6, 2016. The Water Rates Analysis Report was made available for public review by placing a copy of the report in the Town Clerk's office, the Water Utility office and on the Water Utility's webpage. The Notice of Intent was also published in the Daily Territorial on December 8, 2015. The Water Rates Analysis Report includes the Preferred Financial Scenario pro forma in Appendix A, which proposes an increase in the potable and reclaimed water commodity rates. There will be no increases in the monthly base rates or the groundwater preservation fees. The proposed potable rates will increase the average residential customer's bill by $0.44 per month based on 8,000 gallons of water used. The average commercial customer using 57,000 gallons of water will see an increase of $2.85 per month. The proposed reclaimed rate commodity rate will increase a golf course's monthly water bill by $400.00 based on 10,000,000 gallons of water used. Tables providing the financial impact to all meter sizes and customer classifications may be found in Appendix B of the report. It is also proposed that the security deposit for construction water meters be increased to $2,300.00 to recover material costs associated with replacing the meter and backflow device if they are returned damaged by a contractor. If the equipment is returned in good condition, the security deposit is refunded in full. If the proposed rates are approved, the new rates will become effective February 6, 2016. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: In accordance with the Town Council Water Policies, Water Utility staff reviews water rates and charges In accordance with the Town Council Water Policies, Water Utility staff reviews water rates and charges on an annual basis. The Water Utility Commission evaluates staff recommendations based on a rates analysis to assure the recommendations meet Town policies and bond covenants. The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission voted on a recommendation for the Preferred Financial Scenario in the Water Rates Analysis Report. The pro forma for the Preferred Financial Scenario may be found in Appendix A in the report. These financial projections are for a five-year period; however, water rates are approved only for the first year of this five-year projection period. The following summarizes the proposed changes in water rates and service fees for FY 2015-16:  Increase in the potable and reclaimed water commodity rates Increase in the potable and reclaimed construction water rates Increase in the construction meter security deposits The following rates will not be changed:  The monthly base rates for potable and reclaimed water The groundwater preservation fees for potable and reclaimed The proposed increase in the potable water commodity rates will increase the average residential customer's bill by $0.44 per month based on using 8,000 gallons of water. The average commercial customer uses 57,000 gallon of water and will see an increase of $2.85 per month. The proposed increase in the reclaimed commodity rate will increase a golf course's monthly bill by $400.00 based on using 10,000,000 gallons of water. The construction meter security deposit is proposed to increase by $1,100.00 to $2,300 in order to recover material costs when the equipment is returned damaged. The security deposit is fully refunded when the equipment is returned in good condition. The proposed water rates increase is in accordance with Town Council policy:  Debt service coverage requirement of 1.3 is met or exceeded for all five years Cash reserve policy requirements are met for all five years The proposed rate increase avoids sudden and large-scale shifts in water rates (no "rate shock") and avoids higher rate increases in future years Encourages water conservation by providing an incentive to use less water and save money through the existing tiered-rate structure for single-family residential customers and irrigation customers If the proposed rates are approved, the new rates, fees and charges will become effective February 6, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed rate increases will generate sufficient revenue to meet the Water Utility's revenue requirements. The increase in the construction meter security deposit will reduce the Utility's financial risk associated with the replacement of damaged equipment. All proposed rates, fees and charges are designed to maintain the financial stability and fiscal health of the Town's Water Utility. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)16-02, authorizing and approving increases in water rates, fees and charges for the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility. Attachments (R)16-02 Increasing Water Rates, Fees and Charges FY 2015-16 Exhibit 'A' Water Rates Analysis Report RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA,AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING INCREASES IN WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WHEREAS,pursuant to ARS § 9-511, et seq., the Town has the requisite statutory authority to acquire, own and maintain a water utility for the benefit of the residents within and without the Town’s corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS,pursuant to ARS § 9-511, et seq., the Town finds it necessary to increase water rates, fees and charges for the Oro Valley Water Utility, which increases are described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015, Mayor and Council approved Resolution 14-60, providing Notice of Intent to increase water rates, fees and charges; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, Mayor and Council held a Public Hearing to deliberate and vote on the proposed increases in water rates, fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. The Oro Valley Water Utility increases in water rates, fees and charges, as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby authorized and approved. SECTION 2.The Mayor and other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to implement the increases in water rates, fees and charges. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 6th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A” METER SIZE (in inches) 5/8 x 3/4 $14.19 3/4 x 3/4 $21.29 1 $35.48 1.5 $70.95 2 $113.53 3 $227.05 4 $354.77 6 $709.54 8 $1,135.26 METER COMMODITY COMMODITY COMMODITY COMMODITY SIZE TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 $2.32 per 1000 gallons $3.19 per 1000 gallons $4.40 per 1000 gallons $6.05 per 1000 gallons 5/8 x 3/4 0 - 7,000 7,001 - 16,000 16,001 - 32,000 OVER 32,000 3/4 x 3/4 0 - 10,000 10,001 - 24,000 24,001 - 48,000 OVER 48,000 1 0 - 17,000 17,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 80,000 OVER 80,000 1.5 0 - 35,000 35,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 160,000 OVER 160,000 2 0 - 56,000 56,001 - 128,000 128,001 - 256,000 OVER 256,000 3 0 - 112,000 112,001 - 256,000 256,001 - 512,000 OVER 512,000 4 0 - 175,000 175,001 - 400,000 400,001 - 800,000 OVER 800,000 6 0 - 860,000 860,001 - 2,000,000 2,000,001 - 3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000 8 0 - 860,000 860,001 - 2,000,000 2,000,001 - 3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000 COMMODITY RATES - RECLAIMED WATER RATES FOR THE ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS E X H I B I T " A " COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION $2.32 per 1000 gallons for all water use POTABLE & RECLAIMED BASE RATES BASE RATE Page 1 of 1 $ 0.47 per 1000 gallons for all water use RECLAIMED WATER $ 2.27 per 1000 gallons for all water use ALL RECLAIMED WATER USES & CLASSIFICATIONS $2,300.00 GROUNDWATER PRESERVATION FEES POTABLE WATER $ 0.90 per 1000 gallons for all water use SECURITY DEPOSITS CONSTRUCTION METER SECURITY DEPOSITS COMMODITY RATES - POTABLE WATER MASTER-METERED MULTIFAMILY CLASSIFICATION CONSTRUCTION WATER $2.32 per 1000 gallons for all water use $7.05 per 1000 gallons for all water use TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT NOVEMBER 2015 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL Satish Hiremath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Council Member Bill Garner, Council Member Joe Hornat, Council Member Mary Snider, Council Member Mike Zinkin, Council Member ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION Richard Davis, Chair Richard Reynolds, Vice Chair Javier Arriaga, Commissioner Anne Campbell, Commissioner Winston Tustison, Commissioner Shanna Weagle, Commissioner TOWN STAFF Greg Caton, Town Manager Stacey Lemos, Finance Director Philip C. Saletta, P.E., Water Utility Director Shirley Seng, Water Utility Administrator TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT NOVEMBER 2015 SECTION TITLE Index of Appendices Executive Summary Introduction Growth Rates Water Use Trends Debt Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Debt Service Coverage Requirements Cash Reserve Policy for Operating Fund Operating Fund Groundwater Preservation Fee Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund Preferred Financial Scenario Recommendation on Water Rates, Fees & Charges Service Fees & Charges Conclusion Appendices PAGE 1 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 10 12 13 14 14 16 16 INDEX OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Preferred Financial Scenario Pro Formas A-1 Operating Fund A-2 Groundwater Preservation Fee A-3 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund A-4 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund A-S Summary of all Funds B. Rate Schedules & Tables for Bill Comparisons for Preferred Financial Scenario B-1 Potable & Reclaimed Water Rates B-2 Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size -Potable B-8 Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size -Reclaimed C. Service Fees & Charges C-1 Proposed Security Deposit -Construction Meter D. S-Year Capital Improvement Schedules D-1 Operating Fund D-1 Groundwater Preservation Fee D-2 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund D-2 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund E. Assumptions for Preferred Financial Scenario E-1 Operating Fund E-S Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund E-6 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund Executive Summary TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT NOVEMBER 2015 The functions and dutie s of the Or o Valley Water Utility Commission include reviewing and de ve loping r ecommen dation s for wa ter re ven ue requirements, water rates and fee st ru ctures . The Commission annually evaluates staff recomm enda tion s based on a rat es analysis to assure the recommendations meet Town policies and bond covenants. Water rates and charges shall be reviewed annually under M ayor and Town Council Water Policies -II.A.2.b(4). The Utility has based its financial analysis on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Cash Needs Approach. The AWWA is the largest national organization that develops water and was t ewa t er policies, specifications an d rate setting guidelines accepte d by both government-owned and pri vate water and wastewater utilities worldwide. Thi s Water Rates Analysis Report con tains detailed information on the three funds that comprise the Oro Valley Water Utility: ~ Op era ting Fund ~ Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund (AWRDIF Fund) ~ Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund (PWSDIF Fund) Each fund is individually analyzed with regard to revenue and revenu e requirements. The Utility is an enterprise of the Town and generates revenue from r ates, fees and charg es and does not re ce ive re ve nu e from taxes or other payments from the General Fund. The Water Utility Commission has made a recomm endat ion for a Preferred Financial Scenario. Under the Preferred Financi al Scenario, the Operating Fund is projected to have an ending cash balance of $3,647,174 at the end of the five-year projection period which meets the cash reServe requirement. To determine the cash reserve balance, the cash balan ce of the Operating Fund is combined with the cash balan ce of the Groundwater Preservation Fees. The Preferred Financial Scenario includes cash funding and new debt to finance capital proje cts . Each year the water rate s ana lysis is prepared bas ed on the most up-to-date informatio n available for a five-year projection period. Operational needs and capital improveme nt requirem en t s cha nge annually and are carefully eva luated when they are included in the analy sis. The Preferred Financial Scenario res ults in financially so und cash balances in the AWRDIF Fund and the PWSDIF Fund. These cash balances will be used to finance capital projects to meet the demands of new growth and development. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05, revenue from the individual impact fee funds may not be consolidated nor use d for any purpose other than for which they Were originally established. -1 - The Preferred Financial Scenario includes five-year projections for each fund and evaluates the impact of future costs and the revenue sources that will be required to meet those costs. Based on the data contained within the Preferred Financial Scenar io , Water Utility Staff and the Water Utility Commission have made the following recommendations on water rate s for FY 2015-16: ~ Increase in the potable and reclaimed commodity rates ~ Increase in the potable and reclaimed construction water rates ~ Increase in construction meter deposits ~ No in crease i n the monthly base rates for potable and reclaimed water ~ No change in the potable and reclaimed Groundwater Preservation Fee (GPF) Current and proposed commodity rates and GPF are provided in the Table 1 below: Table 1 Current Proposed $ Customer Class ifications Commodity Rate Commodity Rate Increase Single Family Residential Tier 1 2.27 2.32 O.OS Tier 2 3.10 3.19 0.09 Tier 3 4.23 4.40 0.17 Tier4 5.76 6.0S 0.29 Irrigation Tier 1 2.27 2.32 O.OS Tier 2 3.10 3.19 0 .09 Tier 3 4.23 4.40 0.17 Tier 4 S.76 6.05 0.29 Commercia l 2.27 2.32 0.05 Ma ster Metered Multi-Family Residential 2.27 2 .32 0.05 Turf 2.27 2 .32 0 .05 Construction 6.76 7 .05 0.29 Al l Reclaim ed Classes 2.23 2.27 0.04 Groundwater Preservation Fee -Potable 0.90 0.90 0.00 Groundwater Preservation Fee -Reclai me d 0 .47 0.47 0.00 Cost per 1,OODgallons Th e financial impact of the proposed rates for a residential customer using 8,000 ga ll ons of water is an increa se of $0.44 per month. The average residentia l customer has a 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter and averages 7,300 ga llons of water per month over th e course of one year. Th e average comm ercial customer with a 2-inch meter using 57,000 gallons of water will expe rien ce a $2 .85 increa se per month . Table s providing the financial impact to all meter sizes and customer classifications may be found in Append ix B. The Water Utility presents this Water Rates Analysis Report for the review and cons ideration of the Mayor and Council. The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission has review ed the report and is recommendin g approval of the Preferred Financial Scenario. The Water Utility Commission and Utility Staff are dedicated to se rving the Town of Oro Valley and the customers of its water utility. -2 - Introduction TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT NOVEMBER 2015 The Oro Va ll ey Water Utility was estab li shed in 1996 as a self-supporting enterprise of the Town . The Utility is comprised of three separate funds that have been established for specific purposes. The Funds are as follows: ~ Operating Fund ~ Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund ~ Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund The Operating Fund is the primary fund for th e Utility. Revenue for this fund includ es wate r sales, service fees, miscellaneous charges and interest income. The Utility does not receive revenue from ta xes or oth er payments from the Town General Fund. The expenditures managed from this fund includ e personnel, operations and maintenance for both potable and recl aimed wa t er systems, capital costs for ex ist ing potable water system improvements and related debt service. The Utility pays the General Fund for services received including finance, human resources, fleet services, information technology, legal, insurance and rental of office space. Groundwater Preservation Fee (GPF) revenue is accounted for w ithin the Operating Fund. More information on the GPF may be found on page 10 of this report. Th e Alternat iv e Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund (AWRDIF) was established in 1996 to manage cap ital expend itures related to alternative water re sources including reclaimed water and Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. Revenue for this fund is r eceived from impact fees collected at the time water meters are purchased and from interest income. Expenditures include capita l repayment obligation charges for the Town's CAP allotment and infrastructure and associated debt service to deliver CAP water to the Town for future growth and development. The Potable Water System Development Imp act Fee Fund (PWSDIF) was established in 1996 to manage capita l expenditures related to expansion or growth-re lated potable water cap ital projects and related debt serv ice . Revenue for this fund is received from impact fees co ll ected at the time water meters are purchased and from interest in come. Expenditures may include wells, pump stat ion s, reservoirs and mains for the potable water system required to meet the demands of future growth and development. The revenue and expend itures of all three funds are combined to determine if the Utility meets the debt service coverage requirement estab li shed in the Mayor and To wn Council Water Policies and current bond covenants. Otherwise, each fund is independent with regard to revenue and expenses. Pursuant to Ar izona Revised Statute (ARS) 9-463.05 Section B.9., impact fees must be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separate ly. ARS 9-463.05 Section B.S. states that the impact fees -3 - may not be used for operations and maintenance of existing facilities, Each fund is addressed in more detail on pages 12 and 13 of the report, Growth Rates The Utility's growth rates have fluctuated over the past several years , Figure 1 illustrates the Utility's growth rate of 12,8 percent or 2,178 new metered connections over the last 10 years, Figure 1 Growth Rates 600 500 508 400 368 !<' ~ 1;; :;; 300 3 ~ 214 z 200 165 155 100 68 61 0 05-06 06-07 07-OS 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 The growth projections used for this report are consistent with the Town's financial forecasting and are shown in following table, New Metered Connections Single Family Residential Commercial, Multi-Family, Irrigation Water Use Trends 2015-16 200 15 Table 2 2016-17 300 13 2017 -18 300 10 2018 -19 250 5 2019-2 0 200 5 The Utility has experienced an overall reduction in water use, both potable and reclaimed, over the last 10 years, Figure 2 illustrates this reduction in total water use from FY 2005 -06 through FY 2014- 15, The trend line emphasizes a continuous decline in water use even though the utility experienced growth in the number of customers in that same time frame , During FY 2014-15, the single family residential customer with a 5/8 x 3/4 inch water meter averages water use of 7,300 gallons per month, -4- Figure 2 Potable & Reclaimed Water Sales 3,500 3,395 3,400 3,300 ~ c: ~ ~ 3,200 c: 3,162 ~ 3,100 c: 0 '" 3,000 '" 2,900 2,800 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09 -10 10-11 11-12 12 -13 13 -14 14-15 Debt Service Annual debt obligations are m et with the revenue generated in the Op eratin g Fund, the AWRDIF and th e PWS DIF . A summary of th e ex isting debt allocated to each of th ese funds and the ou t st anding balances at th e beginning of FY 2015 -16 are provided in Table 3. Table 3 Fund Year Debt Purpose Balance Operating 2005 Excise Tax Bond s land for Moe $ 1,225,950 Operating 2007 Excise Tax Bond s -Refinance Existing Pot able System $ 14,18 0,360 Operating-GPF 2008 W IF A l oan Reclaimed Water Sys tem $ 3,035,566 Operating 2009 W IF A lo an Existing Potable Sys t em $ 1,682,838 Operating 2012 Sr. lien Revenu e Bonds -Refinance Existing Potabl e System $ 3,258,808 Operatin g-GP F 2012 Sr. lien Revenu e Bonds -Refi na nce Recl aim ed Wat er System $ 8,052,848 Operating 2013 Exci se Tax-Refin ance -Pri vate Plac ement Existing Potable System $ 3,960,000 Ope ra t ing 20 14 WIFA loan AMI Meter Repl ace ment $ 2,873,448 PWSDIF 2012 Sr, li en Revenue Bonds -Refinance Potable System Expans i o n $ 2,484,241 Total Deb t $ 40,754,059 Th is ra tes analysis includes an as sumption for new debt to finance existin g system improve ments in the amount of $4,500,000 in FY 2017 -18 as shown in the appendi ces on pag e E-3. It is ass umed that t he Utility wo uld obtain a loan from the Water Infrastru cture Finance Authority (W I FA) w ith a 20- yea r term at a three perc en t inter est rate. During FY 2015-16 the Town is refunding th e 2005 Excise Ta x Bonds of w hic h th e Utility's proportionate share is 33 perce nt. It is projected that the Utility's savings w ill be $86,000 which will be realized in FY 20 16-17 and is includ ed in this analysi s. This refunding will be by way of private - 5 - placem ent with an in vestment in stitution. The next opportunity to r efund older bond s is in 2017 when the 2007 bonds re ac h the optional early r ed emption date. Debt Service Coverage Requirements Th e m et hod for calculating th e debt se rvice cove rage ratio is pursu ant t o th e Tow n Financial and Budg et ary Po li cies adopted by th e Town Council in 2008. Sect ion C.l-Debt Capacity, Iss uance & Management states th e following wi th r es pect t o debt serv ice coverage ratios: "When utility r eve nue s are pledged as debt se rvice payments, th e To w n wi l l st riv e to maintain a 1.3 debt se rvice coverage ratio o r t he r equired rati o in t he b o nd ind enture (whichever is greater) to ensu r e debt cove rage in t imes of revenue flu ctua ti on." The Water Utility cur r ent ly pays d eb t service on a numb e r of outstanding debt is suance s and lo ans. For the Series 2012 Senior Li en Water Reve nu e Bonds, the 2008, 2010 and 201 4 Water Infra structure Financ e Authority (WI FA) Lo ans, water utility rev enu es are speci fi ca ll y pledged as the r epay m ent sou r ce for these obligations at 1.3 tim es cove rage per th e Town's adopted financial policy. The remaining outstanding debt obligations of th e Water Utility are excise tax pledg ed obligations m ea nin g that the Town's unres tricted sources o f sa les taxes, fine s, permit f ees and state shar ed re ve nu es are pledged as the repayment sources f or th ese bonds in the bond indentures. Even th o ugh th e bond in dentures pledge th ese excise taxes as th e rep ayme nt source, the Water Ut ility is and w ill cont in ue to be res ponsibl e for th ese debt serv i ce payments . Ho weve r, since excise ta xes are pled ged as cove r age, a calcu lated debt service cove rage r atio of 1.0 is app lied to avo id doub le coverage whe n calc ulating the debt service coverage ratio for these excise t ax-backed bonds in th e water r at es analy sis. It is imp ortant to note th at the bond indentures for the excise ta x-backe d bonds requir e th at the Town 's exc ise tax co ll ections each fi sca l yea r total at le ast 2.5 times th e annua l debt service requireme nts in order to avoid having to fund a debt se rvi ce reserve fund . These cond itions have been m et annually in th e past and are expected t o co ntinue in the future. Fo r FY 2014-15 th e debt service coverage ratio was 10.49 for th e General Fund wh ich sub sta nti al ly exceeds the 2.5 requir ement. Thi s meth odo logy of segregating the water utility revenue -p l edge d debt from the excise tax-pledged debt in the rates analy sis process is an accepted practice in the indu st ry and has been r ev iewed by the To wn's Finance Director and th e Town's fin ancia l adv iso rs wi th Stife l, Nicol aus & Company, In c. The deb t se rvice coverage ratio is determined by dividing the annual net opera tin g revenue by th e annual debt serv ice paym ents. Using th e method ology descr ib ed above is in acco rdance with th e 2008 policy and reduce s th e amount of the d ebt se rv ice coverage requ irement amount. Applying thi s m eth odo logy has been key in minimizing water rate in creases. Debt serv ice cove rag e for the Water Utility's outstanding se nior li en debt iss ua nces and loans in the Preferr ed Fin ancia l Scenario is shown in Table 4 . -6 - Tab le 4 2015-16 2016-17 20 17-18 20 18-19 2019-20 Debt Se rvice Coverage 1.79 1.81 1 .88 1.80 1.54 Cash Reserve Policy for Operating Fund The Town of Oro Va ll ey Mayor and Council Water Po licie s we re adopted in 1996 . Fo llowin g th e Comm iss io n recommendation, an amend e d policy was submitted to th e Town Council and was subsequently adopted June 17, 20 15 . The amended policy may be found in Sect io n II.A.1.d. a nd st at es "Th e Utility shall m ai nta in a cas h re serve in the Operating Fund of not less than 20 % of the comb in ed total of the annual budg et ed amounts for perso nnel, operation s and maintenance, and debt serv ice. Thi s cas h rese rve amount specifi ca ll y excl ude s budgeted amo unts for cap ital p roj ec t s, depreciation, amortization and continge ncy. No cas h reserve is required for th e wate r utility impact f ee fund s." Th e cas h from GPF is accoun t ed for in the Operating Fund and is in cluded in the total cas h reserve balance. In th e Preferred Fin ancial Sce nario , the projected cash rese rve balance fo r the Operating Fund for each year in the anal ys i s is li sted in Table 5 sho wing compli ance in all yea rs. Opera tin g Fund Cash Reserve Requirement Cas h Reserve Balance Table 5 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 $ 3,019,019 $ 3,06 4,418 $ 3,090,779 $ 3,179,2 15 $ 3,632,906 $ 7,587,851 $ 5,519,357 $ 5,596,403 $ 5,457,949 $ 3,6 47,1 78 Cas h reserve bala nces in the Operating Fund ar e the main driver for the proposed ch anges in water r ates. Th e proj ec t ed cash re serve balan ces show n in Tab le 5 inclu d e re venue from th e proposed rate changes. Th ose cha nges incl ude increases in the base rates and commodity rates throughout th e proje ct io n period. The propo sed cha nges all ow for the cas h bal ances to be at app ropri ate leve ls fo r both the Operating Fund and the GPF. The impac t to th e customers from the propo se d changes are nomina l exce pt for single fam il y res id e ntial and irriga ti o n customers w ho are high wa t e r use rs. Details of th e impact to all water users are in Appendix B. Cash r eserves is projected to decreas e $3,940,673 over the five -year projection period . Of this amount, $3,374,000 is to pay for cap it al proj ec ts shown on page E-3. To maintain cas h re se rv es without large rate incre ases , the Pr eferred Financial Sce nario assumes $4,500,000 in new debt to financ e capita l expe nditures for FY 2017 -18 through FY 2019-20. Operating Fund Revenue Forecast The Op e rating Fund (e xcludin g the GP F cas h ) had a cas h balance of $8,068,049 at t he beginning of FY 2015-16 and is projected to h ave a ba lan ce of $2,855,785 at the end of FY 2019 -20. Th ese funds m ay be use d for operating costs including personnel, ope r ation s and maintenance, capital improve m e nts for the existi ng potabl e water sys tem and debt service. -7 - The reve nu e forecast was b ased on analysis of th e Utility's actual billing data for FY 2014-15 and projected growth in the number of new connections detailed in Tab le 2 on page 4. The r evenue foreca st includes proposed increases in the base rates shown below in Tabl e 6 . The base rates are projected to increase beginning in FY 2016 -17. Tab le 6 Base Rates Current Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Potable & Reclaimed Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates Meter Sizes (inche s) 2015-16 2016 -17 2017-18 2018-19 2019 -20 5/8 x 3/4 14.19 14.19 14.47 14.76 15.06 15.36 3/4 x 3/4 21.29 21.29 21.72 22.15 22.59 23.04 1 35.48 35.48 36.19 36.9 1 37.65 38.40 1.5 70.95 70.95 72.37 73.82 75.29 76.80 2 113.53 113.53 115.80 118.12 120.48 122 .89 3 227.05 227.05 231.59 236.22 240 .95 245.77 4 354.77 354.77 361.87 369.10 376.48 384.01 6 709.54 709.54 723.73 738.21 752.97 768.03 8 1,135.26 1,135.26 1,157.97 1,181.12 1,204.75 1,228.84 Th e re venue forecast also includes proposed annual increases in commodity rates sho w n below in Tab le 7. Th e GPF revenue is also shown in Table 7 to illustrate that th ere are no proposed changes in this fee over the projection period . Table 7 Commodity Rates Cu rrent Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Rates Rates Rates Rates Ra te s Rates Customer Classifications 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019 -20 Single Family Residential Tier 1 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.43 2.51 2.58 Tier 2 3.10 3.19 3.29 3.42 3.56 3.70 Tier 3 4.23 4.40 4.58 4.80 5.04 5.30 Tier 4 5.76 6.05 6.35 6.73 7.14 7.56 Irri gation Tier 1 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.43 2.51 2.58 Tier 2 3.10 3.19 3.29 3.42 3.56 3.70 Ti er 3 4.23 4.40 4.58 4.80 5.04 5.30 Tier 4 5.76 6.05 6.35 6.73 7.14 7.56 Commercial 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.43 2.51 2.58 Master Metered Multi-Family 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.43 2.51 2.58 Turf 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.43 2.51 2.58 Const ru ction 6.76 7.05 7.35 7.73 8.14 8.56 All Reclaimed Classes 2.23 2.27 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.54 Groundwater Preservation Fee Potable 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0.90 Reclaimed 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Cost per 1,000 gallons. - 8 - The water use included in each tier is detailed on the proposed water rates table in Appendix B. Table 8 provides the water sa l es revenue forecast for the five-year proj ec tion period using the proposed bas e rates in Tab le 6 and commod ity rates in Table 7. The GPF and associated rev en ues and expenditures are deta il ed on pages 10 -11 . Tab le 8 Water Sales Revenue 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Potab le Water $10,177,273 $10,487,594 $10,910,286 $11,363,065 $11,602,976 Reclaim ed Water 1,553,453 $ 1,584,249 1,621,069 1,669,048 1,718,454 Total Water Sales $11,730,726 $12,071,843 $12,531,355 $13,032,113 $13,321,430 Other reven ue generated by the Utility consists of charges for services. Those charges for services includes and intergovernmental agreement with the Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department to provide month ly billing serv ices . The intergovernmental agreement w i ll be subject to renewal in FY 2018-19. It is projected that the reve nue wi ll increase by $6,800 representing a three percent in crease upon renewal. Charges for service also include, but are not limited to, new service establishment fees, late fees, reconnecti on fees, convenience fees, and p lan review fees . Charges fo r services are projected to generate annua l revenue ranging from $684,200 to $691,000 . Project ions for interest income are a cumulat ive total of $633,752 over the five -year per iod. A two percent interest rate was assumed for each year in the project ion period . This interest rate is consistent with the Town's financial planning . Revenue Requirements The following table is a summary of revenue requirements for the Op erating Fund that were used in the financial analysis. These reve nue requ i rements do not include expenditures to be paid with GPF revenue. Table 9 Util ity Expenditures 2015 -16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Personnel $ 3,173,022 $ 3,347,538 $ 3,531,653 $ 3,725,894 $ 3,930,818 Operations/Maintenance 1,890,212 1,909,114 1,928,205 1,9 47,487 1,966,962 Power for Pumping 800,000 800,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Water Resource Mgmt. 450,000 450,000 0 0 0 CAP Wheeling Costs 262,442 271,302 281,048 281,048 347,965 CAP Recharge Costs 1,719,930 1,770,705 1,822,230 1,853,145 2,072,355 Re cl aimed Maintenance 903,028 944,258 996,801 1,040,969 1,086,179 Subtota l Expend iture s $ 9,198,634 $ 9,492,917 $ 9,479,937 $ 9,768,543 $ 10,324,279 Debt Service 3,568,166 3,472,734 3,576,117 3,730,791 5,245,145 Capital Outlay 1,485,800 1,780,000 170,000 475,000 170,000 Total Expenditures $ 14,252,600 $14,745,651 $ 13,226,054 $ 13,974,334 $ 15,739,424 Project ed personne l costs include the addit ion of one new emp loyee in FY 2015-16, three and one ha lf perc ent an nua l merit i ncrea ses and two percent annual increases in hea lth care costs. Th ese proj ected increases are consistent w ith the General Fund's financial planning. -9 - The projected operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for both the potable and reclaim ed water systems include inflationary increases of one percent annually. Th e inflation factors are consistent with the General Fund's financial planning. Power for pumping costs were segregated from the trad itional O&M costs because they are not subject to annual inflationary increases. A 15 percent rate increa se by Tucson Electric Power was projected in FY 2017-18. The Utility received authorization from the Town Council to pursue the acquisition of excess electric power from the Arizona Power Authority. Thi s power will be wheeled through Tucson Electric Power or the Utility will rec eiv e credits on the monthly bills. The Utility is still in the early stages of negotiation; therefore, the amount of power savings the Utility will realize has not ye t been determin ed and therefore not included in this analysis. The Utility plan s to purchase groundwater extinguishment credits in FY 2015 -16 and FY 2016 -17 . The analysis included $450,000 to purchase these cred its in each of these two fiscal year. The se credits will be pl edged to the Groundwat er Allowance Account (GWA) to help maintain a balan ce in the GWA that will facilitate growth in th e water service area. CAP w hee lin g costs are the fees charged by Tu cso n Water to wheel our CAP water through their recharge and recovery system. Th ese fees are fixed pursuant to an IGA and are subject t o re negotiation in FY 2016-17. Based on the renegoti ated IGA, costs increase in FY 2017-18 due to projected rate increase by Tu cson Water. Th e costs increase again in FY 2019 -20 due to an additional delivery of 500 acre f eet of CAP water as allowed in th e IGA. CAP water recharge costs represent costs to take delivery of the Utility's entire CAP water allotment of 10,305 acre feet annually. Thi s wate r w ill be recharged in various r echa rge facilities including th e Tucson Water's f ac il itie s. Costs ar e based on the rate schedule adopted by the CAP. Projected capital outlay for ex isti ng syste m improvem en t s in this analysis includes the replacement of approximately 5,000 water meters and installation of AMI equipm ent in th e Oro Valley water service ar ea in FY 2015-16. Capital outlay also include s water main r ep lacements, pumpin g stat ion replacements. well repl ace ments, ve hicl es, computer and sec urity equipment. The schedule for five- year capital improvements may be found in Appendix D. The meter replacement project is being finan ced w it h a loan from the Water Infrastructure Fin ance Authority of Arizona (WIFA) and will be completed in FY 2015-16. Thi s loa n was approved by the Town Council in January 2014. Debt service costs in crease in FY 2019-20 because of a larg e principal payment due on the 2007 bonds. A small portion of the increase is due to the new debt projected to occur in FY 2017-18 as des cr ibed o n page 5. The complete five-year proj ec tion pro formas for the Preferred Fin ancia l Sce nario may be found in Appendix A. Groundwater Preservation Fee The Groundwater Preservation Fee (GPF) was estab lish ed in 2003 to ge nerate revenue to finance alternative water r eso urces, cap ital expend itures fo r infra st ructure neede d to deliver alternative water to the Town and relat ed debt serv ice . Following the Commission recommendation, an amended policy was submitted to the Town Council and was subsequently adopted June 17, 2015. -10- Th e amended policy may be found in Section II.A .1.g . of the Mayor and Counci l Water Po licie s and states "Reve nu e from the Groundwater Pr ese r va tion Fees shall be us ed for renewabl e water capital costs and associated debt; renewable water supplies and related debt; and for costs to wheel Central Arizona Project water to the Town." This analysis includes 7S percent of the total wheeling costs cha rg ed by Tucson Water being paid with GPF revenue. The rema i ning 25 percen t will continue to be paid with water sa les revenue. There is no proposed increase in the GPF. Table 10 shows the GPF rates used in this analysis. Tabl e 10 Current 20 15-16 2016-17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -20 Rate Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed GPF -Pota ble Rate $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 GPF -Reclaimed Rate $0.47 $0.47 $0.47 $0.47 $0.47 $0.47 Cost per 1,000 gallons. The table below provides the re ven ue forecas t for the five-year projection period using the GPF rates in Table 10. Table 11 GPF Revenue 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Potable Water $ 2,009,078 $ 2,036,366 $ 2,065,706 $ 2,090,256 $ 2,110,013 Reclaimed Water 309,596 309,596 309,596 309,596 309,596 Total GPF Revenue $ 2,318,674 $ 2,345,962 $ 2,375,302 $ 2,399,852 $ 2,419,609 Tab le 12 provides the proposed expenditures that will be funded with GPF revenue in accordance with the new GPF policy. Tab le 12 Exp e nditures 2015-16 2016 -17 2017-18 2018 -19 2019-20 Debt Serv ice -Reclai med System $1,385,767 $1,380,579 $1,385,996 $1,384,894 $1,382,492 CAP Wheeling Costs 787,327 813,907 843,145 843,145 1,043,894 Cap it al Cost for CAP Allotment 155,204 161,952 168,700 168,700 168,700 Reclaimed Syste m Capital Proje cts 2,100,000 200,000 Tota l Expenditures $4,428,298 $2,556,438 $2,397,841 $2,396,739 $2,595,086 The GPF has a beginning cash balance of $3,306,394 in FY 2015 -16 and is projected to have an ending cash balance of $791,389 in FY 2019 -20 . Although the GPF cash reserve is decreasing, this is an app ropriate cash reserve amount for the GPF because there are no signifi ca nt increases in expe nditure s. This i s due to consistent debt service payments and limited capital expe nditures during the project ion period. The GPF cas h i s combined with Operating Fund to determ ine the overall cash reserve balan ce of th e Operating Fund . -11 - Development Impact Fee Funds Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund The Altern ative Water Resources Develo pment Imp act Fee Fund (AWRDIF) had a cash ba lance of $4,021,793 at the beginning of FY 2015 -16 and is projected to hav e $2,825,377 at the end of FY 2019-20 . The revenue sources for the AWRD IF Fund are from impact fees collected when a water meter is purchased and from interest earned on cash balances. Interest in come is projected to be a total of $559,965 for this analysis. A two percent interest rate was assumed for each year in the projection period and is consistent with the Town's f i nancia l planning. The revenue forecast was ba sed on new service units re lated to the number of new connections. A service unit is the equiva lent of one sin gle family re sid en tial (SFR) 5/8 x 3/4-inch water meter. The SFR serv ice units are equa l to the number of new connections. The other se rvice units are forecast based on historic trends and pending developm ent projects w ithin the Town. Other service units include commerc ial, multi-family and irrigation use s w ith the num ber of service units depending on the meter sizes for each project. Th e To w n Council adopted new impact fees that becam e effective July 1, 2014. The new impact fee for a SFR 5/8 x 3/4-inch water mete r or one service un it is $4,045 . Tabl e 13 provides th e projected growth in serv ice units and the revenue associated with that growth. Table 13 Growth / Revenue 20 15 -16 20 16-17 2017-18 2018-19 20 19-20 SFR Se rvic e Units 200 300 300 250 200 Other Service Units 50 50 50 50 50 Projected Revenue $1,331,323 $1,415,750 $1,415,750 $1,213,500 $1,011,250 AWRD IF fund s may be used for capi tal expenditures related to CAP water. The capital expend itures during this projection period total $8,143,954 and include the cap ital costs assessed by CAP for 3,557 acre feet of our CAP water all otment and design and construction of facilities that will deliver an additiona l 1,000 acre fe et of CAP water to the Town. The cap ital expenditures for the AWRD IF Fund are li sted in the table below. Table 14 Capital Expe nditure s 2015-16 2016 -17 2017-18 2018-19 2019 -20 CAP Capita l Charges $ 81,811 $ 85,368 $ 88,925 $ 88,925 $ 88,925 CAP Facilities $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 3,100,000 Total Capita l Expend itures $ 81,811 $ 185,368 $ 488,925 $ 4,198,925 $ 3,188,925 Th ere is no outstand in g debt in the AWRDIF Fund and no f uture debt is projected for this analys is. All capital projects shown above wi ll be financed with impact fees contained w ithin this fund. -12 - Potab le Water System Development Impact Fee Fund The Potabl e Water System Deve lopment Impa ct Fee Fund (PWSDIF) had a cas h ba lance of $4,800,153 at th e beginnin g of FY 20 15-16 and is projected to ha ve $6,407,674 at th e end of FY 2019-20. The revenue so urces for th e PWSDIF Fund are from impa ct fees co ll ec ted when a water · meter is purchase d and from inte rest earned on cas h ba lances. Inte rest in co me is proj ecte d t o be a tota l of $580,5 43 for this analys is. A two percen t interes t rate was assume d for each year in the proj ec tion period and is co nsiste nt w ith the Town's fin an cial plann i ng. The re venue forecast was based on new service units related to th e number of new connect ions. A service unit is th e eq ui va lent of o ne si ngle famil y re sid en ti al (SFR) 5/8 x 3/4-in ch wate r meter. The SFR se rvice un it s are equa l to th e number of n ew co nn ec tions. Th e other serv ice un its are foreca st based o n hi storic tre nd s and pending development project s with i n th e Town. Other service units includ e co mm erc ia l, multi-fami ly and irrigation uses w ith the numb er of se rv ice un its depending o n the meter sizes for each proje ct. The To w n Council adopted new impa ct fees that became effective July 1, 2014. The new imp ac t fee for a SFR 5/8 x 3/4 -inch wa t er meter or one service unit is $2,015. Tabl e 15 provides the projected growth in serv ice un its and the reve nu e associated with th at growth. Table 15 Growth / Reve nue 2015-16 2016 -17 2017 -18 2018-19 2019 -20 5FR Se rvice Units 200 300 300 25 0 200 Oth er Service Units 50 50 50 50 50 Project ed Reve nu e $663,207 $705,250 $705,250 $60 4,500 $503,750 PWSDIF fund s may be used for ca pita l expend itures related to potabl e water system improvem en t s includin g we ll s, booster st ation s, reservoirs and wa t e r mains that are r e quired to meet th e demands of new gro w th. There are no O&M expen ditures in thi s fund . The proj ect ions deta iled in th e Preferred Fin ancial Scenario for the PWSD IF Fund assume land acqui sition costs for a future reservo ir site and pump ing st ati o n. Debt service for previous ly constructed growth-re lated fa ci li t ies is paid from revenues collected from impact fee s and use of cash reserves. No ne w debt i s projected i n thi s an alysis. Future cap ital projects will be f i nanced with impact fees conta i ned within thi s fund. The Potable Water System Deve lopment Impact Fees a re not proj ec t ed t o in crease or decreas e during the five year period. The table below lists all expe nditures forecast for the PWSDIF. Table 16 Expenditures 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017-18 20 18-19 2019 -20 Debt Service $ 331,478 $ 329,916 $ 331,627 $ 33 1,328 $ 330,630 Capital Projects 500,000 Tota l Expenditures $ 33 1,4 78 $ 329,916 $ 331,627 $ 33 1,328 $ 830,630 -13 - Preferred Financial Scenario Prior to developing financial forecasts, financial cons ideration s were eval.uated relating to proposed future operating cos t s, significant short and long term cap ital expenditures, the Utility's existing cash reserves, existing outstanding debt and the re l ated debt service payments. To develop a Preferred Fin ancial Scenario, the goa ls of the Utility were to ensure that all existing rate setting policies were met, cash reserves were utilized to minimize future debt and proposed rate in creases would not result in rate shock. Th e Water Utility has prepared a Preferred Financial Scenario. The Scenario generates the revenue needed to maintain an adequate cash balance in all funds over the projected f ive-yea r period. Add itionally, the Scenario uses both available cash and proposed new debt to fin ance capital projects. The Scenario meets the debt service coverage requirements in each year of the projection period. The Preferred Financia l Scenario includes projections for five years; however, water rates are approved annually for the first year in the projection period. Th e Water Utility Commission and Utility staff recommend approva l of this Preferred Financial Scenario. The cash balance in the PWSDIF fund increases over the five year period while the cash balance in the AWRDIF fund decreases as cash is used for capital projects. The cash balance will be imp ortant in the future as the Town moves forward w ith increased deliveries of CAP water and const ru cting potable water system infrastructure to meet the demands of new growth. The f inan cial projections for the Operating Fund, AWRDIF Fund and the PWSDIF Fund were combined to eva luate th e overa ll debt service coverage at the end of each fiscal year. Analysis indi cates that, under the Preferred Financial Scenario, the Utility will meet th e debt serv ice coverage requirement estab li shed by the Mayor and Council Water Polices and bond covenants for all five years. Pro formas for the Preferred Financial Scenario may be found in Appendix A. The assumptions used to develop the financial projections contained in the Preferred Financial Scenario may be found in Appendix E. Recommendation on Rates, Fees & Charges After reviewing the analysis of the three funds and their respective revenue requirements conta in ed in the Preferred Financial Scenario for FY 2015-16, the Water Utility Commission and Utility staff recommend the following: ~ In crease in the potable and reclaimed commodity rates ~ In crease in the potable and reclaimed construct ion water rates ~ In crease in construct ion meter deposits ~ No increase in the monthly base rates for potable and reclaimed water ~ No change in the potable and r eclaimed Groundwater Preservation Fee (GPF) Table 17 illustrates the proposed water rates for a sing le family residential customer with a 5/8 x 3/4 inch water meter. Approximately 87 percent of the utility's customers fall into this category. Water rates of other wate r providers in the region are in cluded for comparison of the cost per 1,000 ga ll ons. -14 - Water Provider Monthly Ti er 1 Ba se Ra t e Oro Valley Current 14 .19 2.27 Oro Va ll ey Proposed 14.19 2.32 Metro Wate r 27.00 .99 Marana Water 17.31 2.82 Tucson Water 11.90 1.87 Cost per 1,000 gallons, Table 17 Tier 2 Ti e r 3 3.10 4.23 3.19 4.40 2.66 4.30 3.93 5.11 3.61 9.67 Ti er 4 5.76 6.05 5.70 6.3 0 15.37 Tier 5 GPF or Water Resour ce Fee 0.90 0.90 7.02 0.40 9.04 0.46 0.60 Table 18 provides a calculation of a month ly bill amount for a single f amily residenti al custome r with a 5/8 x 3/4 in ch meter for the wa ter utilities surrounding the Oro Valley Water Utility se rvi ce area. Direct comparison of specific base rates an d co mmodity rate s is le ss effective because of th e v arying r ate structures of each utility. A more e ffective comparison is to ca lc u late the cos t f or sp ecifi c co nsu mpti o n le ve ls for one m o nth. Th e following bill co mp ar ison s include water rat es and wate r resource f ees similar to th e Utility's GPF. Tabl e 18 Cost for Cost for Cost for Cost f or Water Pro vid er 8,000 Gallons 15,0 00 Ga ll ons 25,000 Gallons 40000 Gallons Oro Valley Current 40 .38 68.38 118.55 207.7 4 Oro Va ll ey Proposed 40.82 69 .45 121.24 213.94 M etro Water 44.80 72.78 129 .58 240.88 Marana Wate r 43.55 72.06 121.86 217 .31 Tucson Water 38 .11 91 .84 206 .08 448 .81 Th e foll owing t a bl e illustrates the financia l i mpact to customers with vary ing m et er sizes based o n th e average monthly water use for speci f ic c ustomer class ifica t ion s. Th ese charges are for Oro Va ll ey Water Utility customers a nd include the base rates, commodity rate s and groundwater prese rvation fees. Tabl e 19 Classi fi cation Meter Size Water Us e Current Bill Pr oposed Bill Chang e SF Residential 5/8 8,000 $ 40.38 $ 40.82 -$ 0.44 SF Residential 5/8 15,000 $ 68.38 $ 69.45 $ 1.07 SF Residentia l 5/8 25,000 $118.55 $12 1.24 $ 2.69 SF Res id entia l 5/8 40,000 $207.74 $213.94 $ 6.20 Irri ga tion 1 27,000 $129.37 $131 .1 2 $1.75 Co mm ercia l 2 57,000 $294.22 $297 .07 $ 2.85 MF Residential 4 55 0,000 $ 2,098.27 $ 2,125.77 $ 27.50 Turf -Potabl e 4 4,000,0 00 $13,034 .77 $13,23 4.77 $200.00 Reclaimed -Turf 6 15 ,000,000 $41,209.54 $41,809.54 $600.00 -15 - Proposed rate s for all Oro Valley Water Utility m et e r sizes may be found in Appendix B. Table s that ca lculate monthly bi lls un der the proposed rates may also be found in Appendix B. Month ly bill amounts are calcu lated in 1,000 ga ll on increm ents for the 5/8 x 3/4 in ch meters and a variety of in crements for larger meter sizes. Table 20 conta in s the proposed reclaim ed rat es. Tuc so n Water's rat es have b ee n included for comparison. Water Provider Oro Val ley Water -Curr en t Oro Valley Water -Proposed Tucso n Water Cost per 1,000 gallons. Service Fees & Charges Tab le 20 Commodity Rate $2.23 $2.27 $2 .50 GPF $0 .47 $0.47 N/A The Utility charges fee s for services rend er ed in an amount designed to recove r the cost to provide th at se r v ice. These fees and charges are evaluated annua ll y to determine if any adjustments ar e n ee ded. It is recommended that th e sec urity deposit for a construction meter be increas ed to recover material costs associated with r epl ac in g the meter and backflow dev ice . These meters are use d by contractors to obtain construct ion water. When the meter is return ed, th e se curity deposit is r efunded in its entirety. Occas iona ll y the meter is returned damaged. If th ere is damage, the security depos it is then used to repair o r replace the meter. Detailed cost information may be found in Appendix C. Conclusion Eac h year the wa ter rates ana ly sis is prepared ba sed on the most up-to-date infor mation avai lab le. Operation al needs and capital improvement requ irements change annua ll y and are carefully evaluated when they are inclu ded in th e analy sis. It is important that the Utility perform a wa ter rat es analysis every year to plan for changes in d eb t serv ice, operating or capita l cos t s. The Water Utility presents this Wa t er Rat es Ana ly sis Report for the review and consideration of the M ayo r and Counci l. The Commis sion and Water Utility Staff are available to di sc uss this report in greater detail at Council's request. Utility Staff wi ll be requesting Council's approva l of th e Notice of Intent to increase water rates on December 2, 2015. Th e Oro Valley Water Utility Staff and Commission are dedicated to serving the Town of Oro Valley and the customers of its water utility. Water Utility Staff and the Commission ext end the ir appre ciatio n to the Ma yo r and Counci l for th eir co nsid eration and guidance and looks forward to th eir continued directi on. -16 - APPENDIX A Preferred Financial Scenario Pro Formas A-l Operating Fund A-2 Groundwater Preservation Fee A-3 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund A-4 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund A-5 Summary of All Funds Oro Valley Water Utility PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Pr e par ed: October 20, 2015 Ope r a tin g Fund FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 REVENUES W at er Sales Potable Water Sales (excluding golf courses) $ 9,988,128 $ 1 0,162,264 $ 10,433,763 $ 10,751,103 $ 10,873,154 Potable Water Sales from Growth -Res . & Com. 61,726 195,363 343,704 475,025 588,823 Potable Water Sales -Golf Courses 12 7,4 19 129,967 132,819 136,937 140,999 Total Pot a ble W a ter Sales 10,177,273 10,487,594 10,910,286 11,363,065 11,602,976 Rec laim ed Water Sa les 1,553,453 1,584,249 1,621,069 1,669,048 1,718,454 Total W ater Sale s 11,730,726 12,071,843 12,531,355 13,032,113 13,321,430 Oth e r Operating Revenue Service Fee s & Charges 684,200 684,200 684,200 691,000 691,000 In terest Income 190,705 131,590 110,084 109,654 91,719 Total Other Operating Revenue 8 74,905 815,790 794,28 4 8 00,654 782,719 Tota l Op era ting Revenu e $ 12,605,631 $ 12,887,633 $ 13,325,639 $ 13,832,767 $ 14,104,149 OPERATING EXPENSES Potabl e Operating Expenses Pe rso nn e l 3,17 3,022 3,347,538 3,531,653 3,72 5,894 3,930,818 Operations & Ma intenance 1,890,212 1,909,114 1,928,205 1,947,487 1,966,962 Power for Pumping 800,000 800,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Water Resou rce Management Costs 450,000 450,000 CAP Whee lin g Costs -25% 262,442 271,302 281,048 281,048 347,965 CAP Water Recharge Costs 1,719,930 1,770,705 1,822,230 1,853,145 2;072,355 Tota l Potable Op erating Expenses $ 8,295,606 $ 8,548,659 $ 8,483,136 $ 8,727,574 $ 9,238,100 Reclaimed Operating Expenses Operating & M aintenance 903,028 944,258 996,801 1,040,969 1,086,179 Total Reclaim ed Op erating Expenses $ 903,028 $ 944,258 $ 996,801 $ 1,040,969 $ 1,086,179 Total Operating Expens es $ 9,198,634 $ 9,492,917 $ 9,479,937 $ 9,768,543 $ 10,324,279 Net Op erating Revenue $ 3,4 06,997 $ 3,394,716 $ 3,845,702 $ 4,064,224 $ 3,779,870 OEBT SERVICE -POTABLE P&I -Excise Tax Bond s -Land for MOC (2005) 125,758 P&I - Excise Tax Bonds -Refinance 1996 (2007) 1,258,430 1,259,936 1,255,326 1,258,553 2,615,276 P&I -WIFA Loan -Exi s t. System CIP (2009) 149,322 149,275 1 49,226 149,175 149,123 P&I -Sr. Li en Bonds -Existing System (2012) 582,285 589,491 586,716 589,759 589,227 P&I -Refunding -Excise -Private Pl acement (2013) 1,039,489 1,015,424 1,026,250 1,016,859 1,017,323 P&I -W IFA Loan -Sr. Lien -AMI (2 014) 408,361 408,361 408,361 4 08,361 408,361 P&I-Excise Tax Bond s -Refinance 2005 (2015) 4,521 5 0,247 150,238 1 50,709 1 51,106 P&I -W IF A Loan -Sr . Lien -Exist ing System (2017) 157,375 314,74 9 Total Potable Sy st e m Debt Service $ 3,568,16 6 $ 3,472,734 $ 3,5 76,117 $ 3,730,791 $ 5,245,165 Oth e r Oblig ation s M achinery & Equipment & Vehicle Reserve $ 206,800 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 2 00,000 $ 100,000 Cap ital Im provements: Exis t ing System 1,279,000 1,680,000 70,000 275,000 70,000 Total Oth er Obligations $ 1,485,800 $ 1,780,000 $ 170,000 $ 475,000 $ 170,000 Net Balance From Op e ra tions $ (1,646,969) $ (1,858,017) $ 99,584 $ (141,5 67) $ (1,635,295 ) Beginnin g Cash Ba lance $ 8,038,049 $ 6,39 1,080 $ 4,533,063 $ 4,632,647 $ 4,491,080 Ne t Ba lance From Operations (1,646,969) (1,858,017) 99,584 (141,567) (1,635,295) Ending Cash Balanc e $ 6,39 1,080 $ 4,533,063 $ 4,632,647 $ 4,491,080 $ 2,855,78 5 A-1 Oro Valley Wat er Utility Prepared : October 20 , 2015 GPF Beginning Balance Revenue GPF Revenue -Potabl e GPF Revenue -Reclaimed GPF Revenue -Growth Total Revenu e Expenses CAP Wheeling Costs -75% Cap ita l Cost for CAP All otment 6,748 AF Reclaimed Capital Project s -Main Relocat e & Extend P&I-Sr. lien -WIFA -Reclaimed Ph.2 (2007) P&I -Sr. lien Bonds -Re cl a im ed Ph .1 (201 2) Total Expen ses GPF Ending Balance $ $ PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Operating Fund Groundwater Preservation Fees FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 3,306,394 $ 1,196,770 $ 986,293 1,998,071 1,998,071 1,998,071 309,596 309,596 309,596 11,007 38,295 67,635 2,318,674 2,345,962 2,375,302 787,3 27 813,907 843,145 155,204 161,952 168,700 2,100,000 200,000 311,256 311,130 3 11,001 1,074,511 1,069,449 1,074,995 4,428,298 2,556,438 2,397,841 1,196,770 $ 986,293 $ 963,754 A-2 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 $ 963,754 $ 966,867 1,998,071 1,998,071 309,596 309,596 92,185 111,942 2,399,852 2,419,609 843,145 1,04 3,894 168,700 1 68,700 310,867 310,727 1,074,027 1,071,765 2,396,739 2,595,086 $ 966,867 $ 791,389 Oro Valley Water Utility Prepared: October 20, 2015 REVENUES AWRD Impact Fe e Re ve nue Subtotal Revenue Other Operating Revenue Interest In come Subtotal Other Operating Revenue Total Operating Revenue OPERATING EXPENSES N/A Total Operating Expens es Net Operating Revenue DEBT SERVICE N/A Total Debt Service OTHER OBLIGATIONS Capital Improvements; CAP Capital Charges 3557 acre feet CAP Facilities Engineering & Construction Total Other Obligations Net Balance From Operations Beg i nning Cash Balanc e Net Balanc e From Operations Ending Cash Ba lance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Alternative Water Resources Development I mpact Fee Fund FY 2015-16 1,33 1,323 $ 1,331,323 91,890 91,890 1 ,423,213 $ $ 1,423,213 $ $ 81,811 $ 81,811 $ 1,341,402 $ 4,021,793 $ 1,341,402 $ 5,363,195 $ A-3 FY 2016-17 1,415,750 $ 1,415,750 118,542 118,542 1,534,292 $ $ 1,534,292 $ $ 85,368 $ 100,000 185,368 $ 1,348,924 $ 5,363,195 $ 1,348,924 $ 6,712,119 $ FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 1,415,750 $ 1,213,500 $ 1,415,750 1,213,500 142,738 128,267 142,738 128,267 1,558A88 $ 1,341,767 $ $ $ 1,558,488 $ 1,341,767 $ $ $ 88,925 $ 88,925 $ 400,000 4,110,000 488,925 $ 4,198,925 $ 1,069,563 $ (2,857,158) $ 6,712,119 $ 7,781 ,682 $ 1,069,563 $ (2,857,158) $ 7,781,682 $ 4,924,524 $ FY 2019-20 1,011,250 1,011,250 78,528 78,528 1,089,778 1,089,778 88,925 3,100,000 3,188,925 (2 ,099,147) 4,924,524 (2,099,147) 2,825,377 Oro Va lley Wa t e r Utility Prepared: Octob er 20,2015 REVENUES Development I mpact Fees Subtotal Reve nue Other Operating Rev e nue Int eres t In come Subtotal Other Op erating Revenue Total Operating Revenue OPERATING EXPENSES N/A Total Operating Expens es Net Operating Revenue DEBT SERVICE P&I -Sr. Li en Bonds -Expan s ion Re lated (201 2) Tota l Water Sy stem Debt Service OTHER OBLIGATIONS Growth Re lated Capital Projects Total Other Obligations Net Balance From Operations Beginning Cash Balance Net Balance From Operations Ending Ca sh Balance PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Potab le Water System Deve lopment Impact Fee Fund FY 2015-16 $ 663,207 $ $ 663,207 $ 99,044 99,044 $ 762,251 $ $ $ $ 762,251 $ $ 331,478 $ $ 331,478 $ $ $ $ 430,773 $ $ 4,800,15 3 $ $ 430,773 $ $ 5,230,926 $ A-4 FY 2016-17 705,250 $ 705,250 $ 108,059 108,059 813,309 $ $ 813,309 $ 329,916 $ 329,916 $ $ 483/393 $ 5,230,926 $ 483,393 $ 5,714,3 19 $ FY 2017-1 8 705,250 $ 705,250 $ 11 7,7 11 117,711 822,961 $ $ 822,961 $ 331,627 $ 331,627 $ $ 491,334 $ 5,714,319 $ 491,334 $ 6,205,653 $ FY 2018-19 604,500 $ 604,500 $ 126,617 126,617 731,117 $ $ 731,117 $ 331,328 $ 331,328 $ $ 399,789 $ 6,205,653 $ 399,789 $ 6,605,442 $ FY 2019-20 503,750 503,750 129,112 129,112 632,862 632,862 330,630 330,630 500,000 500,000 (197,768) 6,605,442 (197,768) 6,407,674 Oro Valley Water Utility Prepared: October 20, 2015 REVENUES Water Sales Potable Wa ter Sales (ex clude golf cou rses) Pot able Water Sales from Gro wth Potable Water Sa les -Golf Co urses Total Potable W ater Sa le s Recla imed Water Sales Total Water Sal es Other Operating Revenue Gro undwater Pre ser vation Fee s Groundwa ter Prese rva ti o n Fee -Po t abl e Groundwa ter Pre serva tion Fee -Reclaimed Groundwater Preservation Fee -Growth Total Groundwater Preservation Fee s Potable Water Imp act Fees Alterna ti ve Wate r Impac t Fees Service Fees & Charges Interest In come Total Other Operatin g Revenue Total Operatin g Revenue OPERATING EXPENSES Potable Operating Exp enses Personnel Operati ons & Maintenance Power for Pumping Water Resou rce Management Costs CAP Wheeling Costs CAP Recharge Cos t s Cos t s paid by GPF Revenue (excluding debt service) Total Potable Operating Expenses Reclaimed Operating Expenses Opera ting & Maintenance Total Reclaimed Operating Expenses Total Operating Expen ses Net Operating Revenue Debt Service Debt Service -Potable-Exi sting System P&I -Excise Ta x Bond s -Land f or MOC (2005) P&I-Excise Tax Bonds -Re f inance 1996 (2007) P&I -WIF A Loan -Exist. System CIP (2009) P&I -Sr. Lie n Bonds -Ex istin g Sys tem (2012) P&I -Re fund ing -Excise -Private Placement (2013) P&I -WI FA Loan -Sr. Lien -AM I (2014) P&I -Excise Tax Bonds -Refi nance 2005 (2015) P&I -WIFA Loan -Sr . Lien -Ex is ting System (2017) Total Potable Existin g Sy stem Debt Service Debt Service -Pot abl e -Expansion Related P&I -Sr. Lien Bon ds -Expansio n Related (2012) Total Potable Expansion Rela ted Debt Service Debt Service -Non -Pot able P&I -Sr. Lien -WIFA -Recla imed Ph.2 (2007) P&I-Sr. Li en Bonds -Reclaimed Ph.1 (2012) Total Non-Potable System Debt Service Total Water Syst e m Deb t Service $ PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Summary of all Fund s FV 2015-16 FV 2016 -17 FV 2017-18 9,988,128 $ 10,162,264 $ 10,433,763 61,726 195,363 343,704 127,419 10,177,273 1,553,4 53 11,730,726 1,998,071 309,596 11,007 2,318,674 663,207 1,331,323 684,200 381,639 129,967 10,487,594 1,584,249 12,071,843 1,998,071 309,596 38,295 2,345,962 705,250 1,415,750 684,200 358,191 132,819 10,910,286 1,621,069 12,531,355 1,998,071 309,596 67,635 2,375,302 705,250 1,415,750 684,200 370,533 FV 2018-19 FV 2019-20 $ 10,751,103 $ 10,873,1 54 475,025 588,823 136,937 11,363,065 1,669,048 1,998,071 309,596 92,185 2,399,85 2 604,500 1,213,500 691,000 364,538 140,999 11,602,976 1,718,454 13,321,430 1,998,071 309,596 111,942 2,419,609 503,750 1,011,250 69 1,000 299,359 5,379,043 $ 17,109,769 5,509,353 $ 17,581,196 $ 5,551,035 18,08 2,390 $ 5,273,390 18,305,503 4,924,968 $ 18,246,398 3,173,022 1,890,212 800,000 450,000 262,442 1,719,930 942,531 3,347,538 1,909,114 800,000 450,000 271,302 1,770,705 975,859 3,53 1,653 1,928,205 920,000 281,048 1,822,230 1,011,845 3,725,894 1,947,487 920,000 281,048 1,853,14 5 1,011,845 3,930,818 1,966,962 920,000 347,965 2,072,355 1,212,594 $ 9,238,137 $ 9,524,518 $ 9,494,981 $ 9,739 ,419 $ 10,450,693 903,028 903,028 $ $ 944,258 944,258 $ 10,468,777 $ 996,801 1,040,969 1,086,179 996,801 $ 1,040,969 $ 1,086,179 10,491,782 $ 10,780,388 $ 11,536,872 $ 6,968,604 $ 7,112,419 $ 7,590,608 $ 7,525,115 $ 6,709,526 125,758 1,258,430 149,322 582,285 1,039,489 408,361 4,521 1,259,936 149,275 589,491 1,015,4 24 408,361 50,247 1,255,326 149,226 586,716 1,026,250 408,361 1 50,238 1,258,553 149,175 589,759 1,016,859 408,361 150,709 15 7,375 2,615,276 149,1 23 589,227 1,017,323 408,361 151,106 314,749 $ 3,568,166 $ 3,472,734 $ 3,576,117 $ 3,730,791 $ 5,245,165 $ $ $ $ 331,478 33 1,478 $ 311,256 $ 1,074,511 1,385,767 $ 5,285 ,410 $ A-5 329,916 329,916 $ 311,130 $ 1,069,449 1,380,579 $ 5,183,229 $ 331,627 331,627 $ 311,001 $ 1,074,995 1,385,996 $ 5,293,740 $ 331,328 331,328 $ 310,867 $ 1,074,027 1,384,894 $ 5,447,013 $ 330,630 330,630 310,727 1,071,765 1,382,492 6,958,287 Oro Valley Water Utility PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO Prepared: October 20, 2015 Summary of all Fund s FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 Other Obligation s Machinery & Equipment & Vehicle Reserve $ 206,800 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 Cap ital Improvements: Exis ti ng System 1,279,000 1,680,000 70,000 275,000 70,000 GPF Projec ts 2,100,000 200,000 Alterna tive Water Resources 81,811 185,368 488,925 4,198,925 3,188,925 Potable Water System Expa nsion 500,000 Total Other Obligations $ 3,667,611 $ 2,165,3 68 $ 658,925 $ 4,673,925 $ 3,858,925 Net Balance From Op er ations $ (1,984,417) $ (236,178) $ 1,637,943 $ (2,595,823) $ (4,107,685 ) Growth -New Metered Co n nectio ns 215 313 310 255 205 Monthly in crease t o resi dential cu st omer u si ng BK ga ls. 1.1% 1.6% 2.2% 2.4% 2.1% Monthly increase t o res idential customer using BK ga ls. $0.44 $0.66 $0.91 $1.00 $0.93 Debt Service Cov e r age Requirement Amount $ 6,455,777 $ 6,360,217 $ 6,505,264 $ 6,703,551 $ 8,261,190 OS Coverage Ratio : Sr . lien Bonds & WIFA 1.79 1.81 1.88 1.80 1.54 Debt Service Coverage Req ui r eme nt = 1.30 Re quired Ca sh Rese rv es (20 % of p er sonne l, O &M , d e bt) $ 3,019,019 $ 3,064,41 8 $ 3,090,779 $ 3,179,21 5 $ 3,632,90 6 (does not include deprecia tio n/a morti zation) Beginning Ca sh Balance -All Funds $ 20,166,389 $ 18,18 1,972 $ 17,945,794 $ 19,583,737 $ 16,987,9 14 Net Balance From Operations -All Fund s (1,984,417) (236,178) 1,637,943 (2,595,823) (4 ,107,685) Ending Cash Balance -All Funds $ 18,181,972 $ 17,945,794 $ 19,583,737 $ 1 6,987,914 $ 12,880,229 Opera ting Fu nd $ 6,391,080 $ 4,533,063 $ 4,632,647 $ 4,4 91,080 $ 2,855,785 Groundwater Preservation Fees 1,196,770 986,293 963,754 966,867 79 1,389 Subtota l Operating Fund 7,587,850 5,519,356 5,596,401 5,457,946 3,647,174 AWRD Impact Fee Fund 5,363,195 6,7 1 2,119 7,781,682 4 ,924,524 2,825,377 PWSD Impact Fee Fund 5,230,926 5.714,319 6,205,653 6,605,442 6,407,674 Total Ending Ca sh Balance $ 18,181,971 $ 17,945,794 $ 1 9,583,736 $ 16,987,91 2 $ 12,880,225 Contingent Reserve Fund : 344% 346% 370% 312% 185% Co n t ingen t Re serve Req uire m ent = 130% A-6 APPENDIX B Preferred Financial Scenario Rate Schedules & Tables for Bill Comparisons B-1 Potable & Reclaimed Water Rates B-2 Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size -Potable B-8 Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size -Reclaimed BASE RATES POTABLE & RECLAIMED METER SIZ E (in inches) BASE RATE 5/8 x 3/4 $14 .19 3/4 x 3/4 $21.29 1 $35.48 1.5 $70.95 2 $113.53 3 $227.05 4 $354 .77 6 $709.54 8 $1,135 .26 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO PROPOSED WATER RATES COMMODITY RATES -POTABLE WATER RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATIO N CLASSIFICATIONS ~ METER COMMOD ITY COMMODITY COMMOD ITY CO MMODITY SIZE TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 $2.32 $3.19 $4.40 $6.05 COS T PER 1000 GALS. COST PER 1000 GA LS. COST PER 1000 GALS. COST PER 1000 GALS. 5/8 x 3/4 0-7,000 7,001 -16,000 16,001 -32,000 OVER 32,000 3/4 x 3/4 0-10,000 10,001 -24,000 24,001 -48,000 OVER 48,000 1 0 -17,000 1 7,001 -40,000 40,001 -80,000 OVER 80,000 1 .5 0-35,000 35,001 -80,000 80,001 -160,000 OVER 160,000 2 0-56,000 56,001 -128,000 128,001 -256,000 OVER 256,000 3 0 -112,000 112,001 -256,000 256,001 -512,000 OVER 512,000 4 0-175,000 175,001 -400,000 400,001 -800,000 OVER 800,000 6 0-860,000 860,001 -2,000,000 2,000,001 -3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000 8 0 -860,000 860,001 -2,000,000 2,000,001 -3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000 COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION $2.32 per 1000 ga ll ons for all water use MASTER-METERED MULTIFAMILY CLASSIFICATION $2.32 per 1000 ga llons for all water use CONSTRUCT ION WATER $7.05 per 1000 gallons for all water use COMMODITY RATES -RECLAIMED WATER ALL RECLAIMED WATER USES & CLASSIFICATIONS I $ 2.27 per 1000 gallons for all water use GRO UNDWATER PRESERVATION FEES POTABLE WATER $ 0.90 per 1000 gallons for all water use RECLA I MED WATER $ 0.47 per 1000 gallons for all water use B-1 TABLE FOR MON THLY CHARGES & PER CE NT INCREAS E COM PARISON RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 5/8 X 3/4" METER PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENAR IO GALLON S CURRENT PROPOSED AMOUNT OF PERCENT USED WATER WATER IN CREASE IN CR EASED RATE RAT E Wate r Rate Water Rat e 0 14.19 14.19 0.00 0.0% 1,000 1 6.46 16.51 0.05 0.3% 2,000 18.73 18.83 0.10 0.5% 3,000 21.00 21.15 0.15 0 .7% 4,000 23.27 23.47 0.20 0.9% 5,000 25.54 25.79 0 .25 1.0% 6,000 27.81 28.11 0.30 1.1 % 7,000 30.08 30.43 0.35 1.2% 8,000 33.18 3 3.62 0 .44 1.3% 9,000 36.28 36.81 0.53 1.5% 10,000 39.38 40 .00 0.62 1 .6% 11,000 42.48 43.19 0.71 1.7% 12,000 45 .58 46 .38 0.80 1.8% 13,000 48.68 49.57 0.89 1.8% 14,000 51.78 52.76 0.98 1.9% 15,000 54.88 55.95 1 .07 1.9% 16,000 57.98 59 .14 1.16 2.0% 17,000 62.21 63.54 1.33 2.1% 18,000 66.44 67.94 1.50 2.3% 19,000 70.67 72.34 1 .67 2.4% 20,000 74.90 76.74 1.84 2.5% 21,000 79 .13 81.14 2.01 2.5% 22,000 83 .36 85.54 2.18 2.6% 23 ,000 87.59 89.94 2.35 2.7% 24,000 91.82 94.34 2.52 2.7% 25,000 96.05 98.74 2.69 2.8% 26,000 100.28 103.14 2.86 2.9% 27,000 104.51 107 .54 3 .0 3 2.9% 28,000 108.74 111.94 3.20 2.9% 29,000 11 2.97 116 .34 3.37 3.0% 30,000 117.20 120.74 3.54 3.0% 31,000 121.43 125.14 3.71 3.1% 32,000 125.66 129.54 3 .88 3.1% 33,000 131.42 135.59 4.17 3.2% 34,000 137.18 141.64 4.46 3.3% 35,000 142 .94 147.69 4.75 3.3% 36,000 148.70 153.74 5.04 3.4% 37,000 154.46 159.79 5 .33 3.5% 38,000 160.22 165.84 5.62 3.5% 39,000 165.98 171.89 5.91 3.6% 40,000 171.74 177.94 6.20 3.6% 41,000 177.50 183.99 6.49 3.7% 42,000 183.26 190.04 6 .78 3.7% 43,000 189.02 196.09 7.07 3.7% 44,000 194.78 202.14 7.36 3.8% 45,000 200.54 208.19 7.65 3.8% 46,000 206.30 214 .24 7 .94 3.8% 47,000 212.06 22 0 .29 8.23 3.9% 48,000 217 .82 226 .34 8.52 3.9% 49,000 223.58 232.39 8 .81 3.9% 50,000 229 .34 238.4 4 9 .10 4.0% CURRENT GPF 0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60 4 .50 5.40 6.30 7.20 8.10 9.00 9.90 10.80 11.70 12.60 13.50 14.40 15.30 16.2 0 17.10 18.00 18.90 19.80 20.70 21.60 22.50 23.40 24.30 25.20 26.10 27.00 27.90 28 .80 29.70 30.60 31.50 32.40 33.30 34.20 35.10 36.00 36.90 37 .80 38.70 39.60 40.50 41.40 42.30 43.20 44.10 45.00 B-2 = Tiers = Average Wa te r Use TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT GPF GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED INCREASE BILL 0 .00 0.00 0.00 14.19 0.0% 0.90 0.00 0.05 17.41 0.3% 1.80 0 .00 0 .10 20.63 0.5% 2.70 0.00 0.15 23.85 0 .6% 3.60 0.00 0.20 27 .07 0.7% 4.50 0 .00 0 .25 30.29 0.8% 5.40 0.00 0.30 33.51 0.9% 6.30 0.00 0.35 36.73 1.0% 7.2 0 0 .00 0.44 40.82 1.1% 8.10 0.00 0.53 44 .91 1.2% 9.00 0.00 0.62 49.00 1.3% 9 .90 0.00 0.71 53.09 1.4% 10.80 0.00 0.80 57.18 1.4% 11.70 0 .00 0.89 61.27 1 .5% 12.60 0.00 0.98 65.36 1.5% 13.50 0.00 1.07 69.45 1.6% 14.40 0.00 1.16 73.54 1.6% 15.30 0 .00 1.33 78.84 1.7% 16.20 0.00 1.50 84.14 1.8% 17.10 0.00 1.67 89.44 1.9% 18.00 0.00 1 .8 4 94.74 2.0% 18 .90 0 .00 2.01 100.04 2.1% 19.80 0.00 2.18 105.34 2.1% 20.70 0.00 2.35 110.64 2.2% 2 1.60 0.00 2.52 115.94 2.2% 22.50 0.00 2.69 121.24 2.3% 23.40 0 .00 2.86 126.54 2.3% 24.30 0.00 3.03 131.84 2.4% 25.20 0.00 3 .20 137.14 2.4% 26.10 0 .00 3.37 142.44 2.4% 27.00 0.00 3 .54 147.74 2.5% 27.90 0.00 3.71 153.04 2,5% 28.80 0.00 3.88 158.34 2.5% 29.70 0 .00 4.17 165.29 2.6% 30.60 0.00 4.46 172.24 2.7% 31.50 0.00 4.75 179.19 2.7% 32.40 0 .00 5.04 1 86 .14 2.8% 33.30 0.00 5.33 193.09 2,8% 34.20 0.00 5 .62 200.04 2.9% 35 .10 0.00 5.91 206.99 2.9% 36.00 0.00 6.20 213.94 3.0% 36.90 0.00 6.49 220.89 3.0% 37.80 0.00 6 .78 227.84 3.1% 38.70 0.00 7.07 234.79 3.1% 39.60 0.00 7.36 241.74 3.1% 40.50 0.00 7.65 248.69 3.2% 41.40 0.00 7.94 255.64 3.2% 42.30 0.00 8.23 262.59 3 .2% 43.20 0.00 8.52 269.54 3.3% 44.10 0 .00 8.81 276.49 3.3% 45.00 0.00 9.10 283.44 3.3% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPAR ISON FOR RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 3/4" x 3/4" METER BASE RATE $ 21.29 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 " $ 2.32 FOR 0 -10,000 GALLONS TIER 2" $ 3.19 FOR 10,001 -24,000 GA LLONS TIER 3 " $ 4.40 FOR 24,001 -48,000 GALLONS TIER 4" $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 48,000 GALLONS GAL LONS BILL ATTHE BILLATT HE AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE W ater Rate Water Rate 0 21.29 21.29 -0.0% 0.00 7,000 37.1 8 37 .53 0 .35 0 .9 % 6 .30 11,000 47 .09 47.68 0.59 1.3% 9.90 28,000 104.31 106.75 2.44 2.3% 25.20 50,000 200.43 206.85 6.42 3.2% 45.00 TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTI FAM ILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 3/4" x 3/4" METER BASE RATE $ 21.29 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 " $ 2.32 FOR AL L WATER USAGE TIER 2" N/A TI ER 3 " N/A TI ER 4" N/A GALLONS BILLATTHE BILL ATT HE AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURREN T USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rate Water Rate 0 21.29 21.29 -0.0% 0 .00 7,000 37.18 37 .5 3 0.35 0.9% 6.30 11,000 4 6.26 46.8 1 0.55 1.2% 9 .90 28,000 84.85 86.25 1.40 1.6 % 25.20 50,000 134.79 137.29 2.50 1.9% 45.00 TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CRE ASE COMPAR ISON FOR RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 1" METER BASE RATE $ 35.48 PROPOSED GPF 0.00 6.30 9.90 25.20 45.00 PROPOSED GPF 0.00 6 .30 9 .9 0 25.20 45.00 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1" $ 2.32 FOR 0 -17,000 GA LLONS T IER 2" $ 3.19 FOR 17,001 -40,000 GALLONS TIER 3" $ 4.40 FOR 40,001-80,000 GA LLONS IN CREASE IN GPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INCREASE IN GPF 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 TIER 4 " $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 80,000 GALLONS GALLONS BILLATTHE BILL ATTH E AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURRENT PROPOSED IN CREASE IN USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE IN CREASED GPF GPF GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rat e Water Rate 0 35.48 35.48 -0.0% 0.00 0.00 0 .00 17,00 0 74 .07 74 .92 0.85 1.1% 15.30 15.3 0 0.00 27,000 105 .07 106.82 1.75 1.7% 24 .30 24.30 0.00 38,000 139 .17 141.91 2.7.4 2.0% 34.20 34.20 0.00 50 ,000 187.67 192.29 4.62 2.5% 45.00 45.00 0.00 B-3 = Average Water Use TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT MONT HLY MONTHLY INCREASED INCRE ASE BILL 0.00 21.29 0.0% 0 .35 4 3 .83 0 .8% 0 .59 57.58 1.0% 2.44 131.95 1.9% 6.42 251.85 2.6% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT MON THLY MONTHLY INCREASED IN CREASE BILL 0 .00 21.29 0.0% 0.35 43.83 0.8% 0.55 56.71 1 .0% 1.40 111.45 1.3% 2.50 182.29 1.4% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT MON THLY MONTHLY IN CREASED INCREASE BIL L 0 .00 35.48 0.0% 0 .85 90.22 1 .0% 1.75 131.12 1.4% 2.74 176.11 1.6% 4.62 237.29 2.0% TABLE FOR MONTH LY CHARGES AN D PERCENT I NCREASE COMPAR ISO N FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMER S WITH A 1" METER BASE RATE $ 35.4B COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 = $ 2.32 N/A N/A N/A FOR AL L WATE R USAGE TIER 2 = T IER 3 = TI ER 4 = GA LLONS BILL ATTH E BILLA TTHE AMOUNT OF PERCEN T CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCR EASED 1 MON TH RATE RATE W at er Rat e Wa t er Rat e 0 35.48 35.48 -0 .0% 15,000 69.53 70.28 0.75 1.1% 27,000 96.77 98 .1 2 1.35 1.4% 38,000 121.74 123.64 1.90 1.6% 50,000 148.98 151.48 2.50 1.7% TABLE FOR MO NTHLY CHARGES A ND PERCE NT IN CREASE CO MP AR ISO N FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 1.5 " METER BASE RATE $ 70.95 GPF 0.00 13.50 24.30 34.20 45.00 PROPOS ED GPF 0.00 13.50 24 .30 34 .20 45 .00 COMMODITY RAT E: TIE R 1 = $ 2.32 FOR 0 -35,000 GAL LONS TI ER 2 = $ 3 .19 FOR 35,001 -80,000 GAL LONS TI ER 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 80,001 -160,000 GA LL ONS INCR EASE IN GPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAG E OV ER 160,000 GA LL ONS GALLONS BILLATTHE BILLATTHE AMOU NT OF PERCEN T CURRENT USED IN CURREN T PROPOS ED INCREASE INCREAS ED GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE W at e r Ra t e W ater Rate 0 70 .95 70.95 -0.0% 0.00 38,000 1 59.70 161.72 2.02 1 .3% 34.20 64,000 240.30 24 4.66 4.36 1.8% 57.60 90,000 332.20 339 .70 7.50 2 .3% 81.00 125,000 480.25 493.70 13.45 2.8% 11 2.50 TAB LE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCE NT INCR EASE COM PAR ISO N FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 1.5" METER BASE RATE $ 70.95 COMMOD ITY RA TE: GA LLO NS BILL ATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 MON TH RATE 0 70 .95 30,000 139 .05 64,000 216.23 90,000 275.25 125,000 354.70 TIER 1 = TIER 2 = TIER 3 = TIER 4 = BI LL ATTHE PROPOS ED RATE 70.95 140.55 219.43 279.75 360.95 $ 2.32 FOR ALL WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUN T OF PER CENT CUR RENT INCREASE IN CREAS ED GPF W at e r Ra t e W at er Ra t e -0.0% 0.00 1.50 1 .1% 27.00 3.20 1.5% 57.60 4.50 1 .6% 81.00 6 .25 1.8% 112.50 B-4 PROPOSED INCREASE IN GPF GPF 0.00 0.00 34 .20 0.00 57.60 0.00 81.00 0.00 11 2.50 0.00 PR OP OSED INCREASE IN GPF GPF 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 57 .60 0.00 81.00 0.00 112.50 0.00 = Ave rage Wa t e r Use TOTA L TO TAL TOTAL AMOU NT OF PE RCENT MONTHLY MON THLY INCR EASED I NCREASE BI LL 0.00 35.48 0 .0% 0.75 83.78 0.9% 1.35 122.42 1.1% 1.90 157.84 1.2% 2.50 196.48 1.3% TOTAL TO TAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PE RCENT M ONTHL Y MON THLY IN CREASED INCREA SE BILL 0.00 70.95 0.0% 2.02 195.92 1 .0% 4.36 302.26 1.5% 7.50 420.70 1.8% 13.45 606.20 2.3% TOTAL TO TAL TOTAL AMOU NT OF PE RCE NT MONTHLY MONTHLY IN CREASED INCREA SE BILL 0 .00 70.9 5 0 .0% 1.50 167.55 0,9% 3.20 277.03 1.2% 4.50 360.75 1 .3% 6 .25 473.45 1.3% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CH A RGES AND PERCEN T INCREASE COMPARISON FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 2" METER BA SE RATE $ 113.53 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 = $ 2 .32 FOR 0 -56,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = $ 3 .19 FOR 56,001 -128,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 128,001 -256,000 GAL LONS TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 256,000 GALLONS GA LL ONS BILLATTHE BI LL AT THE AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED 1 MONTH RATE RATE Wat er Rate Water Rat e 0 113.53 113.53 -0.0% 57,000 243.75 246.64 2.89 1.2% 130,000 472.31 481.93 9.62 2.0% 250,000 979 .91 1,009.93 30.02 3.1% 325,000 1,402 .73 1,453.78 5 1.05 3.6% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CREASE COMPAR ISO N FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 2" METER BA SE RATE $ 113 .5 3 GPF 0 .00 51.30 117.00 225.00 292 .50 COMMOD ITY RATE : TIER 1 = TIER 2 = TIER 3 = TIER 4 = $ 2.32 FOR ALL WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A GAL LONS BILLATTHE BILL ATTHE AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED IN CREASE INCREASED 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rate W at er Rat e 0 113 .5 3 113.53 -0.0% 57,000 242.92 245 .77 2.85 1.2% 128,000 404.09 410.49 6.40 1.6% 250,000 681.03 693 .53 12.50 1 .8% 325,000 851.28 867.53 16.25 1 .9% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT I NCREASE COMPARISON FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 3 " METER BASE RAT E $ 227.05 GPF 0 .00 51.30 115.20 225.00 29 2.50 PROPOSED GPF 0.00 51.30 117.00 225 .00 292.50 PROPOSED GPF 0.00 51.30 115.20 225 .00 292.50 COMMODITY RATE: TI ER 1 = $ 2.3 2 FOR 0 -112,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = $ 3 .19 FOR 112,001 -256,000 GALLONS TIE R 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 256,001 -512,000 GALLO NS INCREASE IN GPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 IN CREA SE IN GPF 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 512,000 GA LLONS GALLONS BILLATTHE BI LL ATTHE AMOUNT OF PERCENT CURRENT PRO PO SED IN CREASE I N USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREA SE INCREASED GPF GPF GPF 1 MONTH RAT E RATE Water Rate Water Rate 0 227 .0 5 227 .05 -0.0% 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 50,000 340.55 3 43 .05 2.50 0.7 % 45.00 45 .00 0 .00 150,000 59 9 .09 608.11 9.02 1.5% 135.00 135.00 0 .00 300,000 1,113.81 1,139.85 26.04 2.3 % 270.00 270.00 0 .00 500,000 1,959.81 2,019.85 60.04 3.1% 450.00 450.00 0.00 B-5 = Av e rage Water Use TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT MONTH LY M ONTHLY INCREASED INC REASE BILL 0.00 113.53 0.0% 2.89 297.94 1.0% 9.62 598.93 1.6% 30.02 1,234 .93 2.5 % 51.05 1,746.28 3 .0 % TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AM OUNT OF PERCENT MONTHLY MON THLY INCREASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 113.53 0.0% 2.85 297.07 1.0% 6.40 525.69 1.2% 12.50 918.53 1.4% 16.25 1,160.03 1.4% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOU NT OF PERCENT MONTHLY MONTHLY IN CREASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 227.05 0.0% 2.50 388 .05 0.6% 9.02 743 .11 1.2% 26.04 1,409 .85 1.9% 60.04 2,469.85 2.5% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AN D PERCE NT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 3" METER BASE RA TE $ 227.05 COMMOD ITY RATE: TIER 1 = TIER 2 = TIER 3 = $ 2.32 FOR ALL WATER USAGE N/A N/A TIER4 = N/A GA LLON S BILLATTHE BILL ATTH E AMOUNT OF PERCEN T CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED 1 MONTH RATE RAT E W at er Rate W at er Rat e 0 227.05 227.05 -0 .0% 50,000 340.55 343 .0 5 2.50 0 .7% 150,000 567.55 575 .0 5 7.50 1.3% 300,000 908.05 923.05 15.00 1.7% 500,000 1,362.05 1,387.05 25.00 1.8% TAB LE FO R MONTH LY CHARGES A ND PE RC ENT INCREASE COM PAR ISO N FOR IRRIGATION CU STO M ERS WITH A 4 " METER BASE RATE $ 354.77 GPF 0.00 45.00 135.00 270.00 450.00 PROPOSED GPF 0 .00 45 .00 135 .00 270.00 450.00 COMMODI TY RATE : TI ER 1 = $ 2.32 FOR 0 -1 75,000 GA LLONS TIER 2 = $ 3.19 FOR 175,001 -400,000 GALLO NS TIER 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 400,001-800,000 GAL LONS INCR EASE IN GP F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAG E OVER 800,000 GA LL ONS GALLONS BILL ATTHE BILL AT THE AMOUNT OF PERCEN T CURRENT USE D IN CURRENT PRO POSED INCRE ASE INCREASED GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE W a t er Ra t e Wate r Ra t e 0 354 .77 354.77 -0 .0% 0 .00 300,000 1,139.52 1,1 59 .52 20 .00 1 .8% 270 .00 550,000 2,084.02 2,138.52 54.50 2.6% 495.00 700,000 2,718 .52 2,798 .52 80.00 2.9% 630.00 850,000 3,429.52 3,541.02 111.50 3 .3% 765.00 TA8LE FOR MON TH LY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCR EASE COMPAR ISO N FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 4 " METER BASE RATE $ 354.77 COMMOD ITY RATE: GA LLONS BILL ATTH E USED IN CURRE NT 1 MONT H RATE 0 354.77 300,000 1,035.77 550,000 1,603.27 700,000 1,943.77 850,000 2,284.27 TI ER 1 = TIER 2 = TIER 3 = TI ER 4 = BILL ATT HE PROPOSED RATE 354.77 1,050.77 1,630.77 1,978.77 2,326 .77 $ 2.32 N/A N/A N/A AMOU NT OF INCREASE W a t er Ra t e - 15 .00 27.50 35.00 42 .50 FOR A LL WAT ER USAGE PERC ENT CURRENT IN CREASED GPF W at er Ra te 0.0% 0.00 1.4% 270 .00 1.7% 495.00 1.8% 630.00 1.9% 765 .00 8-6 PROPOSED IN CREAS E IN GPF GPF 0 .00 0 .00 270.00 0 .00 495 .00 0.00 630.00 0.00 765.00 0.00 PR OPOS ED IN CREASE I N GPF GPF 0.00 0 .00 270.00 0.00 495 .00 0 .00 630.00 0.00 765.00 0.00 = Average Water Use TOTAL TO TAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT M ONTHL Y MO NTHL Y INCREASED INCREAS E BILL 0.00 227.0S 0 .0% 2.50 388 .05 0.6% 7.50 710.05 1 .1% 15.00 1,193.05 1.3% 25 .00 1,837.05 1 .4% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT M ONTHL Y MONTHLY INCREASED INCR EASE BILL 0 .00 354.77 0.0% 20.00 1,4 29.52 1.4% 54 .50 2,633.52 2.1% 80 .00 3,428.52 2 .4 % 111.50 4,306.0 2 2 .7% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERC ENT MONTHLY MONTHLY INCR EASED INCREASE 8 1LL 0.00 354.77 0.0% 15.00 1,320.77 1.1% 27.50 2,1 25 .77 1 .3% 35.00 2,608.77 1.4% 42.50 3,09 1.77 1.4% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCE NT IN CR EASE COMPAR IS ON FOR RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 6" METER BASE RATE $ 709.54 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 = $ 2.32 FOR 0 -860,000 GAL LONS TIER 2 = $ 3 .1 9 FOR 860,001 -2,000,000 GA LLON S TIER 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 2,000,001 -3,500,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 3 ,500,000 GALLONS GALLO NS BILL ATTHE BILLATTHE AMO UN T Of PERCENT CUR RENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED GPf 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rate Water Rate 0 709.54 709.54 -0.0% 0.00 425,000 1,674.29 1,695.54 21.25 1.3% 382.50 1,000,000 3,095.74 3,151.34 55.60 1.8% 900.00 1,500,000 4,645 .74 4,746.34 100.60 2.2% 1,350.00 2,000,000 6,195.74 6,341.34 145.60 2.4% 1,800 .0 0 TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CREASE COM PARI SO N FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 6" METER BASE RATE $ 709 .54 COMMO DITY RA TE : TI ER 1 = $ 2.32 FOR A LL WATER USAG E TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A GALLO NS BILL ATTHE BILLATTHE AMOUNT Of PERCENT CURR EN T USED IN CURRENT PR OPOSED IN CREASE INCREASED GPf 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rat e Water Rate 0 709.54 709.54 -0 .0 % 0 .00 425,000 1,674.29 1,695.54 21.25 1.3% 382.50 1,000,000 2,979.54 3,029.54 50.00 1.7% 900.00 1,500,000 4,114.54 4,189.54 75.00 1.8% 1,350.00 2,000,000 5,249.54 5,349.54 100.00 1.9% 1,800.0 0 TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PER CEN T IN CREASE COMPAR ISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A 8" METER BASE RATE $ 1,135.26 PROPOSED GPf 0.00 382.50 900.00 1,350.00 1,800.00 PROPOSED GPf 0.00 382 .50 900.00 1,350.00 1,800.00 COMMOD ITY RATE: T I ER 1 = $ 2.32 FOR 0 -860,000 GA LLON S TIER 2 = $ 3.19 FOR 860,001 -2,000,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = $ 4.40 FOR 2,000,001 -3,500,000 GALLONS IN CREASE IN GPf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN CREASE IN GPf 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 TIER 4 = $ 6.05 FOR ALL USAGE OVER 3,500,000 GA LLON S GA LL ONS BILL ATTHE BILLATTH E AMOUNT Of PERCENT CURRENT PROPOSED IN CREASE IN USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED IN CREASE IN CREAS ED GPF GPF GPF 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rate Water Rate 0 1,135.26 1,135 .2 6 -0 .0% 0 .00 0.00 0.00 425,000 2,100.01 2,1 21.26 21.25 1 .0% 382.50 382.50 0.00 1,000,000 3,521.46 3,577.06 55.60 1.6% 900.00 900.00 0.00 1,500,000 5,071.46 5,172.06 100.60 2.0% 1,350.00 1,350.00 0.00 2,000,000 6,621.46 6,767.06 145.60 2.2% 1,800.00 1,800.00 0.00 (Th ere are no active 8 -illch potable meters in th e OVWU sys tem) B-7 = Average Wate r Use TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT MONTHLY MONTHLY INCRE ASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 709.54 0.0% 21.25 2,07 8.04 1.0% 55.60 4,051.34 1.4% 100.60 6,096.34 1.7% 14 5.60 8,141.34 1 .8% TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERCENT MONTHLY MONTH LY INCREASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 709.54 0.0% 21.25 2,078.04 1.0% 50.00 3,929.54 1.3% 7 5.00 5,539.54 1.4% 100.00 7,149.54 1.4% TOTAL TO TAL TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREA SED INCREASE BILL 0.00 1,135.26 0 .0% 21.25 2,503.76 0.9% 55.60 4,477 .06 1.3% 100.60 6,522.06 1,6% 145.60 8,567.06 1.7% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCEN T INCREASE COMPAR ISON FDR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 8" METER BASE RATE $ 1,135.26 COMMODITY RATE : GA LLO NS BILLATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 M ONTH RAT E 0 1,135.26 425,000 2,100.01 1,000,000 3,405.26 1,500,000 4,540.26 2,000,000 5,675.26 TIER 1 ~ TIER 2 ~ TIER 3 ~ TIER 4 ~ BILLATT HE PROPOSED RATE 1,135.26 2,121.26 3,455 .26 4,615 .2 6 5,775.26 $ 2.32 FOR ALL WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUN T Of PERCENT CURRENT IN CREASE IN CREAS ED GPf W at er Rat e Water Rate -0.0% 0 .00 21.25 1.0% 382.5 0 50.00 1.5% 900.00 75.00 1.7% 1,350.00 100.0 0 1.8% 1,800.00 {There are no active 8 -inch potable meters in the OVWU sys tem} TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PER CE NT IN CREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A 1.5" METER -RECLAIMED WATER US E BASE RATE $ 70.95 COMMOD ITY RATE: GALLONS BILlATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 MONTH RATE 0 70 .95 50,000 182.45 135,000 372.00 200,000 516 .95 250,000 628.45 TIER 1 ~ TIER 2 ~ TIER 3 ~ TIER 4 ~ BILLATT HE PR OPOS ED RATE 70.95 1 84.45 377.40 524.95 638 .45 $ 2.27 FOR AL L WATER US AGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUN T Of PERCENT CUR RENT IN CREASE INCREASED GPf W at e r Rate W ater Rate -0 .0 % 0 .00 2.00 1 .1% 23.50 5.40 1.5% 63 .45 8.00 1.5% 94.00 10.00 1.6% 117.50 TABL E fOR MONTHLY CHAR GES AND PERC ENT IN CREASE COM PARI SON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A 2" METER -RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE $ 113.5 3 COM MODITY RATE : GA LLON S BlllATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 MONTH RATE 0 113.53 150,000 405.45 265,0 00 661.9 0 450,ODO 1,074.45 600,000 1,408.95 TIER 1 ~ TIER 2 ~ TI ER 3 ~ TI ER 4 ~ BILL ATT HE PROPOSED RATE 113.53 41 1.45 672 .50 1,092.45 1,432.95 $ 2.2 7 FOR ALL WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUNT Of PER CENT CURRENT IN CREASE INCREA SED GPf Water Rate Water Rate -0 .0 % 0 .00 6.00 1.5% 70.50 10.60 1.6% 124.55 18.00 1.7% 211.50 24.00 1.7% 282.00 B-8 = Average Water Use TO TAL TOTAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT GPF GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY IN CREA SED INCREASE BILL 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,135.26 0.0% 382.50 0.00 21.25 2,503.76 0.9% 900.00 0.00 50.00 4,355.26 1.2% 1,350.00 0.00 75.00 5,965 .26 1.3% 1,800.00 0.00 100.00 7,5 75 .26 1.3 % TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED IN CREAS E IN TOTAL AMOUNT Of PER CENT GPF GPF MONTHLY MON THLY INCRE ASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 --70.95 0 .0 % 23.50 -2.00 207.95 1.0% 63.45 -5.40 440.85 1 .2% 94.00 -8.00 6 18.95 1.3% 117.50 -10.00 755.95 1.3% TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED IN CREASE IN TOTAL AMOU NT Of PER CENT GPf GPf MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED INCREASE BILL 0.00 0.00 -113.53 0.0% 70.50 -6.00 481.95 1.3% 124.55 -10.60 797.05 1.3% 211.50 -18.00 1,303.95 1.4% 282.00 -24.00 1,714.95 1.4% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT I NCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A 3" METER -RECLAIM ED WATE R USE BASE RATE $ 227 .05 COMMODITY RATE: GALLONS BILL ATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 MONTH RATE a 227.05 20,000 271.65 5 0,000 338.55 100,000 450.05 150,000 561.55 TIER 1 = TIER 2 = T IER 3 = TIER 4 = Bill AT THE PROPOSED RATE 227.05 272.45 3 40.55 454.05 567.55 $ 2.27 FOR AL L WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUNT OF PERCEN T CURRENT INCREASE IN CREASED GPf Wat er Rate Water Rate -0.0% 0.00 0.80 0.3% 9.40 2.00 0 .6% 23.50 4.00 0 .9% 47.00 6.00 1.1% 70.50 TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOME RS WITH A 4" METER -RECLA I MED WATER USE BASE RATE $ 354.77 COMMODITY RATE: GA LLON S BILLATTHE USED IN CURRENT 1 MONTH RATE 0 354.77 20 9,000 820.84 300,000 1,023.77 450,000 1,358.27 600,000 1,692.77 TIER 1 = TIER 2 = TIER 3 = TIER 4 = Bill AT THE PROPOSED RA TE 354.77 829.20 1,035.77 1,376.27 1,716.77 $ 2.27 FOR A LL WATER USAGE N/A N/A N/A AMOUNT Of PERCENT CURRENT INCREASE INCREASED GPf Water Rate Water Rate -0.0% 0.00 8 .36 1.0% 98.23 12.00 1.2% 141.00 18.00 1.3% 211.50 24.00 1.4% 282.00 TABLE fOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT IN CREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A 6" METER -RECLA I MED WATER USE BA SE RATE $ 709 .54 COMMODITY RATE: TIER 1 = $ 2.27 FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A GALLONS Bill ATTHE BILlATTHE AMOUNT Of PERCENT CURRENT USED IN CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE INCREASED GPf 1 MONTH RATE RATE Water Rate Water Rate 0 709.54 709.54 -0.0% 0.00 470,000 1,757.64 1,776.44 18.80 1.1% 220.90 5,000,000 11,859.54 12,059.54 200.00 1.7% 2,350.00 10,000,000 2 3,009 .54 23,409.54 400.00 1.7% 4,700 .00 15,000,000 34,159.54 34,759.54 600.00 1.8% 7,050.00 20,000,000 45,309.54 46,109.54 800.00 1.8% 9,400.00 B-9 = Average Water Use TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT GPf GPf MONTHL Y MONTHLY INCREA SED INCREASE Bill 0.00 0 .00 -227.05 0.0% 9.40 -0.80 281.85 0.3% 23.50 -2.00 364.05 0 .6% 47.00 -4.00 501.05 0.8% 70.50 -6 .00 638.05 0.9% TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT GPF GPF MONTHL Y MONTHLY INCREASED INCREASE Bill 0 .00 0.00 -354.77 0.0% 98.23 -8.36 927.4 3 0 .9% 141.00 -12.00 1,176.77 1.0% 211.50 -18.00 1,587.77 1.1% 282.00 -24.00 1,998.77 1.2% TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED IN CREASE IN TOTAL AMOUNT Of PERCENT GPf GPf MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED IN CREASE Bill 0.00 0 .00 -709.54 0.0% 220.90 -18.80 1,997.34 1.0% 2,350.00 -200.00 14,409.54 1.4% 4,700.00 -400.00 28,109.5 4 1 .4% 7,050.00 -600.00 41,809.54 1.5% 9,400.00 -800.00 55,509.54 1.5% APPENDIX C Service Fees & Charges C-1 Sec u r ity Dep os its - Con stru ction M et e rs SERVICE FEES AND CHARGES Proposed Security Deposits -Construction Meters Purpose: To reduce the Utility's financial loss when a contractor does not pay the ba lan ce on their account after the meter has been returned. In addition, the security deposit allows the utility to recover losses associated with lost or damaged equipment. The security desposit is refunded in full when the meter is returned in good condition and the final bill has been paid. Current Proposed Construction Meter Deposits $1,200.00 $2,300.00 Supporting Documentation 3-inch Omni meter FEBCO backflow assembly Adapter T ota I costs: C-1 $1,405.30 805.07 90.29 $2,300.66 APPENDIX D 5-Year Capital Improvement Schedules D-1 Operating Fund D-1 Groundwater Preservation Fee D-2 Alternative Water Resource Development Impact Fee Fund D-2 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY OPERATING FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS EXISTING POTABLE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $ 320,000 $ 565 ,000 GROUNDWATER PRESERVATION FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS RECLAIMED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS D-1 iii ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS CAP WATER DELIVERY PROJECTS ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS GROWTH RELATED POTABLE WATER PROJECTS D-2 APPENDIX E Assumptions for Preferred Financial Scenario E-1 Operating Fund E-5 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund E-6 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund Growth PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND SFR growth rates were provided by the Finance Department on 9/28/15 and are consistent w ith Town financial forecasting. Other gr owt h rates include commercia l, irrigation and multi-family connect ions. Con ne ctions FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 -20 sFR 200 300 300 250 200 Other 15 13 10 5 5 Current Water Rate Structure The following commodity r ates are the cost per 1,000 ga ll ons: Class ifica t ions Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier4 Si ngle Family Res id entia l $2.27 $3 .1 0 $4.23 $5.76 Irrigation $2.27 $3.10 $4.23 $5.76 Multi-fami ly Res iden tia l $2.27 --------- Commerc ial $2.27 --------- Construction Water $6.76 --------- Reclaimed Water $2.23 --------- GPF -Potab le $0.90 --------- GPF -Reclaimed $0.47 --------- Proposed Water Rate Structure for FY 2015-16 The following proposed commodity rates are th e cost per 1,000 gallons: Classifications Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier4 Single Family Residential $2 .3 2 $3.19 $4.40 $6.05 Irrigation $2.32 $3.19 $4.40 $6.05 Multi-fa mily Reside nt ia l $2.32 --------- Commercial $2.32 -------- Const ru ction Water $7.05 --------- Reclaimed Wa t e r $2.27 --------- GPF -Potable $0.90 --------- GPF -Recla im ed $0.47 --------- Th ere are n o proposed changes to the usage allowed in each ti er of the SF Re sidential and Irrigation classificat ions. There are no changes to any of the base r at es for FY 2015 -16. Proposed Potable Water Rate Increases The lIoverall increase" and "month ly impact ll are representative of a re sidentia l customer with a 5/8 x 3/4 inch water meter using 8,000 gallons of wate r per m onth. Base Overall Monthly Rate Tier 1 Tier 2 Ti er 3 Tier 4 GP F Increase Imgaet FY 15-16 N/A 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.1% $0.44 FY 16-17 2.0% 2 .0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.6% $0.66 FY 17-18 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 0.0% 2.2% $0.9 1 FY 18-19 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 0.0% 2.4% $1.00 FY 19-20 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 0 .0% 2.1% $0.93 E-1 PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND (continu e d) Proposed Reclaimed Water Rate Increases The proposed reclaimed rate increases are shown be low: FY 1S -16 Base Rat e N/A Commodity Rate $2.27 Perc ent I ncrease 2.0% FY 16 -17 N/A $2.32 2.0% FY 17 -18 N/A $2.39 3.0% FY 18-1 9 N/A $2 .46 3.0% Groundwater Pre se rvation Fee Rate s (cost per 1,000 gallons) FY 19-20 N/A $2.54 3.0% Ther e are no proposed changes in the GPF throughout the S-year projection period . Water Use Trends Proj ec tions include similar water use trends as thos e in FY 14-15. The average monthly water use for a re sid ential custome r with a 5/8 x 3/4 in ch wa t er m et er decreased to 7,30 0 ga ll ons per month in FY 14 -15 from 7,900 ga ll ons in FY 13-14 . Other Revenue Other revenue is based on FY 15-16 proposed budget. With the exception of revenue from sewer billing, other revenue is no t projected to increase because mi sc . charges fluctuate an nu al ly, Other revenue includes late fee s, reconnect fees, new service es tabli shment fe es , sewer billing, stormwater billing and meter income. Sewer billing is projected to increase by 3% in FY 2018 -19. Beginning Ca sh Balance Taken from 6/30/15 Bal ance Sheet of respective fund s (MUNIS reports dated 9/14/15) Interest Income The int erest r ate for all 5 years in the analysis period i s projected to be 2.0%. Inter est rate provid ed by the Fin an ce Department on 9/28/15. Personnel Costs One new e mployee was added in FY 15-16. No other new employees were added during th e projection period. The following increases were provided by th e Finance Department on 9/28/15 and are con sis tent wit h Town fin ancia l forecasting : the annua l merit i ncrease i s projected to be 3.5% annua ll y and health care costs are projected to increase by 2% annual ly. It is projected that the state pen sion wil l remain constant over the 5-year projection period. O&M Costs -Potable Ba se d on Utility's proposed budget for FY 15-16 and updated with the mo st recen t information . Projected 15% increase in power costs for a potential Tucso n Electric rate increa se i n FY 17 -18 . O&M Costs -Reclaimed Bas ed on Utility's proposed budget for FY 15-16 and updated with the mo st re ce nt information. Project ed 15% increa se in power costs for a potential Tu cso n Electri c rate incr ease in FY 17-18. E-2 PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND (continued) Inflation Rate s Th e f o ll owin g infl ati o n r at es we r e provided by th e Tow n's Finan ce Departm ent on 9/28/15: FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Water Resource Management Costs Costs are f or t h e pu r ch ase of gro un dwater exti nguish m en t cre d i t s. These cr ed its w ill be pl edged t o the Gro un dwa t er Allowa nce Acco unt to help mai ntai n a bala nce th at w il l faci l itate gr owt h in t he water service area. An nu al cos t s f o r FY 15-16 an d FY 16 -17 have bee n es t imated. The ac tu al vo l um e p u rc hase d w il l d epe nd o n t he negoti at ed cos t p er ac r e foot. Reclaimed Water Wheeling Costs Pu rsuant t o th e exis t i ng IGA, the r ecl aimed water i s de live r ed o n a no n-interru p t i ble bas i s at an in terru ptibl e r ate. Th e IGA is cu rren tly b ei ng re n ego t iate d wi th t he same t erms; t here f o r e, on ly i nfla t ion ary inc r eases ar e incl u ded ann u all y. The r ate for FY 15 -16 is $274.45/AF plu s a m o nthly base r ate. Incl uded i n th e FY 15-16 cos t s ar e f unds pai d t o Tu cso n Wa t er fo r t he purch ase o f th eir effl uent when Or o Va ll ey d idn 't p ro d uce e no u gh ef f lu en t durin g th e pa st 4 years. In t he fut u re, Or o Va l ley will ha ve th e cho i ce t o use lo ng-term sto r age cr edits t o offse t any Town efflu ent shor t ages o r to r epay w ith cas h; an ave ra ge of $33,600 per yea r has bee n included in t he r ecl aim ed op erating cos t s for FY 2016 -17 th ro ugh FY 2019 -2 0 . CAP Wheeling Costs Costs incl ud e t h e f ees ch arged by Tucson Wa t er to w h ee l t h e CA P wa t er t hro u gh th ei r rec h arge and r ecove r y system. Tucso n Water f ees are fixed purs uant to an IGA an d ar e su bject to re-n egoti ation i n FY 2016-17. It is assumed th at t here we re be a 15% increase in the powe r compo nent an d a 5% in crease in th e O&M co mpo nent of t he w hee lin g r ate. It is also ass u med t h at t he Utility wi ll w hee l 2,100 AF pe r y~ar for FY 20 15-16 t hrough FY 2018-19. The amo un t whee l ed is proj ec t ed t o increase t o 2,60 0 AF in FY 20 19 -20. CAP Recharge Co sts Cos t s are based o n t he r ate sc hedu le adop t ed by CAP 6/04/15. The fi gures represe nt the cos t to de liver t he Utili t y's entire allo tm ent of CAP water (10,305 AF) f o r r ec har ge ann u all y. Capital Improv ements -Operating Fund Th e fo ll owin g t able identifi es th e am ou nt of th e ca pi t al proj ec t s for th e ex istin g p otab le wa t er sys t e m f o r eac h f isca l yea r and th e r el at ed fin an ci ng as id en t ifi ed in the re vised 5-Yea r CIP dated 10/07/15: Fisca l Tota l Pro ject Financ ing Year Capita l Costs Cash Ex isting New Debt Reserves W IFA Loan 20 15-16 $ 3,079,000 $1,279,000 $1,800,000 2016-17 $ 1,680,000 $1,680,000 20 17-18 $ 1,250,000 $ 70,000 $ 1,180,000 2018 -19 $ 1,585,000 $ 275,000 $ 1,310,000 2019-20 S 2,070,000 S 70,000 S 2,000,000 $ 9,664,000 $3,374,000 $1,800,000 $ 4,490,000 Assumed add itiona l d eb t incurred in FY 17 -1 8 for ex ist in g sys t em improve m en t s. E-3 PREFERRED FI NANCIAL SCENAR IO ASSUMPTIONS FOR O PERATING FUND (continued) Capita l Improve ments -Groundwater Preservation Fee Th e following table identifies the amount of the cap ital projects for the reclaimed water sys t em fo r each fisca l year and the related financing as identified in the revi sed 1S-Year CIP dated 10/07/15: Fisca l Year 20 15-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 20 19 -20 Debt Service Total Capital Costs $2,100,000 200,000 $2,300,000 Pro ject Fin ancin g Cash New Debt Reserves $2,100,000 200,000 $2,300,000 The following table identifies th e debt serv ice included in this proforma: Bonds Type Description Amort ization Sc hedule By 2005 Excise Tax Land -Moe Stone & Youngberg 2007 Exci se Tax Refunding (1996 & 1999) Stone & Youngberg 2008 Sf. lien Reclaimed Ph . 2 WIFA 2009 Sf. Lien Existing Syste m CI P WIFA 2012 Sr. Lien Refunding (Reclaim Ph. I) Sto ne & Youngberg 2012 Sr. Lien Refun ding (2003) Stone & Youngbe rg 2013 Sr. lien Re fund ing (2003) Stifel & Nico laus & Co. 20 14 Sf. Lie n AMI Project W IFA 20 15 Excise Tax Re fund ing (2005) St ifel & Nicolaus & Co . 20 17 Sr. Lien Existi ng System CIP W IFA Minimum Debt Service Coverage Requirement 1.30 debt se r vice coverage ratio f or 2012 & 2013 Sr. Li en Bonds & WIFA Loa ns 1.00 deb t se r vice cove r age ratio for all Excise Tax Pledged Bonds E-4 Growth PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR AWRDlF FUND SFR growth rates were provided by the Finance Department on 9/28/15 and are consistent with Town financial forecasting. Other Service Units (SU's) include commercial, irrigation and multi-family connections. FY 15-16 FY 16 -17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 -20 5FR 5U's 200 300 300 250 200 Other 5U's 50 50 50 50 50 AWRD Impact Fees Decreased to $4,045 per EDU , Ordinance No. (0) 14-05, effective 7/01/14 Not projected to change in the 5 year projection period. Beginning Cash Balance Taken from 6/30/15 Balance Sheet of respective funds (MUNIS reports dated 9/14/15). Interest Income The interest rate for ailS years in the analysis period is projected to be 2.0%. Interest rate was provided by the Finance Department on 9/28/15. CAP Capital Costs Based on 3,557 AF at rate schedule adopted by CAP 6/04/15. Debt Service There i s no debt service in this fund during the 5-year projection period. Capital Improvements The following table identifies the amount of the CAP water capital projects for each fiscal year and the related financing as identified in the revised 5-Year CIP dated 10/07/15: Fiscal Year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Capital Costs $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $4,110,000 $3.100,000 $7,710,000 Project Financing Cash Reserves New Debt $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $4,110,000 $3,100,000 $7,710,000 E-5 Growth PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR PWSDIF FUND SFR growth rates were provided by the Finan ce Department on 9/28/15 and are consistent with Town financial forecasting. Other Se rvic e Units (SU's) include commercial, irrigation and multi-family connections. FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 FY1 7-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 -20 5FR 5U's 200 300 300 250 200 Other SU's 50 50 50 50 50 PWSD Impact Fees Decreased i mpact fee s to $2,015 per EDU, Ordinance No. (O) 14-05, effective 7/01/14. Not projected to change in the five year projection period. Beginning Cash Balance Ta ken from 6/30/15 Ba lance Sheet of r espective funds. (MUNIS reports dated 9/14/15). Interest Incom e The interest rate for all 5 years in the ana lysi s period is projected to be 2.0%. Interest rate was provided by the Finance Department on 9/28/15. Debt Service The following table identifies the debt se rvic e included in this proforma: Bonds Type Description Amortization Schedule By 2012 Sr. lien Refund in g (2003) Stone & Youngberg Debt Service Coverage 1.30 debt se rvice coverage ratio f o r 2012 Sr. Lien Bo nds Capital Improvements The following table identifies the amo unt of the growth related capital projects for the potable water system for each fiscal year and the related finan cin g as identified in the revi sed 5-Year CIP dated 10/07/15: Fiscal Year 2015 -16 2016-17 2017 -18 2018-19 20 19-20 Total Ca pita I Costs $ 500.000 $ 500,000 Project Financing Cash Reserves New Debt $ 500.000 $ 500,000 E-6 Town Council Regular Session Item # 3. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Rosevelt Arellano Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-01, REZONING AN EXISTING 26.3 ACRE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE AND ORACLE ROAD FROM R1-144 TO VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to create zoning standards that reflect the site conditions within the existing Verde Catalina Townhome 43-year-old development. The property’s R1-144 (3.3 acre lots) zoning designation is not consistent with the existing lot sizes which range from 3,200 to 5,000 square feet. Due to recurring zoning issues related to building expansions, the Verde Catalina Townhomes Homeowners Association (HOA) proposes to rezone the 26.3 acre subdivision from R1-144 to PAD.   The proposed rezoning will accomplish the following:  Create development standards that match the existing site conditions within a townhome development Eliminate the need for variances to allow reduced building setbacks for common building expansions (e.g., patios, carports, room additions, etc.) Deliver on the expectation to establish more appropriate zoning when the site was annexed Maintain the residential characteristics of the subdivision by not allowing: 1) new uses 2) expanded boundaries 3) taller buildings and 4) additional lots The proposed PAD is provided as Exhibit “B” in Attachment 1. The Location Map is provided in Attachment 2.   The proposed rezoning to PAD was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 5, 2015, and December 1, 2015. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Commission recommended approval based on the findings that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and will provide standards which reflect the existing townhome development. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Verde Catalina Townhome subdivision was built under Pima County’s jurisdiction in 1972. The The Verde Catalina Townhome subdivision was built under Pima County’s jurisdiction in 1972. The property was subsequently annexed into Oro Valley and the zoning translated to R1-144 (3.3 acre lots). As required by state law, this R1-144 translational zoning reflected the Pima County Suburban Ranch (SR) zoning which existed in the County upon annexation, but did not provide for the existing townhome development on the property, which consists of approximately 3,200 to 5,000 square foot lots. The translational zoning has resulted in a legal non-conforming development. To resolve the discrepancy in the zoning versus land use, the homeowners association (HOA) has submitted this request to develop zoning standards to reflect the existing site conditions (e.g. smaller lot sizes and building setbacks) and allow typical building expansions (e.g. porches, carports, awnings, etc.). The attached PAD reflects the proposed standards for the development, which were patterned after the Town’s R-4 (Townhome Residential) zoning district. Current Site Conditions  26.3 acres 149 attached townhome units Density: 5.67 homes per acre Zoning is R1-144 (3.33 acre minimum lot size) Minimum lot size: 3,200 square feet Building setbacks: 0’ – 50’ Building height: 18’, 1-story 250 square feet of uncovered living area in the rear yard Land Use Context: The existing 149 units were built under Pima County’s jurisdiction in 1972. The surrounding land uses, general plan and zoning designations are provided below and are depicted on the attached Location Map (Attachment 2), General Plan Map (Attachment 3) and Zoning Map (Attachment 4):  EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING SUBJECT PROPERTY Townhome Development High Density Residential (5+ homes per acre) Single-family Residential (R1-144) NORTH Townhome Development High Density Residential (5+ homes per acre) Multi-family Residential (R-6) SOUTH Retail and Office Neighborhood Commercial Office Commercial (C-2) EAST Single-family Residential Low Density Residential (0.4 - 1.2 homes per acre) Single-family Residential (R1-36) WEST Single-family Residential Neighborhood Commercial Office High Density Residential Residential Service (R-S) Commercial (C-2) Approvals-to-Date:  1972: Verde Catalina Townhomes plat recorded and subdivision constructed 2003: Property annexed into Oro Valley 2003: Translational zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144 2011 - 2015: Variances granted for awning / building additions Proposed Planned Area Development  The proposed perimeter and building setbacks are similar to the R-4 zoning standards. Several modifications were made to address specific issues related to lot size, site coverage and limiting building height to 18’, one-story. General Plan Conformance The current density meets the existing General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows 5 or more homes per acre. The proposed rezoning is subject to the PAD criteria outlined in the General Plan. These criteria along with staff comments are provided in Attachment 5. In summary, as the development was constructed 43 years ago, many of the criteria are not applicable to this PAD. Zoning Code Conformance Based on the timing of development, the PAD is in conformance with all of the applicable findings outlined in Section 24.4.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code. The staff analysis of these findings is provided in Attachment 6. Public Participation Two neighborhood meetings were held, the first on October 8, 2014, with five residents in attendance and the second on October 28, 2014, with nine residents in attendance. The discussion at the neighborhood meetings focused on the purpose of the rezoning application and proposed development standards. The neighborhood meeting summary notes are provided as Attachment 7. It is important to note that the proposed development standards have been reviewed and endorsed by the HOA, and presented to residents at several HOA meetings. To date, staff has received two letters of support from the HOA (Attachment 8), and one letter of concern (Attachment 9). Planning and Zoning Commission Review The proposed rezoning to Planned Area Development was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 5, 2015, and December 1, 2015. The discussion at the public hearings focused on:  Development standards of the R-4 zoning and the proposed Planned Area Development Permitted building expansions History of the development  At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Commission recommended approval based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and will provide standards which reflect the existing townhome development. The staff report and draft minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are provided as Attachments 10 and 11, respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to adopt Ordinance No. (O)16-01, rezoning the Verde Catalina Townhomes subdivision, from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development, based on the findings that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and will resolve a long standing zoning issue.   OR I MOVE to deny Ordinance No. (O)16-01, finding that the proposed rezoning does not meet _______________________________________. Attachments (O)16-01 Rezoning Existing 26.3 Acre Townhome Development Attachment 2 - Location Map Attachment 3 - General Plan Map Attachment 4 - Zoning Map Attachment 5 - General Plan Analysis Attachment 6 - Zoning Code Analysis Attachment 7 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes Attachment 8 - HOA Letters of Support Attachment 9 - Letter of Concern Attachment 10 - PZC Staff Report Attachment 11 - PZC Meeting Minutes ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, APPROVING A REZONING REQUEST BY VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR A 26.3 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE AND ORACLE ROAD TO BE REZONED FROM R1-144 TO VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Verde Catalina Townhomes Homeowner Association, applied for a rezoning from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development for a 26.3 acre property located at the northeast and southeast corners of Mountain Vista Drive and Oracle Road, see map of property as depicted on Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the gross site of the proposed rezoning is 26.3 acres; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the application is to create zoning standards that reflect the existing conditions within a 43 year old townhome development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant wishes to change the zoning to planned area development to resolve a conflict between the large lot R1-144 zoning and the small lot townhome use of the property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request for rezoning complies with the OVZCR; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request for rezoning complies with the applicable General Plan requirements; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval for rezoning the property from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has duly considered the Applicant’s request for rezoning of a 26.3 acre property located at the northeast and southeast corners of Mountain Vista Drive and Oracle Road. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that the rezoning requested by Verde Catalina Townhomes Homeowner Association to a property located at the northeast and southeast corners of Mountain Vista Drive and Oracle Road. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that: 1.All Oro Valley ordinances, resolutions or motions and parts of ordinances, resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. 2.If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona on this 6th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A” MAP OF PROPERTY Magee Road EXHIBIT “B” PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Verde Catalina Townhomes Located near the northeast corner of Magee and Oracle Roads Prepared by: Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 January 6, 2016 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development I. Site Analysis A. Project Overview 2 B. History 4 C. Existing Land Uses 4 1. Existing Zoning 4 2. Existing Land Uses 4 II. Land Use Proposal A. Permitted Land Uses 6 III. Development Standards A. Perimeter Setbacks 6 B. Building Setbacks 6 C. Building Height 6 D. Lot Density Coverage 6 E. Detached Accessory Structures 6 F. Lot Size 7 G. Other Provisions 7 IV. List of Exhibits 7 Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 8 Exhibit 2: Aerial Map 9 Exhibit 3: Zoning Map 10 Exhibit 4: Subdivision Plat 11 1 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development I. Site Analysis A. Project Overview The Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development (PAD) encompasses approximately 26.3 acres of developed land located on the east side of Oracle Road, approximately 700’ north of the Magee and Oracle Roads intersection. See Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map. Exhibit 1 – Regional Location Map 2 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development The purpose of the Verde Catalina Townhomes PAD is to establish development standards for the existing site conditions and future expansions. The PAD will affect new construction and will not change the residential characteristics of the property. See Exhibit 2: Aerial Map. Exhibit 2: Aerial Map 3 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development B. History The existing townhomes were developed in the 1970’s and under Pima County’s Suburban Ranch (S-R) zoning district. This zoning district is intended for large single-family residential lots. At the time of construction, the townhomes did not meet both the minimum building setbacks and lot size requirements prescribed by Pima Count’s S-R zoning designation. In 2003, the property was annexed into the Town of Oro Valley and translated to the Town’s R1-144 (Single-Family/144,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. The new zoning district did not resolve the previous zoning issues (i.e. building setbacks and lot sizes) because state law required that the Town zoning (R1-144) be equivalent to the property’s former zoning classification (S-R) under Pima County. The previous land use approvals for the property include: Pima County C08-71-5 – Subdivision Plat Town of Oro Valley Ordinance No. (O) 03-09 – Annexation Ordinance No. (O) 03-32 – Translational Zoning C. Existing Land Uses This section identifies the existing zoning and land uses on the property and adjacent parcels. 1. Existing Zoning (See Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map) o Onsite: From R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes PAD o North: R-6 o South: C-2 o East: R1-36 o West: R-S and C-2 2. Existing Land Uses o Onsite: Townhomes with minimum 3,200 sf. lots o North: Townhomes o South: Commercial o East: Single-family detached homes o West: Commercial, condominiums and apartments 4 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Exhibit 3: Zoning Map 5 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development II. Land Use Proposal A. Permitted Uses 1. Townhouse residential developments. 2. Other permitted uses listed under the R-4 (Townhouse Residential District) zoning designation of the Oro Valley Code Revised. III. Development Standards A. Perimeter Setbacks Perimeter setbacks shall be maintained as follows: 1. From the property line of any R-1 district: Twenty-five (25’) feet 2. From the property line of any district other than R-1: Ten (10’) feet B. Building Setbacks 1. Front, sides and rear: Zero (0) 2. Ten (10’) feet in between buildings C. Building Height 1. Eighteen (18’) feet, 1-story D. Lot Density Coverage 1. Expansions into the front yard: May be permitted with an approval by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Town Engineer provided that there are no issues with site visibility triangles, traffic circulation and existing significant vegetation. 2. Expansions into the rear yard: Each lot shall maintain a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of uncovered living space in the rear yard. E. Detached Accessory Structures 1. See above setback and height provisions. 2. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building nor be any closer to the front lot line than the main building. 6 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development F. Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be 3,200 square foot in area. G. Other Provisions: Where standards are not specified, the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised shall govern the development. IV. List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Subdivision Map 7 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 8 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Exhibit 2: Aerial Map 9 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Exhibit 3: Zoning Map 10 Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Exhibit 4: Subdivision Plat 11 ~ --I --------~------.----------------- , ~ '(":II" o- ::'jO'~: 0'00'00" o· "4$" OI"48fKJ" LOCIlT/ON PL~N SECTfDN 25, T-''''5, ,f./,·E,c,j$.(.6.tM. PIMA COL/NT.", i:!o.A:I%ONA $C.<IU;:.1". IMII./! CUIlV'! DATA r ~-:, -,. JI.;U' ""2,' 4e..l' " 4/.,fIT --,. 3.73' 174" 0.00' 4111-' 3000' 0.00' 7·'Z -,.:>.Z" 4::1. r ~D·DO· ", 14.14" t818 G,ENUIlL NOTES {. PR/YIJU lJRIJJlhf(;,£ CIIIJNNELS NORTJI OF CATAt.INIJ SJ.I,aOOWS ~oU1.EVIJRO WILL 8E CONSTRue7ELY ACC/JRIJINC, TO I1PPRtWE/J PLANS PRIOR TO/SSUM/CE OF /IN-,; PERMITS FRt'JM 7lIE z.oN/N~ INSPEC7Wl FOR LOTS / T.iI,.e1J Z(., ANOlOT /4-IA. t. . .PR/Y,dT£ t?A'4IN.x.;E CIIIlNNELS 8ETWEEN CA721L/N/J 5J.1IJDOWS 6OuLEYAK£; .dN,oMouNT4IN /l15TA DRIVE WI1,L6E~OI\l.sT~UCT£f) PRIOR m /SSLJANCE ev-AAlr'PERMITS POM rHE ZO#IN""i INSI"EC.TCJ.R. Fo!'J.R LOT.5 J!.7 TJlRV99 i.1H.o LOT /47.dNLJ /48. .J,pr/V/JTe f)~IJ/N/;6ECJl4N/IIE.L5 SOUTI-! Or MO()NTIJJN YISTA DRIVE WILt. BE CONSTRUCTED !'lIfOK TO ISSUANCE OFAN'I PERMITS FR()M TJ./E ZONING iNsp,Ecm!e FOt< LOTS /00 TJ./~U MS .lJNf) LOT 14~. DlD/CIlT/ON IfAV~);::::/::;~;::/~~:c:c~*;~~~:r:;~~i.sw::w~~;/::; ~~:T~O'!~~ TO n/ESUI1M'/5IoN or54IIJ/ANIJINTtiE MdNNEA:'SJI()WII/. TUE I'K/MTE 5T/lEET.!) AND 77fO.3f:DE:;/t;.NIJTEO P~TION5 oFTJlE COMMCWA/tEMIlRE /lU£!jP DEDlClJreO ro THE PUBi./C Fa( me IN!!>T.tJJ.L.IlTiaN LJNlJ M~/NTJ!NANC.E OF P{./~J.lc.. U rlLlTIESI1ND ~FWEIl5. UTILITIES WiLl 13£ LOCATED UNDEI(G,wUND 11\1 CONFORMAN(,E WITUilRflONt. COIiPMATION COMMISSION AMENDED c,ENERlJlo!Df(l u-.;.a OIVJS1TM~'r' Be MAENDED. TMN5IJMUICiJ TITLE IN5IJRIJNCE l'.OMPIJN"', IlN At.lZON!J. CO/(PtJI! .. ATION (DECI.JJR.IJNT).'NKECoR()fN~TJ.JfS flATOF VEROE Ct;TI.1L1NIl roWNJ.lOliSES fl5lJBDIVIS/ON JJAS OfSW"ATtO CEIlTA/N AtEAS OF LAND.d5 CoMMON 4I?EIl,INTcNlll/J FOf( IJ$£ 'H' TJ.I£ /.lOME OWNERs IN VERIJ£ CATIJ.LINA TQWNJ.JPI.J5E5 FO~ RE-CI£AnON 4NO ort/EN RELAT&D !J.CTIVITllS. TUf. DtSI(;'NIlTED IJ.<'EASMlE NOTDEDrl'.tlTED IJEItEBYFOIl USE 8'1 TJJE l1ENERA! PUaLll !JIH ARE DEOICIJTlD FOil T/.IE COMMON liSE IJItID EItIJOIlMENT OF TUE J./OMEOWNE/lS IN VERDE CATALINA. TQWNJ/OUSES ,15 MONE FULlY I'!tOVIDEIJ IN TIJE DECLt1/(ATlON!J OF COVtNdNT5,CONOlnONSI'>NDRESTIlJC1IONS .1PPLICA8l~ TO VERof CA7.dUNA 7OW/rItJOIJSES DIl7EO (',.Z6-72. SIJID O~cLIJR,1TIONS OF COV£NAN7'S, CONDITIONS IJ.ND RE5T.<'ICT!oNS ME JJER.E811 INCoRPAf4TlD AND MIJDEAP4(T OF TI-IIS I'I.IJT. WE,iJJe OWNE.~S. OtJ,f SOCC£SS~S IJNO!J.SSI~NS,lJDJJEf15Y ~i!lVE PIMA c.allNT"', ITS SUC('ESSoRS AND IJ.SS/ejNS, AND TIJl!I(EMPJ..OI,IU<;;,()FrlCElts ANfJ 4C~ENT$, J..IAI!M!C$' FROM ANY AN/) All Cl..dIM.5 FOI! .oAM.dliiES ~ELATtD TO TPE U!!.E O~ Ti/£S£ i.ANDS,NOWANLlI"'TJJEFLlTl.IRf,tWREA~Na~,clOODIM$. FLOWA0E E~OSJON oR. 04M.lJGE CA.lJ~ED 6;,.> W,1TER, WJ./ETJ.IE~ 5utrUE FLar:>/) ()fe. RAINFIJ./....J.. TRANS/:J.MEI!;C.A TITL€. INsuRANCE COMPANY, F!.N ,M?Il.ONA COPPbltA71CN, AS T!?USTEE tJNDE( TJJ/JT CElirlJlN TteOST AGREEMENT NO. ",,498 ON tU/S THE.....!J...LDA'r' OF_'_"_' '_" __ 1'171. f!;£FORt:. ME , !. .". J"", TtJE U#PfJ!SJGNEiJ f)FFICEIl.P£R.SONALL'r' !J.Pf£ARED L 'r'NN f.. 8/411<., W/JO AC.KNlJWl£lX£DIJIM~LrTo8£ TtJ£ Tflu!.r OHiCE!l. OF Tf./ETR.AN$JjMEflleA TITLE JN5U1I.ANt'..E COMPAIJ'r', Mlllfll.ONIJC(J€iJUATMN, .110/0 nJAT J./E 45 SUOJ T(UST O",cICE~ /JEINI:,AUTUOL/2Ef; S" -"-0 Qt), nUIJTED '( .. IE POIUC',oINq INSTIWMENT FOil TlIE PUl.P65E TJJEiElN CON71lIN£J) /3'0' SIt;.NIN4 rUE NIJ.ME OFTJ.IE CON.PoiATION 8'1 UIM5c/E AS TR1I5T OFF/elf( . IN WITNESS WtllREOF I IIEkEUN70 5ET M'>' INlAID ANil OFF/OM SEAL. WOT41l'r' PIJBLlC:--'-_'-'-'-'-"-~' --,",,,'--,-,r~'_' _____ _ M'r' COMMISSION £JPlllES:_"_·_·~· '_ 4 G,RO.sS ~IiEA OF SUBLJ/VI.310N 15 2fD.3 ACIlES fEIC/....USIVE ~ I'lJ.8l.1C RIG)./T.S-OF·WAY.) TDIIN OF ORO VALLEY ANNEXATION S. 6EA~I.'Jt;5 M{E 8ASED ON souT/.J UN£" of .5UN/<J'r'~J.DPE S/J6D1V1SI0N,L0T5~ T#tllS9,AoMP5 f I'l.Jrs IOBP,pl., SAfDl!J£AifNq 8EINC1 NtY'~·5''J.I. W, If, TilE J./OMtowNEiS /JSSDClIJTlCJJJ WILL 8E RE.5MNS/~LE FoR MMfTlNANCE. ORD NO, (0)03-09 04/07/03 EFF, 05/07/03 COIJTR.OL,.5J.FEr't', ANOLIAIJ/LlrY~ALLfRIV4TE smas AND DIWNAG,tWA'r'S. 7,0 ~5Er4 S7laPIN 74G,eO"p!6jl1"UNUSstJTIJERWl5E NOT~D. 11 O"'5tr A 5iJLV!¥MONtJMtNT,SEJNGA Z'BllliSSPL!J.Tc!JTAMfEO"PU,'77'StTIN A 1t.'KIt.-fle: BLOCK O'COA!dETE.. 9 ...... E1J5TIN~ MONUMENTS. iO.~:OENOTESCUJtVE .SEE cuRVE DATA. II. 7lIE£!EVFllJPER INlCNOS TO P~VE MO{)N7itIN VI5TAlJ!lIVE AND CATJJ.LlNA :SI-lAlJtJWS B/..VO' ........................................... ~ ...... ...... WIl1IIN T.l//S !j{)6lJjV/SICWroPIM4.COUNT'r'Plt'l..J.JW..1YJ)EPT.5TANOAfi'DS. S .................... ~ -1 12. 1.0TCOMCRSS~TWITtil/2."STEELPIIIS,T,1(,C,C[J"PE"'377: S MAP 116 5 UN"" O"'''WJ'' NOTED. I ZONE SR I ANNOTATED COPY 5 SEE SEe. 602 OF P.e. S I ZONING PLAN, I S s I,. .................................................................................................... ~ CU.TIFICt.TlON 01 SURVEY I !JERE8'! CElf.TlF'r' TJJIJT rl.us PLAT REI'~E5eNTS A SUi!V£''t' MIlOE lJNDf/? M'" DIUC. nON AND T/JIJ T TUE Pfl.OflERT'r' c.ol.NEiS AND MONUMENTS I.1C.TUAL/.Y EI15T h.5 S/kJ1N1,J UERfON, OR .!l8QND tJlJ~ SEEN (JaSTED 1"01{ n.JE/~ EVENTUlJ.~rN!.Th.LJ.F!.TID"'. r • (\ r~'" -Zl..},<;" t65 V\ '5"1; .. GiL£IJN cA~T£A. PtDFEssrON~L fNGltllEER. NO.~'77 , IJPPIWVJ1LS T/.IIS~! I-JAS/JJEJt!EVIEW.EDI.1ND IS IJEI?E8)JAPl'ROV£OAS TCfORM.ANOCIJNTENTS. ~;-::.~ ";'=·7.::1. PIMA C.OUNTY PI.ANNINQ DltEc.TOIt. -----;s;..fE--- ~~~~;)f.c;TOC""'N'------~-~~~~i(z- ~,Sb·~~ ___ _ ~/~/;":- PIMIl c.oUNT'" .EN~iN£ER. O.1T£ I, ELSA S. /./I1NN/J,CLEflK tJf ,tJP i3MR.[)tJf SUPER.VI$ORS, ;.JCRtey Cl!TlFY T/'MT TIJIS P.LAf WIlS I1PPRf);~J.le6C/JH.DOI SIJP£f(Vl5/)~, PIMA (Q/lHTt',M}l1JNA, qN T~d-~J 1972. 4/.;1VZ~ CUll<., 600tJ({I QF 5uPErc.Vlso£~ OIlTE. (!~~.:~~~::!~::!?~:~:~:~t:~2:¥'~~~~~;:~:~J VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOUSES LOTS I TU£U 1+9 BElNG,1 U5U 8D/VISION OF,II PORTION OF C,IIT.1L1Ni:. CITRUS £STIlTES. RECORlJEO IN BOOl{ <D, PAC,t 24 OF M,IIPSI1ND PLATS. BEING, 1.1 PORTION OF TI-IE E'I2 OF SW '14 OF SEC. 25 AND LYING, EAST OF TJ-IE TUCSON-FLORENCE I-I/G,/-IWIW_ Co8-M')·71-5 FLORIAN $ COLLINS COHSULTING ENdlNEERS INC, TUCSON. AllZONA 30< 12 /00,00 \IANNOTATED COPYI\ ..--'-~-----'-":' ___ ---:---;;;:J28P~1 ,-----~ 1A-1 - / 3 5/3 ~5££~ 5\-1~E1 \ IIJTU(,'Of( '/4-COf( ,V( 25 T-12-8, ((·;3-£, tD e"O P. (15 VERDf(ATAUNA TOWNHOUSES LOTS 1 rHRU If9 :302. C08-(602)-7/-5 SI-lE.E.T 2. OF .5 SHEE.TS l 13 ... . ~ '" ~ 'i ' :: ! '" ~ -< .. ~ ~ ~ <i TU C S O N 8 !g . ! :: ; ' . / ( / , : : /,.," I- I I G I - I W 4 ' r ' ~!~ 5 ~ / ~ ~ ! ~ . ? t l ~ ' ~~~~ ~ _ ~ ' ! - - ! ~ _ ~ ~ . a . ~ " 2_~ ~ ~ . 1 $ ' ,( S ) FL O R E N f ' F Q .. ~'/', ......... ---.... ,:~~~~.~~=~ .. 15. ,~ ', 0 \ U S . h ' W " 8 , ~w, o < ' " " " o ~ - ~ - ~ --~';f.i.:1-";~~ r1 - ... ... g ~ a ~, " ~ Ig :;::& ~." . ~. ~ :w 4c c E s S - i i . i t - , w ; ; & L ___ / S O O O B U / " D W " - ~E,"L;~ ~." . . 7S~SOo----1Gi ", - il - 4 : ~ c. ... . """ \ 0 "", 'f' I ' D d ~ rJ O ~ o O ' "OQL~ r-~' -\.: ~I ~:' ~ ~ '" · .. ·r:::: ~ (')1 " ~g g ~ -~,' -~ ~ I """ ~ L I!l~-1 I§Q Ig.~ 'r-'1>-~~ § .. tfl r"\:c: ,17;-I> '~ 0 ;~ ~'" <;:)~'~ 0> ~~~. '<. ~i\~ ~ ~~\~ \1\ f~ . /' ( 1 , ) , ' . : " U f f m , w , , u V l l r IJ W , J L L j " " ' " .~ 7 .. " ' " 3,o "'-5<' ,W S ' ' ' ' 8 " " c 5 " . ' 5 , , ' "" 8 " " 0 " __ .. ·l;;' : , ~ ' / ' ' : ~ . ' : · · : ,., ~ /" . ! i / - ' / ( ' , t ; » Z Z 0 --I ~ m 0 14 r •. 1 ,~. r-. I .t.:,~ :',··1 >! '~I '-.: \ I-- I ~ ~ 8 ., ~ .& .~ ~ ~ • ~ :,: !l75~' I 78 /I~8' 77 /1758' 7fD ANNOTATED COpy ~ t VERDE CATAUHA 10WN~OUSfS LOTS J THRU ,4' 30' S/-lf.f.T 4-of ~ SJ.lEETS 15 15000' -~ 'i IIANNOTATED COPY11 /!I 77·4«.'S9"W 116.54-' /00 1I{!J.54' /01 liB 54' /02. J!,8~ /OJ , ~ ';1)";'8" ~@/2.9 93.~~' ~ :1":: -" \. POOL, RAMADA AND RES1ROOMS C"MMO/Ji!lI'£A"~ /4-9 @ ~~--; ~ ':I'! ~ ~ "j, ~ Ii "-~ <,: ~ ~ ~: ~ !'i ;.~ ~ ,~ : " ~ /22 "" " ., ~I c:s ,-,' ~. ~ ,'" I::! <::1 ~ "I " ~ I '\ f/J :l?tf' . ,00 ~ _' "~:5_~Y' \ S1':1~ I p. ,:NE eoR. SIJFRJI./(,CENTEI'.. VfRO£ CATAUNA TOWNHOUSES LOTS J THRU • 4~ 3DZ Co8-(COZj-7J-S !lUEET 5 O'!l 5IlUT~ LOCATION MAP VERDE CATALINA (OV914-005) Attachment 2 Magee Road GENERAL PLAN MAP VERDE CATALINA (OV914-005) Attachment 3 -Hardy Road LOR LOR Magee Road LOR ZONING MAP VERDE CATALINA (OV914-005) Attachment 4 R1-43 Hardy Road R1·36                 Town of Oro Valley  Development and Infrastructure Services      Verde Catalina Planned Area Development (PAD) Section 24.4. G General Plan Criteria Analysis Attachment 5 Staff Comment: The Verde Catalina Townhomes is an existing development built in 1972, prior to the establishment of the applicable policies. As such, many of the below criteria are not applicable to an existing development which was built prior to the General Plan.   G. General Plan Criteria The following criteria are derived from the adopted Oro Valley General Plan. All PAD applications shall be evaluated utilizing these criteria. In order to approve a PAD, the Town Council must find eighty percent (80%) of the applicable criteria are adequately addressed in the PAD plan and text documents. All absolute criteria (shown in bold typeface) must be met by the proposed PAD. 1. Land Use Element a. Varied types and intensities of development have been incorporated. b. Site analysis information completely supports the land use proposals contained in the PAD. c. A mix of housing types, such as single-family attached and detached, single-family cluster homes, patio homes, townhouses and apartments, is incorporated in the PAD. d. The PAD promotes clustered (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. e. Higher density or intensity developments abutting lower density or intensity areas include buffering and shall substantially mitigate any negative impacts. Oro Valley, it’s in our nature. 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737  www.orovalleyaz.gov | phone: (520) 229‐4800 | fax: (520) 742‐1022  f. Residential neighborhoods are afforded multi-modal access to, and are in close proximity to, activity centers to minimize travel times. g. Activity centers provide a wide range of appropriate services. h. The PAD protects natural features through transfer of development densities and similar strategies. i. Office, technical and corporate employment facilities are scaled to the surrounding area. j. Campus-type employment is incorporated. k. Multi-family residential development, at moderate to higher unit densities, has access to arterial or collector roadways. l. Multi-family (apartment or condominium) developments have planned-in recreational facilities and other amenities. m. Recreational facilities and appropriate links to open space amenities are provided. 2. Transportation Element a. The Oracle Road Corridor is de-emphasized for high intensity development. b. Bike lanes are included in all planned arterial improvements and on collectors deemed appropriate in the development review process. c. Homeowners associations are required to maintain pedestrian-bicycle paths, within approved master-planned communities. d. Bicycle parking facilities are provided. e. Safe pedestrian/bicycle access to schools and parks is provided within the boundaries of the PAD. f. Curvilinear residential streets patterns are incorporated. g. Sidewalks or related pedestrian facilities are incorporated within neighborhoods. h. All new roadway and future pedestrian-bicycle improvements meet public design standards. i. Park-and-ride lots are incorporated with planned facilities. Oro Valley, it’s in our nature. 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737  www.orovalleyaz.gov | phone: (520) 229‐4800 | fax: (520) 742‐1022  j. Projects larger than 100 acres in size provide direct access to an arterial. 3. Economic Development Element a. A favorable fiscal impact analysis. 4. Public Services and Facilities Element a. School site planning has been addressed in large-scale planned communities. b. One elementary school site of at least ten (10) acres has been reserved within developments for every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. c. Park/school combination site dedications are incorporated. 5. Community Design Element a. Building height and bulk are moderate to low intensity, in harmony with individual site attributes. b. Parking lots with greater than 20 car capacity are screened from adjacent uses and public thoroughfares. 6. Open Space/Recreation Element a. Pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails are designated including picnic/rest areas. b. Handicapped accessible facilities are provided to users. c. Recreation and open space facilities are linked to the community open space network where appropriate. d. Gateway treatments are incorporated at appropriate locations along the open space network. e. Neighborhood scale recreation (at a suggested standard of three (3) acres per 1000 population) and appropriate linkages to existing and planned trail systems are provided. 7. Natural Resources Conservation Element a. The floodplains of washes with a discharge greater than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 100 year flood event and associated riparian habitats are preserved as natural open space except as stipulated in number 7.b. Oro Valley, it’s in our nature. 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737  www.orovalleyaz.gov | phone: (520) 229‐4800 | fax: (520) 742‐1022  b. Washes with a discharge greater than 100 cfs during the 100 year flood event and associated riparian habitats are preserved if vegetation and habitat quality are found to be unique by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. c. Hydrologic studies of washes greater than 100 cfs discharge during the 100 year flood event are provided which include effects on riparian habitats. d. Only native plant materials and approved Southern Arizona Water Resources Association plants are utilized. e. Only floodplain compatible uses are proposed in flood prone areas. f. When erosion protection is required, environmentally sensitive alternatives including geotextiles or gunite containing integral desert colors are utilized as opposed to concrete lining of water courses. g. Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats are maintained and enhanced where possible. h. Select native plant material, which is to be transplanted within the development or to approved sites outside the project limits. i. Mass grading techniques are minimized for project development. 8. Safety Element a. Bike paths are constructed, where feasible and appropriate, to separate pedestrian and bike traffic from motorized vehicles in order to provide safe access to schools and parks. b. The PAD adheres to the “Suggested Policies for Fire Management in the Wildland Urban Interface,” published by the National Forest Service, May 1990. 9. Cultural/Historic Element a. A cultural resource survey has been performed where cultural/archaeological resources are determined likely to occur according to the Arizona State Museum. b. The PAD provides for protection of cultural resources discovered during construction. c. Cultural resources sites are left generally undisturbed and not identified to the public. ((O)11-01, Amended, 2/16/11.)                 Town of Oro Valley  Development and Infrastructure Services        Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development Findings Analysis  Attachment 6  Staff Comment:  The proposed Planned Area Development pertains to an existing townhome  development constructed in 1972.  The project has been analyzed and conforms to the required  findings of the Planned Area Development zoning district.  H. Findings – Specific and Required As a basis of approval or conditional approval for a PAD District, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council shall make the following required findings. Any or all of the specific findings are optional and shall be applied on a case-by-case basis. 1. Required Findings The required findings function to assure that the purposes of the PAD zoning have been accomplished through a given PAD proposal. In order to approve a PAD, the Town shall find that: a. The PAD development is in accordance with the adopted Oro Valley General Plan and a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of the applicable General Plan criteria, as outlined in subsection G of this section, are satisfied. b. The PAD demonstrates innovative design in site planning. c. The PAD fosters safe and efficient use of the land. d. The development facilitates efficient design of public services and all infrastructure. e. The development provides for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. f. The PAD encourages reduction in automobile trip lengths and trip consolidation as measured against development under conventional zoning. Oro Valley, it’s in our nature. 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737  www.orovalleyaz.gov | phone: (520) 229‐4800 | fax: (520) 742‐1022  g. Public access to mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems is provided and designed to assure that pedestrians can move safely and easily to properties and activities in the site and in the neighborhood. h. The design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building construction, orientation, and placement; selection and placement of landscape materials, and/or use of renewable energy sources, etc.) contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project as measured against development under conventional zoning. i. The design and arrangement of elements of the site plan minimize adverse impacts to the existing natural topography, natural water courses, existing desirable vegetation, and views. j. The elements of the site plan display a rational relationship (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space, and landscaping) between land uses for the mutual benefit of the community and neighborhood. k. The PAD protects, in a manner equal or superior to existing zoning, existing neighborhoods from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development. l. Overall, the entire PAD represents an improvement to living, work, and recreational conditions superior to that which would be produced by development under conventional zoning districts. 2. Specific Findings In addition to required findings, the Town may wish to make supplementary specific findings relevant to individual PAD applications. Specific findings may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The development is compatible with, and sensitive to, the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to density, scale, bulk, and building height. b. Conflicts that exist between the proposed development and the surrounding land uses have been effectively mitigated in the planned area development. c. The project is designed so that the additional traffic generated does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development, or the development has detailed plans to mitigate the adverse conditions. d. The project contains known areas of natural or geological hazard (e.g., unstable or potentially unstable slopes, flood, etc.) or soil conditions unfavorable to urban development, and special Oro Valley, it’s in our nature. 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737  www.orovalleyaz.gov | phone: (520) 229‐4800 | fax: (520) 742‐1022  precautions have been taken to overcome those limitations or these areas have been set aside from development. e. The project will conform to applicable local, State, and Federal water quality standards including, but not limited to, erosion and sedimentation, runoff control and prohibited solid wastes and hazardous substances. f. The proposed land uses and activities will be conducted so that noise generated shall not exceed the minimum performance levels established herein. Detailed plans for the elimination of objectionable noises may be required before the issuance of a building permit. g. All developments will be connected to the public sewer system unless otherwise stipulated in the PAD document. h. The street and parking system provides for the smooth, safe, and convenient movement of vehicles both on and off the site. i. Each active recreational area is suitably located and accessible to the area it is intended to serve and adequate screening is provided to ensure privacy and quiet for neighboring uses. j. The development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, and provision has been made in the site plan to avoid interfering with public access to that area. k. All signs in the project are in compliance with the provisions of Section 28.1. l. Solar orientation and design concepts are incorporated in the PAD. m. The PAD provides for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to schools and parks.     1st Neighborhood Meeting Summary Verde Catalina Townhomes Rezoning October 8, 2014 6:00 – 7:30 1. Introductions and Welcome Rosevelt Arellano, Project Manager, facilitated the meeting with five residents. Due to an inadvertent error in the public notice for the neighborhood meeting, Rosevelt informed the residents that a second neighborhood meeting is required and new notices will be sent out. 2. Staff Presentation Rosevelt Arellano provided a presentation that included:  Rezoning process from R1-144 to Planned Area Development  Project history  Review tools  Public participation opportunities  Next steps 3. Applicant Presentation Jim Seppala of the Verde Catalina Homeowners Association provided background information and the reasons for the request. 4. Public Questions and Comments  During the rezoning process, will the Town require a Variance application to allow a building setback encroachment? o Yes. The Town will only permit a setback encroachment with an approved Variance application or an approved rezoning from R1-144 to Planned Area Development.  What is the application process to convert a carport into a garage? o The application process consists of a Building Permit application only, provided that the existing building footprint does not increase. A Variance application will be required in the event the applicant proposes a larger building footprint (i.e. setback encroachment).  Will the homeowners association approve a carport to garage conversion? o The applicant responded with “yes” on a case-by-case basis.  Are there architectural design guidelines for exterior remodels and expansions (i.e. room additions, patio expansion, carport to garage conversions, etc.)? o The Town’s architectural design guidelines do not apply to exterior remodels and expansions. The applicant noted that the homeowners association does not have architectural design guidelines. 5. Next Steps  The next steps include: o 2nd neighborhood meeting on October 28th o Staff drafts proposed Planned Area Development o Verde Catalina residents review staff’s proposed draft o Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing o Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing o Town Council Public Hearing Meeting dates will be posted on the Town website (www.orovalleyaz.gov) and notices will be mailed to residents within the notification area and all individuals who signed the sign-in sheet at the meeting. For more information, please contact Rosevelt Arellano, Planner, at (520) 229-4817 or rarellano@orovalleyaz.gov. Attachment 7 2nd Neighborhood Meeting Summary Verde Catalina Townhomes Rezoning October 28, 2014 6:00 – 7:30 1. Introductions and Welcome Rosevelt Arellano, Project Manager, facilitated the meeting with nine residents. 2. Staff Presentation Rosevelt provided a presentation that included:  Rezoning process from R1-144 to Planned Area Development  Project history  Review tools  Public participation opportunities  Next steps 3. Applicant Presentation Jim Seppala of the Verde Catalina Homeowners Association provided background information and the reasons for the request. 4. Public Questions and Comments  Has the Town Staff received any opposition to the proposed rezoning? o As of November 5th, the Town has not received any objections.  During the rezoning process, will the Town require a Variance application to allow a building setback encroachment? o Yes. The Town will only permit a setback encroachment with an approved Variance application or an approved rezoning from R1-144 to Planned Area Development.  Did the Verde Catalina Homeowners Association approve the rezone application submittal? o The applicant responded “yes.”  What is the zoning designation for the adjacent townhomes development to the north? o R-6 (Multi-family Residential) 5. Next Steps  The next steps include: o Staff drafts proposed Planned Area Development o Verde Catalina residents review staff’s proposed draft o 1st Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing o 2nd Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing o Town Council Public Hearing Meeting dates will be posted on the Town website (www.orovalleyaz.gov) and notices will be mailed to residents within the notification area and all individuals who signed the sign-in sheet at the meeting. For more information, please contact Rosevelt Arellano, Planner, at (520) 229-4817 or rarellano@orovalleyaz.gov. Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Verde Catalina No.1 Townhouse Association C/o Property Management Group 6720 E. Camino Principal, Suite 103 Tucson, AZ 85715 Office: 520-721-7121 Fax: 520-721-4401 To Whom It May Concern at the Town of Oro Valley: July 281 2015 The Board of Directors representing the Verde Catalina I Homeowners Association understands and supports the proposed initiative to rezone our community and Verde Catalina II from R 1-144 to Planned Area Development, OV914-005. O~lth~ 1 Board 01 Directors, Kyle Kennedy 0 President, Verde Catalina I Homeowners Association Attachment 8 Venfe CataCina :NO. 2 rfownliouse jlssociation c/o Cadden Community Management 1870 W Prince Rd., Suite 47 Tucson, AZ 85705 Office; 520-297-0797 Fax: 520-742-2618 To Whom It May Concern: July 15, 2015 The Board of Directors representing the Verde Catal1na 11 Homeowners Association understands and supports the proposed initiative to rezone our community and Verde Catalina I from R 1-144 to Planned Area Development, OV914-00S, On Behalf of the Verde Cat ~/tR Phllivory President, Verde Catalina II Homeowners Association .~ 1 Arellano, Rosevelt From:William Adler <stfatha@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:50 AM To:Arellano, Rosevelt; Vella, Bayer Subject:Catalina re zoning from R1-144 to PAD I think this is an opportunity to convert this property to what was initially intended. Because of the number of variance requests over the years to enable home owners to make sense of such small lot availability with standard living requirements we ought not to leave it largely in place. Looking back as far as I can with what information I have it seems to me that the Town had in mind more rural lots, some horse properties. I feel this area as developed is a blight on an otherwise attractive living area, and we intend to keep that blight aspect in place by allowing an even more crowded, unattractive community without recreational space, inadequate parking arrangements or personal privacy. There certainly is no attempt at transitions between properties to allow for personal avocations or family use. Bill Perhaps this note could be made part of the P&Z packet -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please make note of my new email address: stfatha@gmail.com Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Planned Area Development Rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report CASE NUMBER: MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: STAFF CONTACT: Applicant: Request: Location: Recommendation: SUMMARY: OV914-005 Verde Catalina December 1, 2015 2 Rosevelt Arellano, Senior Planner arellano@orovalleyaz.gov(520) 229-4817 Verde Catalina Townhomes Homeowners Association Rezoning from R1-144 to Planned Area Development (PAD) Northeast and Southeast corners of Mountain Vista Drive and Oracie Road Approve requested Rezoning from R1-144 to Planned Area Development (PAD) The purpose of this application is to create zoning standards that reflect the existing conditions within a 43 year old town horne development. Due to the zoning issues related to building expansions, the Verde Catalina Townhomes Homeowners Association proposes to rezone a 26.3 acre subdivision from R1-144 to Planned Area Development, located on the northeast and southeast corners of Mountain Vista Drive and Oracle Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission held the first of two required public hearings on October 5, 2015. The draft minutes from the October 5th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment 1. No action was taken at that hearing .. The discussion at the meeting focused on: • Development standards of the R-4 zoning and the proposed Planned Area Development • Permitted building expansions • History of the development This agenda item is for discussion and possible recommendation to Town Council. BACKGROUND: The Verde Catalina townhome subdivision was built under Pima County's jurisdiction in 1972. The property was subsequently annexed into Oro Valley and the zoning translated to R1-144 (3.3 acre lots). This R1-144 translational zoning reflected the Pima County Suburban Ranch (SR) zoning which existed in the County upon annexation, but did not reflect the existing town home development on the property, which consists of less than 4,000 square foot townhome lots. OV914-005 Verde Catalina PAD Page 2 of5 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report To resolve the conflict between the large lot R1-144 zoning and the small lot townhome use of the property, staff has been working with the Verde Catalina town homes homeowners association to develop standards for the existing project which reflect the small lots on of the property. These standards have been reviewed by the homeowners association and presented to the residents at several meetings. The proposed rezoning would use the Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning district with tailored development standards for townhome development. The proposed rezoning would not allow 1) new uses 2) expanded boundaries 3) taller buildings and 4) additional lots. The proposed PAD would only allow additions and remodels to the existing townhomes. The homeowners association has requested and endorses the proposed PAD standards. The Location Map is provided as Attachment 2. The proposed Planned Area Development (PAD) standards are provided as Attachment 3. APPROVALS TO DATE: • 1972 Verde Catalina Townhomes plat recorded and subdivision constructed • 2003 Property annexed into Oro Valley • 2003 Translational zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144 • 2011, 2013 and 2015 Variances granted for awning / building additions Land Use Context The existing 149 units were built under Pima County's jurisdiction in 1972. The zoning and surrounding land uses are provided below and depicted on the General Plan (Attachment 4) and the Zoning Map (Attachment 5): EXISTING LAND GENERAL PLAN ZONING USE (Attachment 4) (Attachment 5) SUBJECT Townhome High Density Residential Single-Family PROPERTY Development (5+ homes per acre) Residential R1-144 NORTH Townhome High Density Residential Multi-family Residential Development (5+ homes per acre) R-6 SOUTH Retail and Office Neighborhood Commercial Commercial C-2 Office EAST Single-family Low Density Residential Single-Family Residential (0.4 -1.2 homes per acre) Residential R1-36 WEST Retail, Office and Neighborhood Commercial Residential Service R-S Apartments Office -High Density and Commercial C-2 Residential DISCUSSION I ANALYSIS: Prior to annexation in 2003, the property was zoned Suburban Ranch (SR) under Pima County's jurisdiction. State law requires that the Town change or "translate" the zoning on the annexed property from its original zoning designation to the closest comparable Oro OV914-00S Verde Catalina PAD Page 3 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Valley zoning designation. The translational zoning cannot permit greater densities or intensities than existed under County jurisdiction. Although the property contained an existing townhome development with less than 4,000 square foot lots, the Town translated the zoning to R1-144 (3.3 acres lots), to meet the requirements of State law. At the time of annexation it was noted in the staff report that a subsequent rezoning would be required to better match zoning standards to the existing development. The subsequent zoning case was never processed and the property has remained zoned R1-144. This has resulted in a number of variance cases being supported and approved over the past several years to allow for small building additions which do not conform to the larger setback requirements of the R 1-144 zoning. To resolve the discrepancy in the zoning versus land use, the planning staff has been working with the homeowners association to develop zoning standards to reflect the existing site conditions (e.g., smaller lot sizes and building setbacks) and allow typical room additions (e.g., porches, carports, awnings, etc.). The attached PAD reflects the proposed standards for development, which were patterned after the Town's R-4 (Townhome Residential) zoning district. Planned Area Development Policy & Finding Analysis Section 24.4 of the Zoning Code provides the requirements for new PADs, including General Plan conformance and specific criteria required for PAD approval. The following is a discussion of the proposed underlying zoning district and proposed modifications. I. UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT According to the Zoning Code, all PADs shall include underlying zoning designations. The underlying, or base, zoning districts are to be derived from existing Oro Valley zones and reflect the most logical designation in consideration of the proposed land use for a particular parcel. Further, "The development standards of the underlying zoning districts will prevail where the PAD does not specifically modify said standards." The PAD proposes a single zoning district based on a modified R-4 (Townhouse ReSidential) zone. Following is the purpose of the zoning district: • The R-4 district is intended to provide for relatively low-density development having individual ownership and built-in privacy, either in the form of party wall construction or enclosed courtyards. The PAD proposes to include all those uses permitted in the R-4 zoning district. These uses are consistent with a residential town home development. II. MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT According to the Zoning Code, "Modifications to the development standards of the underlying district may be permitted if they are found to offer a desirable improvement over the conditions produced by conventional zoning standards. OV914-005 Verde Catalina PAD Page 4 of5 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report The proposed PAD was patterned using the Town's Townhome Residential R-4 as a base zoning. Modifications were made to reflect the existing conditions by providing the following development standards: Lot Front Side Rear Between Building Coverage Perimeter Size Buildings Height R1 District 3,400 0 0 0 10 feet 18 feet See 25 feet sq. ft. Notes * , .. Expansions Into front yard may be permitted by Planning and Zoning Administrator 'Each Lot must maintain 250 square feet of uncovered living space in the rear yard Perimeter (all others) 10 feet The proposed perimeter and building setbacks are generally consistent with the R-4 zoning standards, with several modifications to address specific issues related to site coverage. III. GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS The subject property is designated High Density Residential (5+ homes per acre) on the General Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed rezoning to Planned Area Development is consistent with this land use designation. The proposed rezoning is subject to the PAD criteria outlined in the General Plan. These criteria along with staff comment are provided on Attachment 6. In summary, as the development is an existing project built under County jurisdiction prior to adoption of the General Plan, many of the criteria are not applicable to a new PAD which are intended for an existing development. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The proposed PAD is subject to the specific findings outlined Section 24.4.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code. The staff analysis of these findings is provided on Attachment 7. In summary, Zoning Code provides that the specific findings are optional and shall be applied on a case-by-case basis. The proposed PAD pertains to an existing townhome development constructed in 1972. Based on the timing of development, the PAD is general conformance with all of the applicable specific findings. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Neighborhood Meetings Two formal neighborhood meetings were held on October 8,2014 and October 28,2014 with 5 residents and 9 residents attending respectfully. Discussion topics focused on the purpose of the PAD rezoning and possible additions which could be made to the existing units as a result. The summary notes from the neighborhood meeting are provided as Attachment 8. Staff also was in attendance at several homeowners association meeting where the proposal was explained to residents within this community. Staff has worked extensively with the Verde Catalina Homeowners Association, who has provided a letter of support (Attachment 9). To date, staff has received one letter of concern (Attachment 10). · . OV914-00S Verde Catalina PAD PageS ofS Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report SUMMARY I CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning to Planned Area Development (PAD) will provide zoning standards which reflect the existing site conditions. The PAD will resolve a long standing issue related to inconsistent zoning standards on the property. A number of variances have been supported and approved in recent years, illuminating the need for the rezoning to resolve the discrepancy and allow for future additions to these units consistent with typical townhome development standards. RECOMMENDATION: As the proposed Planned Area Development meets the required findings of Section 24.4.H, is consistent with the General Plan land use map and will provide standards which reflect existing development patterns, it is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the requested rezoning from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development (PAD). SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to recommend approval of a rezoning from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development (PAD), based on the findings that it is consistent with Section 24.4.H, the land use map of the General Plan and will provide standards which reflect existing development patterns OR I move to recommend denial of the Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development, as the request does not meet ____________________________ __ ATTACHMENTS: 1. PZC Draft Minutes 2. Location Map 3. Verde Catalina Planned Area Development 4. General Plan Land Use Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Planned Area Development Criteria Analysis 7. Planned Area Development Findings Analysis 8. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes 9. Letter from Homeowners Association 10. Letter of Concern Bayer ella, AICP Planning DIvIsion Manager MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION November 5, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAŇADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the November 5, 2015 Regular Session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman Melanie Barrett, Commissioner Tom Drzazgowski, Commissioner Greg Hitt, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner ABSENT: Frank Pitts, Commissioner EXCUSED: Bill Leedy, Vice-Chairman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Rodman led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS No Council Liaison present REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 6, 2015 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Attachment 11 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hurt and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to approve the October 6, 2015 Regular Session Meeting Minutes. MOTION carried, 4-0. with Greg Hitt, Commissioner abstaining. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF A PROPOSED VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ZONING DESIGNATION, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600’ NORTH OF MAGEE ROAD, OV914-005 Rosevelt Arellano, Senior Planner, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Site Plan - Large Lot Zoning Versus Townhome Zoning - Timeline - Typical Setback Issues - PAD Development Standards - General Plan Conformance - Public Participation - Summary Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Lynn Romero, Oro Valley resident, commented that her property is adjacent to Verde Catalina Town Homes. If the Verde Catalina Town Homes are allowed a 30 foot extension it will encroach her property. Ms. Romero stated she would need a variance for a storage unit on her property. She is opposed if the Zoning would allow an expansion abutting her property. Mr. Arellano responded that the zoning would not permit expansions beyond the current property boundaries. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. Jim Seppala, Verde Catalina Townhomes Rezoning Chairman, representing the applicant, commented that the Verde Catalina townhomes were built under Pima County and later annexed into Oro Valley. Oro Valley zoning does not reflect the existing townhome development on the property, which consists of less than 4,000 square foot townhome lots. Some of the residents of Verde Catalina Townhomes have asked for a variance and received them. The residents as well as Mr. Seppala is asking the Commission for approval. Commissioner Barrett asked Mr. Seppala if the proposed Planned Area Development, allows residents the control that is needed to prevent the variances. Attachment 11 Mr. Seppala responded that it would. As this was the first of two public hearings on this item, no action was taken by the Commission. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following: - Your Voice, Our Future 90% Draft was approved by Town Council - Fry's Conditional Use Permit approved by Town Council - Upcoming Town Council meetings - Upcoming Planning Zoning Commission meetings ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Drazazgowski and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 6:27 PM. MOTION carried, 5-0. Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 8 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION December 1, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAŇADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the December 1, 2015, Regular Session of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman Melanie Barrett, Commissioner Greg Hitt, Commissioner Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Vice-Chairman ABSENT: Frank Pitts, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member Lou Waters, Vice-Mayor Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Rodman led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated he believes strongly that the Town of Oro Valley should rely on planning principals rather than personal judgment. Communications that are written from staff of the Development and Infrastructure Services to the Commission are filled with ambiguities, statements and politics rather than planning principals. Most of the significant issues having to do with planning and the Town of Oro Valley have been initiated by residents. He expects more from the Planning Commission, Conceptual Design Review Board, staff and people we elect to represent the community. These people should be held to a higher standard. This involves relying on what's been adopted, what's required by code and what's been ratified by the Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 8 citizens of Oro Valley. So many decisions are made based on feelings and quite frankly he doesn't care how you feel. He cares about compliance and what makes sense in the community. The trust in government is at the lowest level he has ever seen and he doesn't know if it's repairable. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Member Hornat, provided the following updates: - Thank you to Commissioner Pitts and Chairman Rodman for their service on the Planning Commission - Two candidates have been selected to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission - Town Council, November 4th meeting Approval of the Your Voice, Our Future 90% draft Approval of Nakoma Sky, with the conditions that the architecture needing work before Conceptual Design Review Board Approval of the Fry's Fuel Station as recommended by the Commission -Town Council, November 18th Approval of changes to Senior Care Definitions, Uses and Zoning Districts as recommended by the Commission Not Approved was the request to reconsider Nakmona Sky Not Approved was the request to consider a property purchase on Magee and Oracle Lengthy discussion on the personnel actions taken by Town Council regarding Council Member Zinkin Certification of the November 3rd Election Results by the Town Clerk with no changes REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 20, 2015 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Hitt requested a correction to his name on the page 1. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to approve of the October 20, 2015 Special Session meeting minutes as amended. MOTION carried, 6-0. Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 8 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600’ NORTH OF MAGEE ROAD, OV914-005 Rosevelt Arellano, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Site Plan - Large Lot Zoning Versus Town Home Zoning - Timeline - PAD Development Standards - General Plan Conformance - Public Participation - Planning and Zoning Commission - Summary Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that there have been a number of variances before the Board of Adjustment in this community. The intention was to have this property develop similar to the property immediately to the east. He believes this property should be rezoned with what the Town intends to do in the future. At some point in time the Town of Oro Valley is going to deal with redevelopment. There will be no more property available for development and we will have to deal with trying to select property to be redeveloped. This property would be a good candidate for redevelopment, it is a blight on the community and has demonstrated this through the variances requested. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to recommend approval of a rezoning from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development (PAD), based on the findings that it is consistent with Section 24.4.H, the land use map of the General Plan and will provide standards which reflect existing development patterns. MOTION carried, 6-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE. THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION ON THE NUMBER AND Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 8 SEQUENCING OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, ADDS A TIMING REQUIREMENT FOR MAILED NOTICE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER CHANGES TO ALIGN THE ZONING CODE WITH PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, OV1501056 Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Objectives of a Neighborhood Meeting Code - Background - Summary of Current Requirements - Experience: Hierarchy of Audience Needs - Case Example - Cell Tower - Case Example - Major General Plan Amendment - Current and Proposed Changes - Benefits of Amendments - Summary of Study Session Discussion - Enhanced Public Notice - Sign Posting - Current and Proposed - Notification Radius - Enhanced information and education - Small group meetings - Facilitation training - Summary and Recommendation Vice-Chair Leedy questioned whether the Town or staff at any time take a position of advocacy on how best to overcome public opposition when meeting with applicants and/or developers or/and does staff at any time take a position of advocacy with members of the community. Mr. Daines responded that staff strives to remain neutral in neighborhood meetings. The goal in conducting neighborhood meetings is to ensure fair and open dialogue. Commissioner Hurt questioned whether the Town or staff suggest facilitators when there is an impasse or is the facilitation done by staff. Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, responded that the common practice of facilitation is provided by staff. There have been very limited examples where a professional facilitator has been brought in. If the facilitator does not have a basic understanding of planning principals, it's a very tough spot to be in. Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Hurt stated that although staff is neutral at neighborhood meetings, ultimately staff will make a recommendation on the case. Mr. Vella responded that it's always a challenge even though staff does their best to be neutral at neighborhood meetings. Staff will ultimately make a recommendation and if that recommendation happens to be in favor of the developer, that does leave an impression with many of the neighbors that staff favors the developer. This demonstrates the fine line we walk and it's a very challenging one. Vice-Chair Leedy voiced his concern with the misperception that staff, this Commission and Town Council is a rubber stamp for applicants in this community. Mr. Leedy believes that perception is in large part if not entirely a function of a lack of knowledge of the number of applicants or applications that come before the Town that never see the light of day with respect to a staff report, an action from this Commission or an action from Town Council. Would this be an accurate statement? Mr. Danies responded that many times a developer will come in and have a pre- application meeting or their first neighborhood meeting. What they hear at the neighborhood meeting determines if they move forward with application. Not all applications move beyond that first neighborhood meeting. Chairman Rodman voiced his concern with the Policy and Procedures, 4.c.4: small group meetings between the applicant and neighborhoods and/or specific groups of residents. Chairman Rodman suggested clarification that the policy applies to small group meetings arranged by the Town staff. Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, believes the most fundamental problem the business community has with neighborhood meetings and with the process as a whole is that it takes too long. So he hopes whatever is done has the effect of reducing the length of time it takes to get something done while fully involving the public and arriving at mutual agreed upon outcomes. We do need better public noticing for proposed zoning changes and neighborhood meetings. He liked some of what he saw here tonight with bigger signs. We need to do a better job with broader media notification of meetings and events. Mr. Perry thinks we still need to be selective at the discretion of staff about use that media when appropriate. Mr. Perry suggested using "The Vista", which arrives in our water bill every month. One of the questions before you is if the notification should be widened from the current 1,000 - 600 square foot notification requirement, he doesn't believe this should happen. He suggest a creation of a primer, something that is broadly outlined but can be modified to specific cases that describes the current proposal. Let’s put the valid issues in front of the people right off the bat, because when Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 8 we get to the end the valid issues are raised. Right sizing is important, something deserve a lot of attention, detail, notification and meetings but some things don't. It's important that staff have the option of making some of those kinds of judgments. Staff does an outstanding job at balancing the applicant’s interests and the interests of neighbors that often don't have any idea what is happening. Should we think about a member of staff being assigned on a case by case basis as an ombudsman? Someone who is not directly working with the developer, someone who understands the code, understands the issues and can work with those people in the public. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that in terms of the Standing Operating Policy (SOP), he has always felt that the content and structure of the educational meeting should be part of the ordinance. There is nothing in the staff proposal that has to do with conditional approval. The ability for the community to add conditions of approval is central and this ordinance has to make a statement in regards to this. The community has the right to understand and staff has an ethical obligation to give the community the information, if it takes longer than the allotted time, tough. Staff is either going to honor this obligation or they are not. Mr. Adler commented that what works is people being knowledgeable and trusting government. Shirl Lamonna, Oro Valley resident, commented that she feels that everybody has property rights, not just the developers. There is absolutely no guarantees that when a developer comes in that he has to be given the authority to have his property rezoned or whatever it might be. In Oro Valley there is no such thing as being fairly balanced, the developers clearly have the upper hand on what goes on with development in this Town and it's sad that the constituents don't have better education. Ms. Lamonna encourages the neighborhood meeting process so constituents can learn about the issues. She thinks it's important that when staff speaks to the constituents that all the facts are presented to them. Another concern is Listserv not having a large number of people receiving notifications, as well as people do not automatically go to the website for information. The Town's website is not user friendly and needs some improvement. Ms. Lamonna went on to question whether the general plan signs use five inch letters as required by code. Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that he agrees with Mr. Adler. Mr. Bristow commented that he has attended a number of these meetings and the public walks away still feeling uneducated. To expect the citizens to be as educated about the codes and regulations as the developer who hires outside professionals is a ridiculous consideration. The citizens expect to be educated by the Town but walk way being let down. Mr. Bristow's concern with the proposed zoning code amendment and staff deciding when and if the meeting format will be changed is taking away from the process from what it used to be. Mr. Bristow agrees with the previous speaker about the Town website needing improvement, it is harder and harder to find Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 8 things. The language in the small group meeting policy needs to be cleaned up, the language is conflicting. Another concern is that everything is neutral is untrue. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. Mr. Daines responded to the public speaker's questions as follows: When a question about the development proposal arises at a neighborhood meeting, staff refers the question to the applicant. In a lot a cases, especially at the first meeting, staff hasn't had the opportunity to review the application, and may be learning about it for the first time at the meeting. It is the applicant's application and it is their responsibility to answer the questions related to what they are proposing. Staff indicates that they regularly reflect resident concerns in the conditions of approval or special area policies that ultimately get recommended by staff to the Commission and Town Council. Staff tries to respond to the diversity of issues involved in large cases. You might have one area that is focused on one aspect like lot size and another area that is completely looking at something different like commercial uses. In terms of education, staff does not just place a stack of handouts on the back table. Staff reviews the development standards and makes sure that residents understand what is being proposed by the developer. In terms of Staff selecting certain policies, there are over 200 policies in the General Plan and staff is trying to make that simpler on the residents by providing the applicable policies to the request. In terms of the level of information, neighborhood meeting is conducted in 1.5 hours. Staff takes 30 minutes on the presentation and the applicant takes another 30 minutes that leaves the balance of time to hear from our residents. Some of the information gets summarized in an effort to get to what's really important and hear from the residents about their concerns. Staff does not go through how a neighborhood can force a super majority vote. Staffs goal is to be neutral. We have had neighborhoods ask, and we provided information on the code. In terms of General Plan Lettering on sign postings, the font size is 5 inches, they are measured before the signs are posted. Attachment 11 December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 8 Vice-Chairman Leedy proposes striking the word educate out of Section A: Purpose, number 3. As well as striking the text, "building trust through" out of Section A: Purpose, number 1 and insert the word utilize. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy to recommend a continuance of the Zoning Code Amendment until the next meeting. Motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment subject to the changes to Section A: Purpose, number 1, inserting the word "utilize" and number 3, striking the text, "building trust through". Motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hurt to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to the neighborhood meetings, based on the findings in the staff report. MOTION carried, 6-0. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented the Planning Update that included the following: - Thank you to Chairman Rodman for his service and leadership to the Commission - Two new members will be at the next meeting - Items on the January 5th agenda ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Drazazgowski to adjourn the December 1, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:08 PM. MOTION carried, 6-0. Attachment 11 Town Council Regular Session Item # 4. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING A MEMORIAL FOR BILL ADLER RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Town of Oro Valley resident, Bill Adler, began serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1993, and continued to be heavily involved in the Town's boards and commissions, as well as the community. Sadly, Mr. Adler passed away on December 9, 2015. As a result of his community involvement and contribution, Town Council and members of the community have expressed interest in creating a memorial to remember Mr. Adler.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Resident Bill Adler passed away on December 9, 2015, at the age of 79. Mr. Adler was very involved in the Town's boards and commissions, in which he began serving on in 1993. Mr. Adler was also involved in other capacities within the community and was well-known for his commitment, persistence and contributions relating to community issues. The following is a list of boards, commissions, committees, etc. that Mr. Adler served on with respective dates: 1/2015 – Appointed to General Plan Development Committee 12/2013 – Reappointed to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 12/31/15 10/2013 – Served as one of the General Plan Volunteers 8/2013 – Served on the General Plan Communications Advisory Committee 12/2012 – Served on the General Plan Scoping Committee 1/2012 – Appointed to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 12/31/13 3/2009 – Appointed to the Public Advisory Committee for the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance project (ESLO) 6/2007 – Reappointment to the P&Z Commission with term expiring 6/30/09 5/2007 – Appointed to the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan Task Force 2/2006 – Graduated from the Citizen Planning Institute 12/2005 – Appointed to the Capital Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee 4/2005 – Appointed to the P&Z Commission with term expiring 6/30/07 9/2004 – Appointed to the General Plan Update Citizen Committee 10/2003 – Reappointed to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 6/30/05 9/2001 – Reappointed to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 6/30/03 6/2001 – Approval of a two month extension to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 8/31/01 9/2000 – Appointed to the Oro Valley Trails Task Force with term expiring 8/2001 1/2000 – Appointed to the Board of Adjustment with term expiring 6/30/01 6/1994 – Reappointed to the P&Z Commission with term expiring 6/30/96 10/1993 – Appointed to the P&Z Commission with term expiring 6/30/94 Town Council and members of the community have expressed an interest in possibly creating a memorial for Mr. Adler. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to direct staff _________________________________. Town Council Regular Session Item # 5. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Councilmember Burns & Councilmember Zinkin Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DEVELOP EQUINE THERAPY AT STEAM PUMP RANCH TO INCLUDE PARTNERING WITH NON-PROFITS AND 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Councilmember Burns and Councilmember Zinkin have requested that the item be placed on the agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to __________________________ Town Council Regular Session Item # 6. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Councilmember Zinkin & Councilmember Burns Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING PARTNERING WITH HOST COMPLIANCE LLC TO ASSIST WITH IDENTIFYING PRIVATELY-OWNED, SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE PERMITTING AND LODGING TAX PAYMENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Councilmember Zinkin and Councilmember Burns have requested that the item be placed on tonight's agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to __________________ Town Council Regular Session Item # 7. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Councilmember Burns & Councilmember Garner Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: *DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RESEARCH THE FEASIBILITY OF ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY INTEGRITY GOLF COMPANY LLC TO MANAGE THE TOWN’S GOLF FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Councilmember Burns and Councilmember Garner have requested that the item be placed on the agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to _______________________________ Town Council Regular Session Item # 8. Meeting Date:01/06/2016   Requested by: Vice Mayor Waters & Councilmember Hornat Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 DIRECTION GIVEN TO DEVELOP SIGN LIGHTING STANDARDS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 2, 2015, at its regular meeting, Council voted to develop sign lighting standards. Vice Mayor Waters has requested that the matter be returned to the Council agenda for reconsideration and Councilmember Hornat has seconded his request. Pursuant to Rule 11.1(B) of the Town Council's Parliamentary Rules & Procedures, the reconsideration of any action taken by Council must be by motion by a Councilmember who was on the prevailing side of the vote. Such motion must be filed with the Town Clerk's office and the clerk shall place the item on the agenda.  If the motion for reconsideration is successful, the matter will be considered in a separate agenda item at a future Council meeting. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION:  I MOVE for reconsideration of the December 2, 2015 direction given to develop sign lighting standards.                 Or I MOVE to deny reconsideration of the December 2, 2015 direction given to develop sign lighting standards.