Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packets - Council Packets (648)
**AMENDED 3-25-10, 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MARCH 31, 2010 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. **Follow-up from Budget Retreat —Water Utility Gemmission 2. Follow-up from Budget Retreat — Parks & Recreation Department 3. Discussion on Transit Services - Coyote Run Options due to loss of Local Transportation Assistance Funding (LTAF) 4. Discussion regarding amending Town Council Policy No. 8 - Council Liaison to Boards and Commissions (continued from 01/20/10) 5. Future Agenda Items ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 03 24 10 3:00 p.m. cp Amended Agenda Posted: 03 25 10 9:00 a.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 (520)229-4700. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION: March 31, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNC!L FROM: Philip C. Saletta, P.E., Director, Oro Valley Water Utility SUBJECT: Oro Valley Water Utility Budget Study Session SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley has operated the Water Utility as an enterprise fund since 1996. The Water Utility receives no monies from the Town General Fund. All Water Utility revenues are from water sales and services and their associated water rates, fees and charges. The Water Utility has developed a proposed budget for FY 10-11 and Town Management has reviewed it. The Water Utility administers three funds. These funds and the proposed budgeted amounts for each fund are listed below: • Enterprise Fund $17,375,953 • Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund $ 3,199,578 • Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund $ 4,069,671 Total (excludes contingency) $24,645,202 The proposed budget includes several cost savings measures to reduce expenditures. The expenditure reductions included are based upon pro-active water and financial management and do not reduce service levels to our customers. The reductions are based upon prudent use of the various water management and financial opportunities that the utility has implemented over the last 2 to 5 years. Water Management: The first is related to water management and the recent purchases of Groundwater Extinguishment Credits. The recent purchases allow the Water Utility to minimize our payments to the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District. In addition to the purchase of these credits, we have permitted recovery wells that utilize our long-term storage accounts and further help to minimize our payment to the CAGRD. Financial Management: In the last two years, the Water Utility and the Finance Department have closely examined debt service to find appropriate opportunities to reduce debt. In addition, we have been able to secure low interest rate debt through the Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority to move forward with critical existing system improvements that benefit our existing customers. Both of these measures have reduced the Water Utility's debt service. Operations and Maintenance: The Water Utility has also prioritized its budget and has reduced expenditures in areas that are not critical or can be deferred to another budget year. These include budgeted items such as outside services, travel and uniforms. The Water Utility has taken on tasks previously performed by outside consultants and contractors such as project management and inspection and also smaller construction projects such as pressure reducing valve projects. Capital Projects: The Water Utility has looked closely at Capital Projects and has recommended that some of these projects be deferred to future years. This strategy paces our projects with growth, and allows the Utility to manage and inspect these projects internally. The development of our Central Arizona Project TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION: March 31, 2010 (CAP) water can also be deferred since we are not collecting the impact fees to help pay fcr the development of our renewable water resources. When growth increases, we will be ready to move forward with the development of our CAP water. In the interim, we are working on the possibility of Tucson Water delivering our CAP water through their system on a short-term interim basis. This will also help defer this large capital development project to future years. Attached is a summary table which indicates the Enterprise Budget reductions of 13.6% from projected end-of-year expenditures and 18.2% reduction from the FY 09-10 Budget amounts. Council Policies: The Town Council has adopted policies that guide the Water Utility with respect to financial management. The Water Utility follows several policies with respect to budget and rates. These include reviewing water rates on an annual basis, maintaining a debt service coverage ratio of 1.3, maintaining cash reserves of 5% of the budgeted amount and avoiding sudden and large-scale shifts in water rates. The Water Utility Commission and Water Utility Staff adhere to these policies. Staff is seeking Council's direction with respect to these policies regarding water rates. The Council adopted these policies on March 2, 2005 by Resolution (R) 05-09. Attached is the Finance Section of the policy document. The Water Utility will present highlights of the proposed FY 10-11 Budget at the Study Session. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Enterprise Fund Budget Summary 2) Finance Section of Mayor and Council Water Policies — (R) 05-09 62 3 / 1.i,, Philip C. l.etta, Water Utility Director Stacey Ler tos, Interim Assistant Town Manager '. _.ar...__.....sa,,,,,,s.'n+r.+s-e, rr'`� •`�''I : 9 ' /a�(../ Tobin Rosen, Town AttornOp- Jerene Watson, Interim Town Manager ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON __ COMPARISON ___�__ Percent Estimated Percent Budget 09-10 Budget 10-11 Reduction Actual 09-10 Budget 10-11 Reduction Water Resource Mgmt. $ 1,353,575 $ 1,320,540 -2.4% $ 1,853,692 $ 1,320,540 -28.8% Power for Pumping $ 1,070,520 $ 1,070,520 - $ 1,070,520 $ 1,070,520 - Reclaimed Water $ 825,000 $ 800,000 -3.0% $ 654,318 $ 800,000 - Plant Maintenance $ 410,920 $ 332,220 -19.2% $ 411,276 $ 332,220 -19.2% Payments to Gen. Fund $ 309,514 $ 284,514 -8.1% $ 284,514 $ 284,514 - Billing Related Costs $ 184,620 $ 203,970 - $ 184,620 $ 203,970 - Water Quality $ 159,440 $ 151,440 -5.0% $ 159,440 $ 151,440 -5.0% All Other O&M $ 442,207 $ 439,271 -0.7% $ 438,121 $ 439,271 - Subtotals $ 4,755,796 $ 4,602,475 -3.2% $ 5,056,501 $ 4,602,475 -9.0% Personnel $ 2,489,195 $ 2,428,420 -2.4% $ 2,428,420 $ 2,428,420 - Subtotals $ 7,244,991 $ 7,030,895 -3.0% $ 7,484,921 $ 7,030,895 -6.1% Capital $ 6,309,500 $ 4,349,000 -31.1% $ 2,474,339 $ 4,349,000 - Subtotals $ 13,554,491 $ 11,379,895 -16.0% $ 9,959,260 $ 11,379,895 - Debt Service $ 4,126,248 $ 3,083,970 -25.3% $ 6,772,758 $ 3,083,970 -54.5% Totals $ 17,680,739 $ 14,463,865 -18.2% $ 16,732,018 $ 14,463,865 -13.6% O&M Costs Increase(Decrease) ($153,321) ($454,026) Increase(Decrease) -3.2% -9.0% O&M excludes depreciation and amortization in the amount of$2,912,088_ O&M and Personnel Costs Increase(Decrease) ($214,096) ($454,026) Increase(Decrease) -3.0% -6.1% Debt Service: Increase(Decrease) ($1,042,278) ($3,688,788) Increase(Decrease) -25.3% -54.5% Total Budget: Increase(Decrease) ($3,216,874.00) ($2,268,153.00) Increase(Decrease) -18.2% -13.6% March 23, 2010 II. POLICIES A. Finance 1. Enterprise Basis a. The Utility shall be a financially self-supporting enterprise with all costs associated with operation of the Utility to be funded from revenues derived from the sale of water and other water-related income sources. b. An annual average debt service coverage of 1.3 times or 130% shall be maintained. c. Water revenues collected in excess of operating needs of the Utility shall be carried forward for future operating or future bond funding requirements and shall not be transferred to the Town's General Fund. d. The Utility shall maintain cash reserves for known future obligations plus an allowance for unbudgeted contingencies set at 5 percent (5%) of the total annual budget. e. Should the Mayor and Council determine the need for a minimum amount of water at reduced rates or other forms of subsidized water service for low income water users within the service area, the costs of such subsidies will be funded from the Town's General Fund and not from water rates, fees and charges. f. The Town shall not enter into a development agreement for any purpose that permits the developer to pay reduced water rates and/or reduced development impact fees. 2. Water Rates and Charges a. Cost-of-Service Basis (1) Insofar as possible, charges for potable water shall be made on a cost-of-service basis. (2) Marginal cost factors of the Utility will be continually studied by staff and considered in the setting of rates. (3) The substitution of reclaimed water for non-potable uses is an important element in future achievement of safe yield in the TAMA. Rate setting for reclaimed water shall be in accordance with the following precepts: (a) Charges for reclaimed water shall be based on the cost-of-service whenever - 2 - possible. (b) To the extent that charges for reclaimed water based on cost-of-service don t 0 provide adequate price incentive, the price of reclaimed water shall be based on a market value which encourages its use. (c) The Commission shall review and make recommendations and the Mayor and Council shall hold a duly advertised public hearing prior to enteringinto any agreement to sell reclaimed water to any customer at a rate other than that rate established by resolution. (4) In the event the Town enters into contract with other waterroviders for r delivery of CAP allocations, the Town shall negotiate the costs with the providingsupplier . pp to achieve the most reasonable and competitive price. (5) Insofar as possible, charges for CAP water shall be made cost-of-service. on a basis. b. Water Rate Design Elements (1) Commodity charges shall reflect the costs of service across customer classes. (2) Customers shall be charged for fixed and recurring mng costs of service such as: (a) new connections; (b) re-connections; (c) meter reading; and (d) billing. (3) Rate structures shall be designed so as to encourage water conservation. (4) Water rates and charges shall be reviewed annually and changes in the rate structure shall be implemented so as to avoid sudden and large-scale shifts in water rates. (5) Water rates for retail customers inside and outside the Town limits shall be the same within each customer class unless there is reasonable justification based on cost-of-service rate differentials. 3. System Development Requirements a. The Town Council shall adopt both potable and non-potable water system ystem master COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY BUDGET DISCUSSION March 31 , 2010 Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Budget Presentation Overview Water Utility Overview Major Programs Budget and Budget Reductions Council Policies for Water Utility Water Pricing Council Direction Town d Oro VaDey i ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Overview 1996 Town acquired 2 private water utilities - Canada Hills & Rancho Vistoso - 9,863 connections 1999 Town assumed management of OVVVID #1 - 13,311 connections 2010 Utility today - 18,401 Water Service Connections MISSION: To maintain and acquire sufficient water resources to ensure the community has adequate water supply to sustain the Town's quality of life and support residential and commercial development. Town of Uro`Jatley I E ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Overview Water Utility Commission Administration — Financial and Water Management — Customer Service and Billing — Meter Reading and Replacement -- Water Conservation Engineering &Planning — Capital Projects — New Development—water plans and inspections — Planning for new water resources Water Supply Operations — Operate and maintain 20 wells, 29 booster stations& 19 reservoirs Distribution System Operations — Operate and maintain 354 miles of pipeline, 2,002 hydrants and 7,320 valves — Water quality and regulatory coma,plixnce 2 t 1 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Staffing . Administration 3 Customer Service/Meters/Conservation 12 Engineering and Planning 6 Production and Distribution 15 Total Employees 36 All operators and meter readers are certified — Cross functional — On—Call—24/7 Operation Average employee — 7.6 years of service with Town Training Investment — $1.7 Million Town of Oro Valley t I ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Customer service - 2999 ;„.,,,,,A.,---- _ Serve 18,401 connections - r — 48,600 population .� .. -�•.. Used approximately 2.5 billion - : n 3,LL- allons of potable groundwater 1 s °+ 642 million gallons of reclaimed - r . 7, -,'-7.1: t r J water r�. .^� __-�_ '�,t' r ` Meter reading , Meter replacement and testing },�Sp•t1. rx: � t .�. � ..,e.,,,,,,...,,, '-0.4t,t-', leitg, to customer inquiries - t �� ~��7 7 w� '- Response q � 4:t.M - Field &O - � .. .ti:. . t.:+ _ ,.• r Several payment options { - = {,y '1/44;- Customer communication 1 1 0 • i s -:,,, — Reverse 911 ' F a � : — Door hangers %kt� p , tti • y f 9Er*1' Town 01 Oro Valley ,-, izi.„,,,14 ,,,,, ,,,,k,-,:.�«4 f �.°' ` b r ry, �l�`�,-_ .•E 3 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Water Conservation ,. Water Conservation -4,60-�, r. =K — Free Water Audits _. : • Saves water and money - ,. '* • 179 Audits in 2009 --= ;; — Provide education and informations" i'f /:, ' e 4 � - ryC-,J�..v ,..-`-/+� ��f't Jr.S�Y r r. Desert Climate �� �V. 1 r s3 �-Drought Preparedness Plan :.,,,,,,n„,-,.3„,,...,...,,„.,..,,• J ,t r „„t,, , 9 4- ',_.:in afi.,,,2-1 Water Conservation Program 4 - :µ ' • provides compliance with state regulatory requirements z . g Y ��• ._ � . � Y� .. fes(•. •�� � r� J ytq;' S 1;-7fi „ t "' Town of Uro Vail • .:,,.'.. ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Water Supply and Use - 2009 � '3r' ti'mar r}I yt"1,, .F f 174"1::'‘,44§,1%*:,_ r�+. � ,Yft,.-, A.,,.--1,40.$4.%,,kPotable Water ''''.-.N._.' / �;isYr : ! T•� Sr L tt#i,.4,�,, _ {7LU�• L*v�w� :,i ( � h *d c , — 6.95 million gallons per day `".ft {gyp } ;S4 +' �Tyf.i4z1 0�r �� �E:; � Sy, — Average customer uses 8,000 gallons ,,,- �•a. 1 per month mU.-iY.-7:,, Reclaimed Water i •,-.111'....,1-.1 :-.-".:,:::- • .'�ala�f w!� w.'YY.L J.J F , ,i0., MINI .4 — Five golf courses use 642 million a.L4 °' .,....,,,,,,-,224,-.:_.,,,,,,4„,--5.A,-,-,..,..,,,. ::4,;,,,,,,..„--,-,-K.,;�` b�`4 � 4. , gallons per year �, n�.sam.. �.��.� .,_, ��a..�mr�ra�i�-x�s�: ,.k2:.�..:..l:�s�.�+r'�wc.1. - -+`r ., Water Rates — Average monthly water bill is $38.50 Y "y a7j g7 — Four-tier rate structure fi � ' - � .{ } — Groundwater Preservation Fee for "protectingaquifer by developing �`.... renewable water sources �?.,. �w=� '' k F''�- ,.at • Town of Oro Valley ' iCM�t�i�R7��� 4 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Water Management Assured Water Supply Designation — Groundwater Reporting and `""' Replacement - k - Must replace or replenish all c groundwater usage - -- Groundwater Allowance Account . Recharge Recovery Wells .. �_. Central Arizona Groundwater "Misir.,;� �������� � �. Replenishment District �-� A. Total cost is $1.8 Million in FY 09- 10 to recharge and meet regulatory requirements Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Financial Management Assets Value - $98,436,162 Enterprise Fund AWRDIF Fund PWSDIF Fund No burden to General Fund Bond rating is AA- Debt Service Management — Existing Debt — Debt Reduction — W1FA Loans Tawe of Oro Valley 5 ! ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY 1 Future Water S uppl y , . 1 Protect and preserve aquifer . K. - Reduce groundwater demand ,.. s. Use more reclaimed water for `x., :;. •—•:4-,,,,-17,--P, �` - F Y^ i irrigation - ,'::::,:,---''''4,0.-•_,.,:-'7::,,,e,: - 20% of deliveries r s. r.t - • 4„ ,rw � lX t A't-,,_.0._,„,,,„-„,..,,,,,„.„,,,,,,.,-,.,,..--;- roe h., ? . Develop Central Arizona Project Water ;,,,,,,,4 .,.-..„4„..i.,.,-3,,,,,.::,,,,,,,,.....:.:,,,„-,,,, ! �1- -, ..:,,,,, ,.-..' SCY`L.�`' ..4„.i.:4,-,,k,z4,4,,,,,,,,,,,,-,4,..--%.,--.-- „ ,,,, :,.-7 - Water Treatment & Delivery }`' ` �P ,` j _ Y� �� S 4¢}, A ;,:,;t,-..,_,,,,,,,----,. , s 1, System 4, v' . f i°,'��"9f31:.i�,..,�'4. 1•�n:.. ._.t r,i. Growthpays for itself through water i.;;4:7;..r,:-',:7 -g,, ...;,,,c.:,- ,Z 4,..-4€46;417'.`5''''-'1.' impact fees _! ��^ 4 �x�”" .,�. ' ;,. ,,.�• 'ter,. '';-',..-A,,-,„-`1::',4,•,'.2'; ;;:'. �4 y- '' .Existin customerspay. ,-44: ` „Groundwater Preservaton Fee ,.._-4%,,,,, ,,,,,...,,,,,,t,-4,:„.,-,,..„-_-,,-.,-,-„, .i, -ala Town of Oro Valk,/ .- ''. �`�,*Arl- `k ,,.v ' `�-•ro e� � J; 1�xw I ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY FY 10-11 Proposed Budgeted Expenditures . , Enterprise Fund $17,390,490 AWRDIF Fund $ 3,199,578 PWSDIF Fund $ 4,069,671 TOTAL $24,659,739 Town of Oro Vat, 6 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Enterprise Budget FY 10-11 Proposed Enterprise Budget — Revenues $14,092,000 — Expenditures $14,478,402 (excludes depreciation and amortization) FY 09-10 Enterprise Budget — Budgeted Expenditures $17,680,739 — Projected Expenditures $16,732,018 (excludes depreciation and amortization) Budget Reductions — 18.1% compared to FY 09-10 Budget — 13.5% compared to FY 09-10 Projected Expenditures Town of Oro Val, Water Utility Enterprise Fund FY 10-11 Budgeted Expenditures Overall Reduction of 18.1% (13.5% EOY) Personnel Water Resource Power for Pumping $2,442,957(17%) Management $1,070,520(7%) Reduction $1,320,540(9%) $46,238(1.9%) Reduction $33,152(2.4%) $533,152(23.8%E0Y) Reclaimed Water Debt Service $800,000(6%) sir $3,083,970(21%) Reduction - Reduction $25,000(3%) r = $1,0422788(25.3%) 3,683,788(54.5%EQY) All Other O&M i $1,411,415(10%)_/ Reduction Capital Projects $95,286(6.3%) $4,349,000(30%) Reduction $1,960,500(31.1%) Town of Oro V34, 7 Water Utility Enterprise Fund FY 10-1.',1 Q&M Budget Overall Reduction of 3.2% (9%EQY) 1 Payments to Gen. Fund Billing $284,514(6%) -,, $203,970(4%) Reduction $25,000(8.1%) \ / Power for Pumping Water Resource }}` /-- $1,070,520(24%) Management $1,320,540 (29%) — . Reduction $33,152(2.4%) Water Quality t ��`` $151,440(3°/) t,,. o $533.152(23,3%EOY) { — -- r.F3` Reduction ?� $8,000(5%) -e- Plant Maintenance i $332,220(7°/4 _� Reduction `�� Other O&M $79,056(19.2°/) Reclaimed Water $439,271(10°/d- Reduction $2,936(0.7°/a $800,000 i 177 Reduction $25,000(3°/a Town of Oro Va€y ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Council Policies Resolution (R) 05-09 Enterprise Basis — Financial Mayor & Council Water Policies — Self-supporting Enterprise — no monies received from General Fund — Cost of Service Basis — Debt service coverage ratio of 1.30 — Minimum cash reserves of 5% of budget — Directs staff to review water rates & charges annually and prepare report 1 — Avoid sudden and large scale shifts in rates (rate shock) Tarin d Oro Vaney 8 . DRO VALLEY WATER TLITY Pricing and Rates Performed preliminary analysis for FY 10-11 One year analysis - not a 5-year projection Assumes no base or commodity rate increases Assumes Groundwater Preservation Fees would increase as planned Debt service coverage ratio is 1 .8 Cash balance is 42% of budget Remaining 3 years from 2009 analysis did not indicate rate shock Based on 2009 analysis - rate shock avoided without base and commodity rate increase Town Oro Vali, ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Seeking Council Direction Budget and Reductions Water Rates Analysis Groundwater Preservation Fee Town Oro Val. 9 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON COMPARISON Percent Estimated Percent Budget 09-10 Budget 10-11 Reduction Actual 09-10 Budget 10-11 Reduction Water Resource Mgmt. $ 1,353,575 $ 1,320,540 -2.4% $ 1,853,692 $ 1,320,540 -28.8% Power for Pumping $ 1,070,520 $ 1,070,520 - $ 1,070,520 $ 1,070,520 - Reclaimed Water $ 825,000 $ 800,000 -3.0% $ 654,318 $ 800,000 - Plant Maintenance $ 410,920 $ 332,220 -19.2% $ 411,276 $ 332,220 -19.2% Payments to Gen. Fund $ 309,514 $ 284,514 -8.1% $ 284,514 $ 284,514 - Billing Related Costs $ 184,620 $ 203,970 - $ 184,620 $ 203,970 - Water Quality $ 159,440 $ 151,440 -5.0% $ 159,440 $ 151,440 -5.0% Other O&M $ 442,207 $ 439,271 -0.7% $ 438,121 $ 439,271 - Subtotals $ 4,755,796 $ 4,602,475 -3.2% $ 5,056,501 $ 4,602,475 -9.0% Personnel $ 2,489,195 $ 2,442,957 -1.9% $ 2,428,420 $ 2,442,957 - Subtotals $ 7,244,991 $ 7,045,432 -2.8% $ 7,484,921 $ 7,045,432 -5.9% Capital $ 6,309,500 $ 4,349,000 -31.1% $ 2,474,339 $ 4,349,000 - B Subtotals $ 13,554,491 $ 11,394,432 -15.9% $ 9,959,260 $ 11,394,432 - C Debt Service $ 4,126,248 $ 3,083,970 -25.3% $ 6,772,758 $ 3,083,970 -54.5% D Totals $ 17,680,739 $ 14,478,402 -18.1% $ 16,732,018 $ 14,478,402 -13.5% • O&M Costs Increase(Decrease) ($153,321) ($454,026) Increase(Decrease) -3.2% -9.0% O&M excludes depreciation and amortization in the amount of$2,912,088. B O&M and Personnel Costs Increase(Decrease) ($199,559) ($439,489) Increase(Decrease) -2.8% -5.9% C Debt Service: Increase(Decrease) ($1,042,278) ($3,688,788) Increase(Decrease) -25.3% -54.5% D Total Budget: Increase(Decrease) ($3,202,337.00) ($2,253,616.00) Increase(Decrease) -18.1% -13.5% March 30, 2010 NBR m .H w r. _, n, D v <.CO CO N cn cn D iv a, DJ m a �.. r. c� c� ‘ c� � � c� m 5• 5 � 0 0 0qi co C C O -, o(� O C C fO m o (0 , m m M ••.�. a a - 0_ . NcDcnci (nn . .�,, -< ; m Q m m m m m m ; ° O © ='a. c 5 m 0 0 2 2 2 (n D 0 R r, a -0 cn _. O (n _'.CD CD <. Q _ _._o a _. J , t m (CD c D O 0 5 u, (D (D m 3 m 0 -, n, -� m ca -,cD o o 0 m ,„;'i O I' �. m . < tv m m .� n ; ` a D (-2, v -� O m9. , m a D ` 2 CD ,;, CD _,,1” C :,1'' Hy, ry .:tidy w'A M z O t 0 CJI 0) 4, — N _a _a — _, ., , —a — — —a O m rr— m O m U) rn -< IN Cn m D O O) 01 W A .A, W �' CO 00 GJ 0) U� -I, Cll < (T) U7 Si P,, O m r 0 11 m cn cn Cn cn cn cn co cn cn cn cn cn cn co cn cn cn g g- --r - . g m m m m m m m m m m m m CSD 3 3 3 35. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 77 73 70 �7 77 rn a) D v a)) a a a a a a) a) Jo .� , (n (n (n (n v, v, v, w (n (n Cn CD (D (D (D (D 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C1 d a a a a -� --3 --3 —I —1 —1 -I - —I —I —1 7: 77 7- 77 77 77 X X 7C" X- 000000 C'00n000 cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn rn o c cu o o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y cn (n (n cn v, W -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -07D (D (D CD (D m (D rn rn m m H Z H rn (` v`, (4 v`, (nv-`, m m (D (D m 3 3 3 3 D u) f) cn u) cr.) u) 0 00 c) 0 1 m m (D CD (D m 7 7 7 7 m m m ( z _3 _3 3 3 3 D. 00000 (DCD (D (D z CD CD CD v CD (n cn U, cn (n w0 0 0 0 CD m m m m rnrnrnmmm (n (nu) ww 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m m m (D (D m m m 3 3 3 (a co (n ca cn c0 () m m (D m m () CD (D (n DDDDDD co (L] : D D C) C) 0 �< ,< << D D D D D D > rD m 0 v 0 0 0 0 O 0 O C) 30 5 rnrnrnrnmrnm . rnco. -- 000000o ,-- O g rn 00000000 o m a C 5. m m m CD m m m m (D ,-- D aa rn v v 0 0 (5 n n C) C7 C) n C) - a O cpcv cpcnv cv m P a)a) --i (n D �J 73 n r — 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o v (n• - rn 3J33 D -0 D 0 - CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D rn D Ell) a a 5 a v a) cv 3 Z H QQQacic. a a cn m0 U) U) m m m m m �. rn - _ = << - o CCD Q° 2 D 1-__ < 3- O -I cp z- ( m rn - -' () ED En � CD Q) C .A CD N -- - {D CD En CD ED CD-GA {A CD CD -- —{ > CO (0 00 W 01 - N )( �1 N •4 H N CJS 4, - Q) O 0 -A N) - - U1 �1 N) 01 �1 O CO 00 N CD 00 CD CD GJ O rn rn Q) W O O 0) Ui --•x 0) N 00 01 CJ) N Ul CD O) w z 0 GJ 01 G) -A 01 01 N) 01 Q) 03 0) -- Ui A O CT) CD CD H GJ G0 N) 0 �1 0 0 N) N) H -A GJ - O N) N) H H -I TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2 Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: AINSLEY ANNE LEGNER, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SUBJECT: BUDGET RETREAT FOLLOW-UP — PARKS AND RECREATION SUMMARY: Following up on the January 23, 2010 Council retreat, the Parks and Recreation Director will present a comprehensive outline of the department's operations, as well as the resources used to provide the programs and the services listed. In addition, staff will address several areas under question following the retreat, including: • Recreation Programs • Parks Operations • Aquatics Facility Usage • Cost Recovery Staff will be looking for further direction as they complete budget planning for FY2010/11. F r ' „ t, Ainsley Legner, Pares and ecreation Director Stacey Lemos, Ir(terim Assistant Town Manager ?Te. Tobin Rosen, Town Attorney, Jere.iie Watson, Interim Town Manager 115111) UNC 19 COUNCIL STUDY' SESSION ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET DISCUSSION March 31 , 2010 ‘,. ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION A Department Overview as Administration Division Aquatics u. Parks Division ..•.. .::......::...... ..:: ..:. Division 74;;;ISIDIBir,"7:7 Mew «. .Y Trails Recreation Division Division 1 ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION at Department Overview Public Works Water Utility Building Safety Planning&Zoning Police Parks and Recreation Legal Finance Clerk's Office Town Manager IT Library ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION GI Mission Statement: To enhance the quality of life for all Oro Valley residents by providing exceptional parks, recreation and trails facilities and offering a wide range of programs and activities for all ages. 2 menman- ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION NUMBER OF STAFF Administration 3 Full Time rz Parks Full Time, 2 Part Time Aquatics 1 Full Time, 33 Part Time and/or Seasonal Recreation 2 Full Time, 30 Seasonal Trails I Full Time ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION Administration Division 6) Total budget: $675,958 — Parks and Recreation Advisory Board support — Departmental support — Ramada, tennis and racquetball court reservations and scheduling — Activity and pass registrations — Software and website management . �' /ja - (3) employees rs- ti.. 3 r ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION # " y , , Aquatics ,, 7,-. s,,,I,... Division ,„ V nig ... ,. . ,„.....,..,... ... ...........,...,.., .„ .., ...,.......„, .„...„... , . 6 Total budget: $471,857 1 — Facilitymanagement and scheduling g — Pool maintenance — Swim lessons — Fitness programs — Special events �,i — (8.55) FTEs �. _�:_ 4 , , N. ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATiON ..,, ssf,„ Recreation Division t {:oUkDF.0191 Total budget: $398,89. -„ ,,,„:„... .,„._„, — School break programs for children i — Recreational programs and classes — Ball field management — Sports leagues . 3_ — Special events 0-� - — (6.10) FTEs -:-. -2T,-. ,, ,‘.•, 7,:?",'ON,i;1741i"?7,-,,;,,,:,4i,.;s.,:-1----. . 0 ......- y i6" ice. `+.... c 4 • .p�b F xa f j .,.,t,',',..r — ,,,.,,„, ,,,, :Au mi._ ....4 .....,,,,‘,'",,,,„..,4,,,,. 4 ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION Parks Division 961,-414.0"4,0441.0441. 4. 6) Total budget: $648,995 — Landscape maintenance — Parks facilities — maintenance, renovation, and repairs Turf management — Irrigation projects — (8.4) FTEs ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION 416) Trails Division o a budge : $7 , 14 — Grants — Implementation of the Trails Plan and Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan — Cross Jurisdictional Alternate Mode Planning — Adopt-A-Trail — Development review — Public information, safety & instructional programs — (1) employee 5 ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION qt Volunteers 6) Total Number of Volunteer Hours: 2,750 6) Total Cost Savings: $33,000 %kit ; 7! 1.4 Art ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ��� Questions 6 O CO et M CO O CO V) Co N- V' CO CO Nt O o N CD CO C O O .1- r-- ti LO CO N- co co Co O) C) Co ,- Co O co O O C) 4 - ,- .- N CID O Nr ,:t o CO CD N N 0 O o O CID C) N N O N- N CO Cn C7) CON- L N CD (C COQ) CO N CO 6g Ea } •t- r- N- N CO NCO CON- CD (C M M COTr O u) N 6'9 64 ,- 69- 69- r N- 64 64 64 64 64 64 69- N. F- 0 69 69 .. > r C {i} 0 f � O L :=+ c C�) -t N- ( CU f2 E2 ") En En C) 0 L L K.; L 0 N 0 L 0 0 L L NL L L LLCaca Ca CT L CT Ca L Q) Q) Ca Co L Co Co Ca L Ca ca >- 'O C O C) Cv O Ca v) co Ca Cn a) CO Ca cn Ca N 0 C) ca 0 CU 0 Cts 0 CU ev X >- >- >- >- a) cc6 0 a) >- 0 a co a) >- >- 0 >" >- >- 0 >- >- N .- LU CD O o > 0 >' > 0 Q) >" > a) > a) ►.n (C >-' N LC CO }' V) o 0 N ,- '- ,- < >- (N < >- t•- CD Q >- Q >- CO r- CO N- (N Cr) r- N d 0 En N U) Cl) U) to N N O 0 to o o c/) cn cn C • ca o o ca Ca to Cts ca ca ca o 0 0 0 o O O U �. ca ca U 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca ca Cts cC ca 4= Cts U U c.=- 4= C.. 4= _ C.=- c+=- U U U U U 13 ( p) f f U '5 t.=. f 2 'C '2 'C 'C -t z'_- C.. C4 4- c.= C) a) a) -C t t a) a) a) a) a) a) a) t f t f - , U U o 0 o U U U U U U U o 0 0 0 o cao .Q La U U U U U d H C c 0) o) C c c C cc C 2 0) c c C c -c c c c '2 c_ C_ c_ _C C ea C C C C C C C C Cl)w, ▪L• L to '2 L L L L L L L '� •L •L •E •� a) ti co E- H H CO N •- lt) N `' H H F- F- H CO N 1- CO 47 n- N r- N r c- r- N V' N N CD To (a Ca U > > _ QC C O C 0" - < < C C .CC Q .� o m m a) • L U ca C_ C 0 O O C C U C o "F) '0 U ca ca O C - ♦+ • m LCa 0_ c 0 `- `- ca C o ' cD Z E ca -c U v E-. � O - E — > > 0 L W o Ca Ca o U 0 < Q O Q Q 0 - U c U C cL v- - = E U ' .._ a) a) O O Q C 0) ca o O 72 C IL; cn s Q al 0 N 0- U Q c 0 I _ 2 0 N O U '2 .0 n ¢', E o' QQ N N V `u d Z U o C ca a. ca :.� o .0 L ` 0 C E O Z o - L +� C C Q U o (� 0- 0_ o Q U - g` O C f"" ca L L L `� L.L Cr) g Cl) � O O o 0 o o oZS Q t ,- 12 L L o c`0 ') Z O C 0 L L L : -I 0 O o o 0 0 QcC I n n n Q • U ca t ca -c o ca m C a. -- LL C C C 'A0 -C0000 U .0 Q .0 t.. C CO 0 - - - L 0 0 U J U-J U "- '• • C V) CA d m C:33',,,c- E 5 5 LLQ • o a) 0: a) 0' o m N C LU En = CC Y � ~ co cr) Cl) � UZU EU EU 0 a) L K' 0 Ca L a) Ca CO CO73 U - to CA U O 0 +r c� U o 0 F- C C C Q Q �t Q Q 0 0 co 0 ami -to co ami a'i noL Cn Cn 0 -, f m CD c +- 0 ca _ w.. 0- •L o _ C ` C ` Q N N ca o 0 0 U J J LL J J J Q LL = Q LL Q LL < Q J 0_ U U co 3 C7 et CID N T C L N N 0 N 0 E N a) 0 cn L cA L V) c/) cA V) N L T. ` ` ca L L L & L Q) Co L Q) Q) L CZ L ea L L L L L a,. 0 0 0 CO CO CO Ca cn Ca ca Cn 0 Co Ca N ca O ca a) co a) ca Ca co ca ca h- ro n FO- >- a) 0 0 0 ca 0 0 ca >- 0 UI a) >-• _ • CD C'7 N Q NQ1- O > N O >- }- r }-NQ >- Q 4 CrCO COM N N O ) n- T- O CO LC) o E I C -D d 0 C .1 c Co N U N -D O CO a) Ca Ca CO CO CO Ca _o X co LU 0 8a 0 EEEE E E 0 U >, ca 'D. L O O o O o O o U N co 0 E W Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a) . a) E C ` m L L L L L _ s L ` >. • o ca o 0 0 U) j '= o -o U o 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 O a, '3 a) - - 0 c 0 o u) 0 Cl) Cl) u) Cl) 0 Cl) u) n Ti. 0 0co w 0 voi o U U Ecu w ca o c i - .c _c _c c s _ E 2 m Q m c c U) 0_ U co Q I co I I I I c0 I I N C O CO C' cn 0_ .....11 2 C O 0 co ca CC 13 . J ♦+ co i .2 22 0_ O C CCO ca U U �c sc c p co CO CI) O co c 0 C C >o >0 0 5 • +'' C •N Ca L o_ 0 L h. 2 U c C > > N ■ 0 (n • N n L u) m o o N e`a C 0 a) a) 0 C •c2a L 0 0 co c C• • cn - Cr) c. E.,53 (N v CC n 0 CI) a- c 0 o �' c co < X U V ca C N cao 0 CZ C13 (73 03 0 J Q o LO LO N U) C C C C c ,•, L C C = a) _ -a o - o o c� ca ca c� c c 0 0 Cl- Cl- o O f. • L L V V L L O U) t co o o _0 C 0 1-157) 0 0 co co o o cn cn E a) Ca Ca L L L ` C C C O O C U . U U ` L c C ,C Y - -5 w Ca a) 0 CT O ..... • 0 Cn 0 Co co a) 0 as ca Ca Ca C �• U) Cl) Q J < < 0.. 0_ Cl) Cl) 0_ 0_ a. 0_ 2 < Parks and Recreation Department FY 09/10 Budgeted Expenditures Aquatics $471,857 21% Administration (Reduction of $675,958 $32,000 or 29% 7%) (Reduction of $1,000) Trails 72,514 3% arks $648,995 29% Recreation (Reduction of $398,896 $102,000 or 18% 16% Over Two (Reduction of Years) $22,000 or 5.5%) Facility Usage Fees Effective January 192010 Ball Field Rental UNLIT FIELDS/ HOURLY FEE NON PEAK CDO Riverfront Non Profit= $4 Park For Profit=$10 James D. Kriegh Non Profit/Resident= $4 Park For Profit/Non Resident= $10 LIT FIELDS/ HOURLY FEE PEAK(5— 10 PM) CDO Riverfront Non Profit= $9 Park For Profit=$17.50 James D. Kriegh Non Profit/Resident= $9 Park For Profit/Non Resident= $17.50 Ramada Rental RAMADA FEE RENTAL (4 HOUR MAX) CDO Riverfront $25 Park James D. Kriegh Non Profit/Resident= $25 Park Non Resident= $35 For Profit=$50 Amphitheater Rental AMPHITHEATER FEE HOURLY RENTAL CDO Riverfront Park Non Profit=25/hour+ extras For Profit=50/hour+ extras Open/Lap Swim POOL ADMISSION FEE OPEN/LAP SWIM Adults (18 —49) Resident=$2.50 Non Resident=$3 Seniors (50+) Resident=$1.25 Non Resident=$1.75 Teens (13 — 17) Resident=$1.25 Non Resident=$1.75 Children(12—under) Resident=750 Non Residenr$1.25 Pool Lane Rental HOURLY POOL FEE LANE RENTAL Short Course Resident/Non Profit=$4 Non Resident/For Profit-120 Long Course Resident/Non Profit=$8 Non Resident/For Profit=$40 Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department Revenue and Fee Structure Philosophy The Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department's philosophy for the setting of fees will be based on a Cost Recovery Pyramid model. The base level of the pyramid represents the mainstay of the Parks and Recreation Department. The programs and services offered in the base level are fully subsidized by the Town. As progression is made up the pyramid, the level of subsidy decreases as the programs and services move from a community benefit to a more individual benefit. This foundation and upward progression is intended to represent the Parks and Recreation core mission, while also reflecting the growth and maturity of the Town as it enhances its program and facility offerings. The following represent the five benefit levels (beginning with the peak level) of the pyramid and the Town's desired cost recovery percentages for each level: Highly Individual benefit— 85 — 100% Cost Recovery — The Town will recover 85 — 100% of the total costs to manage and operate the facility, program or service in this level. Mostly Individual benefit — 60 — 85% Cost Recovery — The Town will seek to recover 60 - 85% of the total costs for facilities, programs and services that fall in this level. Individual/Community benefit — 35 — 60% Cost Recovery — The Town will seek to recover 35 — 60% of the total costs for facilities, programs and services that fall in this level. Community/Individual benefit — 10 — 35% Cost Recovery - The Town will seek to recover 10 — 35% of the total costs for facilities, programs and services that fall in this level. Community benefit — 0 - 10% Cost Recovery — The Town will not charge a fee to residents and the general public for this category because they provide a benefit to the community as a whole. Tax dollars and General Fund appropriations will subsidize 100 % of the costs to operate these facilities, programs and services. Definitions Direct Cost — A cost that can be traced to a single cost object. The entire cost can be tied directly to one purpose without the need for cost allocation. Indirect Cost—A cost that cannot easily be traced to a single cost object. It is the cost of a resource that is used for more than one purpose. 1 Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department Revenue and Fee Structure Full Cost Recovery — This is achieved when all costs (direct and indirect) are recovered through the collection of fees for a specific program or service. Cost Recovery Percentage — A percent of the total costs (direct and indirect) recovered by fees and charges; while the remainder is subsidized through tax dollars. Highly Individual benefit — These are facilities, services and programs which respond to the needs and desires of consumers for particular activities. Their benefit is primarily to the individual user. In this category, programs and services should be priced to recover full cost. Mostly Individual benefit — These are specialized services generally for specific groups and may have a competitive focus. In this category, programs and services may be priced to recover a portion of the full cost, including all direct and indirect costs. Individual/Community benefit — These are facilities, services and programs that promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide an intermediate level of recreational skill development. This category provides more individual benefit and less community benefit and should be priced to reflect this. Community/Individual benefit — These are facilities, services and programs which promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide recreation skill development. The focus of these services remain geared toward the community, but also provide increased one on one learning opportunities for individuals. Facilities, services and programs in this category are typically assigned fees based on a specified percent of direct and indirect costs. Community benefit — These are facilities, services and programs which benefit the community as a whole. These facilities, services and programs can increase property values, provide safety, address social needs and enhance the quality of life for residents. These services are offered to residents at minimal or no fee. Activity Fees — Fees charged to participate in an activity, program or class. Event Fees — Fees charged to enter or participate in an event. Facility Usage Fee — Per unit fees charged for use of the facilities. 2 Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department Revenue and Fee Structure Responsibility and Authority There are three types of Parks and Recreation fees. There are (1) Activity Fees, (2) Event Fees, and (3) Facility Usage Fees. Each type of fee is established and approved in a slightly different way. However, each fee is established using the criteria as set forth in the Cost Recovery Pyramid as described below. Parks and Recreation facility usage fees are set forth by the Town Council. Parks and Recreation activity and event fees are set forth by the Parks and Recreation Director as established in the Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 16, Section 1-7. All fees will be reviewed annually by Parks and Recreation and Finance staff. Upon completion of the analysis, staff will present results to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have the option of forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council, if desired. Staff will then present recommendations for facility usage fee increases or changes to the Town Council and report any increases or changes in the activity or event fees. Establishment Criteria In determining the fees and charges for Parks and Recreation programs and services, the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department uses the following criteria: 1. Cost of Service — Which will include both direct costs and indirect costs 2. Beneficiaries of the Service — Cost recovery should be higher for facilities, services, and programs that benefit the individual; while taxes should subsidize facilities, services and programs that provide a community benefit. 3. Comparable pricing from both local and non-local jurisdictions and similar service providers in the surrounding area. The Parks and Recreation Director, at their discretion, may not seek to recover any of the costs for programs, services, facilities and events deemed essential to the enhancement of the quality of life for all Oro Valley residents. The Director may also, at their discretion, seek to recover the full cost of the programs and services that provide a greater benefit to specific groups or individuals. 3 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: AIMEE RAMSEY, TRANSIT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON TRANSIT SERVICES - COYOTE RUN OPTIONS DUE TO LOSS OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDING (LTAF) SUMMARY: Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) I and II funds are derived from the Arizona State lottery and distributed to all cities and towns based on a population formula. On March 11, 2010 the Arizona Legislature Appropriations Committees passed a budget permanently repealing LTAF I and II for the remainder of FY 2009/2010 and FY 2010/2011. The transit budget has been moving forward under the assumption that LTAF funding would be protected based on negotiations occurring at that time. Because of this decision the Town of Oro Valley will need to develop options regarding Coyote Run OPTIONS: The following options have been drafted by staff for Mayor and Council's review and direction. There are three basic options: increase general fund contributions and keep existing service intact, leave general fund contributions at existing level ($302,000) and reduce service or eliminate Coyote Run. Option 1 — General Fund Contribution Increased to Cover Loss of LTAF This option would require no changes in service. However, staff would continue the service constraints established this year as cost containment strategies. In addition, staff still would recommend changes to service operations to better utilize Handi-car in an attempt to provide additional capacity on Coyote Run to meet the needs of the senior community without transportation options. General fund contribution for transit service for FY 2010/2011 would be $483,400. ® ADA Certified passenger transferred to Handi-car for trips outside of OV ® Zone B & C restricted to Seniors and Disabled Passengers • No Reduced Fare Program ® Hours of operations reduced further and limited ® Zone A 8:30am until 4:30pm • Zone B (medical only) 9:00am until 4:00pm ® Zone C (medical only) 9:30am until 3:30pm • Increase farebox or other revenues Option 2 — General Fund Contribution Equal to FY 2009/2010 Budget Levels This option would result in a budget reduction of 48% when compared to FY 2009/2010. The following service changes would be implemented to accommodate the newly established service levels. General fund contribution for transit service for FY 2010/2011 would be $302,000. ® ADA Certified passenger transferred to Handi-car (work with RTA to have ADA extended north past Tangerine) ® Service for Seniors 62+ and Disabled Passengers Only ® No Reduced Fare Program TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 31, 2010 • Hours of operations reduced further and limited • Zone A 8:30am until 4:30pm • Zone B (medical only) 9:00am until 4:00pm • Zone C (medical only) 9:30am until 3:30pm • Work force reduction to reflect to new service levels • Public Hearing Required • Increase farebox or other revenues Option 3 — General Fund Contribution Eliminated - Coyote Run Service Terminated This option would eliminate the Town's transit services. In addition, the Town would need to reallocate the planning and PAG/RTA representation on related committees to another staff member. This decision would permanently impact current and future residents of Oro Valley. General fund contribution for transit service for FY 2010/2011 would be $0. • Disposal of Transit Vehicles • Public Hearing Required FISCAL IMPACT: The budget for fiscal year FY 2010/2011 will be impacted by each option as follows: Option General Fund Increase/Decrease 1 $483,400 $181,400 2 $302,000 $0 3 $0 -$302,000 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Transit Services Administrator that Mayor and Council direct staff to move forward with option 1 and return to Mayor and Council with a full public outreach and implementation program. ATTACHMENTS: — • , Aimee Ramsey Transit Services Admin t ator ; / / Craig Civalie ,'Town E gineer Stacey Lemon Interim Assistant Town Manager 4 Tobin Rosen, Town Attorney Jer- e Watson, Interim own Manager DISCUSSION ON COYOTE RUN March 31,2010 ro.r,or oro valley Local Transportation Assistance Fund I and II (LTAF) Derived from the Arizona State Lottery Distributed to all cities and towns based on a population formula STATE permanently repealed LTAF I and II for the remainder of FY 2010 and FY 2011 LTAF Funding History $350,000 -.................................................................................................................................................. $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 1 LTAF II $150,000 - LTAF $100,000 - $50,000 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 0506 0607 0708 0809 0910 1011 $236,966 $305,316 $249,024 $256,523 $164,356 $- Basic Options There are three basic General Fund options: Option 1 — Increase Contribution Option 2—Continue Existing Contribution Option 3—Eliminate Contribution Option General Fund Increase/Decrease 1 $483,400 $181,400 2 $302,000 $0 3 $0 -$302,000 Option 1 — Increase Contribution Service Characteristic Continue Service with Adjustments ADA Certified MUST use Handi-Car for trips outside of Oro Valley Primary Riders: Target 65/Day —Seniors 62+and Disabled (non ADA) No Reduced Fare Program Hours of operations limited • Zone A 8:30 a.m.until 4:30 p.m. • Zone B 9 a.m.until 4 p.m. • Zone C 9:30 a.m.until 3:30p.m. Option 2 - Existing Contribution Service Characteristics 50%Service Reduction ADA Certified MUST use Handi-car Seniors 62+and Disabled:Target 40 per day -Zone B&C for Medical Only No Reduced Fare Program Work force reduction to reflect new service levels -Transit Staff FTE=5 Public Hearing Required Hours of operations limited • Zone A 8:30 a.m.until 4:30 p.m. • Zone B(medical only) 9 a.m.until 4 p.m. •Zone C(medical only) 9:30 a.m.until 3:30 p.m. Service Area What Coyote Run Looks Like - Efficient................................__ � ; � Efficient } x.. Effective } Maximizing Resources -Drivers —Buses itt712M-7 —Regional Services COYOTE RUN�, ' Option 2 SERVICE AREA i fir..• .,,•rrww..rrrr, .... ;*>s�. 3"� -ZONEB&Care ..•.d t 3 fr$F Medical ONLY Option 3—Eliminate Funding No Coyote Run/Town Transit Services Transportation Seniors and Disabled without mobility options—40 to 45 per day Disposal of Transit Vehicles required Public Hearing Required Summary The Loss of LTAF has been devastating state wide Demand for Transit Service has not diminished but is increasing every year Coyote Run is an Award winning service and the"life line"to many our residents Hope still exists that funding will be restored Recommendation— Direction Develop budget under Option 1 -Increase funding for Coyote Run Continue cost containment Develop Public Outreach Program —Fare change proposal —Service hours and constraints —ADA Transition Set Public Hearing Date Implement July 1, 2010 Questions Aimee Ramsey Transit Services Administrator aramsey@orovalleyaz.gov (520)229-4980 Page l of 1 Cuvelier, Kathryn From: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:22 PM To: Cuvelier, Kathryn Subject: March 31 Study Session Item 3 Coyote Run Attachments: Coyote Run Elimination March 31, 2010.doc Kathi I intend to speak tonight on Item 3 in the study session on Coyote Run. Could you please print out the attachment and give to the Mayor, Town Council, and Aimee Ramsey a printed copy of my speech. Please make the speech part of the Public Record. Thanks John Musolf 3/31/2010 Coyote Run Elimination On February 10, 2010, Aimee Ramsey, Transit Services Administrator, appeared before the Mayor and Council with a brief council communication discussion of trying to turn Coyote Run into an "Enterprise Fund". Because Coyote Run is a discretionary service by the user the Enterprise Fund did not appear to be a viable approach. Tonight, Aimee Ramsey, Transit Services Administrator came back with a new council communication. The Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) repealed grants to fund Coyote Run. There was no discussion of pros and cons in the Council Communications given by the Transit Services Administrator on the three options presented this evening. Why is the preferred recommendation of the Transit Services Administrator to increase spending from the General Fund to cover the shortfall of funding from the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)? On February 10, 2010, I presented an alternative verbally and in writing to the Mayor and Council calling for the elimination of Coyote Run and consider privatizing Coyote Run to either a profit (Sun Tran) or non-profit (Interfaith Community Service) organization with some potential subsidies. One of the major concerns in eliminating Coyote Run was the ADA disabled rider. Tonight, the Transit Services Administrator suggested that the use of Handi-Car could address that issue. Why wasn't the privatizing option investigated and discussed this evening as another option? .. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDING TOWN COUNCIL POLICY NO. 8 - COUNCIL LIAISON TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (CONTINUED FROM 01/20/10) SUMMARY/DISCUSSION: This item was continued by the Mayor and Council on January 20, 2010 to a study session to clarify the wording of the policy and Council responsibilities. There was also direction given to further clarify how a liaison could have another councilmember attend a meeting in their place, permanent liaison assignments versus alternate appointments and whether or not it is sufficient to have a councilmember attend a council meeting via the telephone. The amendment proposed during the January 20th meeting stated that "IF A COUNCIL LIAISON IS UNABLE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE IN HIS OR HER COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENT, THE COUNCIL LIAISON SHALL SO NOTIFY THE TOWN CLERK. THE TOWN CLERK WILL PREPARE AN ITEM FOR AN UPCOMING COUNCIL AGENDA TO ALLOW THE TOWN COUNCIL TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENT." However, the proposed amendment does not address a last minute situation whereby a councilmember is sick or is unable to attend their designated liaison meeting. Is the councilmember able to call another councilmember to attend in their place, or shall they simply not attend that meeting. This may be a situation where it could be beneficial to have an alternate councilmember named to the liaison position. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Town Council Policy. #8 2. Minutes from January 20, 2010 Council meeting . / ../ 1 ;r r :=L'• �` k:�` L✓?'!!r t<;,:.,if' L. u j, .,,..•,, , f Kathr E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Stacey Lemosx in rnterim Assistant Town Manager d H c,,,,i,-- ..--- , ' pi w' .„ 4114 •f w J : i: Tobin Rosen Tr-Ix/yr: attorney Jemorene Watson, Interim Town Manager 1 1 Policy No. 8 TOWN COUNCIL POLICY Date Of Adoption Revised 05/04/05 TITLE: COUNCIL LIAISON TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Page 1 of 2 Purpose and Need for Policy The purpose of this policy is to define the position of Council Liaison to Boards and Commissions. The position of Council Liaison was created in order to allow council members the opportunity to bring Council adopted policies to a particular board or commission, and keep the Town Council informed as to the actions of that advisory group. II. Policy It is the policy of the Town Council to establish or improve the lines of communication between Boards and Committees and the Town Council. Therefore, it shall be the policy of the Town Council to assign amongst themselves liaisons to the various Council appointed Boards and Committees. The Liaison will attend the meetings of the Board or Committee for which he has been assigned and represent the Council as a whole. The Liaison will then inform the Mayor and Town Council members of discussions or events which occurred at said meetings. Communication may be in the form of Council Reports (at regular meetings), written memorandum or e-mail. It is the intent of this Policy that when so requested, the Council Liaison provide Board and Committee members with the goals and objectives of the Council as a whole. It should also be noted that when requested, the Liaison provide the Council with the opinions and objectives of the Board or Committee members. It should be clear that the Council Liaison shall not be a voting member of the Board or Committee for which he is assigned and shall not to use this position to either direct or influence members of the respective Board or Committee at any time. III. Procedure to Accomplish Policy The Council Liaison will attend all meetings of the Advisory Boards or Committees to which he has been appointed. If the Council Liaison is unavailable to attend said meeting, he shall make contact with the Chair or Staff Support for that Board or Commission to obtain the necessary information. IV. Responsibility to Accomplish Policy It is the responsibility of the appointed Council Liaison to a Board or Committee to accomplish this policy. APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor DATE: -' a► 1/20/10 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5 Councilmember Latas asked that when the item is brought forward again, that a g g , list of current Board and Commission members and who appointed them be included. J. Cancellation of the February 3, 2010 Regular Town Council Meeting 2. PUBLIC HEARING - A,PP!''OVAL OF AN AA l'PLICATIS , FOl' A SERIES 10 (::;EER AND ;,,.,-ONE) LIQUOR LICENSE FeR WALG`EENS #04103 LOC,L;TED AT 10405 N. LA CAN,;,.S DRIVE Mayor Loomis opened and closed the public hearing as there were no speakers. VI-I011: A motion was made by Council Member Gillaspie and seconded p by Council Member Kunisch to recommend approval of the issuance of the Series 10 Liquor License to the Arizona State Liquor Board for Mr. Randy Allen Guse and principals at Walgreens #04103 located at 10405 N. La Canada Drive. 4',`OTI O nj carried, 7-0. 3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ,k.CTION REGAmf SING OPTIONS FOR **OPTING A REC UIQ" ,ENT PRICESS TO FILL 1NANAGEf.) P•SITB0 Town Attorney Tobin Rosen reviewed the options for the recruitmentprocessof p a Town Manager. °xi' TOSN: A motion was made by Council Member Carter and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to approve Option 3 recruiting process to fill the Town Manager's position (undertake external/internal recruitment for Town Manager g position, utilizing outside executive search firm expertise to administer recruitment process). Discussion followed with the Mayor recapping Option 3. ., •TION carried, 7-0. 4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE , CTI•N REGARDING AMENDING TOWN COUNCIL POLICY N'•.. 8 - COUNCIL LIAISON Ts BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Town Clerk Kathi Cuvelier explained that the current liaison assignments are effective July through June of each year, and reviewed the proposed change to Town Council Policy No. 8. f TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Amanda Jacobs, Economic Development Manager CC: Jerene Watson, Interim Town Manager; Department Directors SUBJECT: Response to Requests from Town Council The attached reports respond to requests from members of the Town Council: Councilmember Salette Latas • Parks and Recreation Department Councilmember Barry Gillaspie • "Decision on Water Could Hit Here Hard" article in the Arizona Daily Star Vice-Mayor Bill Garner • Budget Follow-Up: Police Department (PD) Bricks and Mortar Expenditures • Budget Follow-Up: PD Programs and Divisions • Budget Follow-Up: PD Fiscal Capacity • Budget Follow-Up: PD Staffing • Budget Follow-Up: PD Core Services v. Extension of Services • Budget Follow-Up: PD Reserve Officers • Budget Follow-Up: PD Replacement of Motorcycles TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Councilmember Salette Latas FROM: Ainsley Legner, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER LATAS REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT This report is in response to Councilmember Latas' question as to what type of programs and shuttle services the YMCA could offer if the Town eliminates some of the Parks and Recreation programs. DISCUSSION The Northwest YMCA, located on Shannon Road, provides programs for children and adults alike. In discussions with Northwest YMCA Executive Director Mike Reuwsaat regarding the option of shuttling children to the Northwest YMCA for programs, his stated preference is to have the YMCA come to Oro Valley and provide programs inside the Town so that the YMCA can continue to build a customer base and support for building a facility in the Oro Valley area. If requested by the Town, the YMCA would look at the facilities currently used by the Town for camps and see if the numbers work for the YMCA to take over the locations and provide the programs in the Town's place. Mr. Reuwsaat did emphasize that the numbers would have to work for the YMCA to assume any programs. Regarding the provision of shuttles for the children to get the programs at the YMCA: Generally speaking, the buses used for local trips cost about $375 a day for 50 riders. Using that as a starting point, if the Town did decide to use buses to take participants to the Northwest YMCA for summer camp, it would cost the Town approximately $20,625 per bus for the 11 weeks of camp, accommodating 50 campers per bus. Overall, providing a shuttle would cost the Town approximately $412.50 per child for the summer (or $37.50 per child per week). RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Councilmember Barry Gillaspie FROM: Philip Saletta, P.E., Water Utility Director SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER GILLASPIE REGARDING THE WATER ARTICLE IN THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR This report is in response to Councilmember Gillapsie's request to have additional information on the "Decision on Water Could Hit Here Hard" article in the Arizona Daily Star on Sunday, March 21St DISCUSSION The article does not accurately or thoroughly describe the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and its need to finance future projects such as groundwater recharge projects and acquisition of renewable water supplies. The purpose of the CAGRD is to replenish aquifers in three Active Management Areas (AMA). This includes the Phoenix AMA, the Pinal AMA and the Tucson AMA. The CAGRD purchases excess Central Arizona Project (CAP) water that is available and not ordered by the subcontractors with CAP water allocations. The CAGRD has been purchasing this excess water and recharging it in recharge facilities located in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties on behalf of its members. These projects have been built and/or operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) for use by both water providers and CAGRD. The CAGRD is a department within the CAP Project and under the CAWCD. The CAGRD is recharging excess water now and planning to acquire its own water supply so it will not be reliant on excess CAP water in the future. Oro Valley Water Utility has an agreement with CAGRD that requires CAGRD to replace excess groundwater pumped by Oro Valley. We benefit directly from any CAGRD recharge and replenishment. It is important to support the proposed legislation and protect our existing agreement with CAGRD and their ability to acquire renewable water supplies and build and operate recharge facilities. The legislation authorizes the CAGRD to bond but any actual bonding would be approved by the CAWCD Board and based on CAGRD revenues. This separate bonding authorization is to clearly separate CAGRD funds from CAWCD funds, so that CAGRD does not impact the finances of CAWCD. This is somewhat similar to CAGRD acting as an enterprise fund that does not impact a general fund. Water projects and other large infrastructure projects are generally financed so there is no rate shock for upfront payment of projects. The debt allows the rates to be levelized over time and minimize rate shock while securing and using the necessary water supply and recharge projects which will benefit the members in CAGRD. Oro Valley Water Utility has borrowed money to levelize our rates and we support this approach in both concept and practice. Oro Valley is a Member Service Area in CAGRD and our payments to CAGRD are funded through our water rates. Our customers do not pay any assessments directly to CAGRD. There are also Member Lands that are in CAGRD and those property owners do pay an assessment to CAGRD on their property taxes. The assessment pays for their replenishment obligations made by CAGRD. Regardless of the method of payment, it is important for CAGRD to have bonding authority so its rates can be levilized and avoid rate shock. Oro Valley has a Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS) from the Arizona Department of Water Resources which allows us to sign and approve plats from a water supply perspective. A component of our DAWS is that we are members of the CAGRD. Without membership in CAGRD as a component of our DAWS, we would not be allowed to approve plats for future development until we developed a renewable source of supply. Even after we develop our CAP we will still need to rely in part on the CAGRD for groundwater pumping. CAGRD needs to acquire water for the future because both Member Service Areas and Member Lands will partially or fully rely on them as we grow and build out our communities. CAGRD rates are planned to increase and our job is to minimize our reliance and payments to CAGRD. Oro Valley Water Utility has done this through the purchase of Groundwater Extinguishment Credits, permitting and use of recovery wells, and recharging our CAP Water to build up our storage accounts. In addition to these actions, developing and delivering our CAP will also minimize our reliance on CAGRD in the future. If CAGRD is able to bond, it will be able to spread out its costs over time, levelize rates and not burden CAWCD funding. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING BRICKS AND MORTAR EXPENDITURES This report is in response to the following questions from Vice-Mayor Garner: 1. Has the Police Department (PD) explored the purchase of sites versus leasing? 2. Related to ownership, has the PD evaluated possibilities on subletting for a revenue generation to return money back to the Town? 3. Has the PD identified strategic spots in the Town for substations and have you thought about working with our Economic Development Division staff to learn when properties might become available at those locations? DISCUSSION 1. Has the PD explored the purchase of sites versus leasing? Yes, PD has presented the idea previously to the Town Manager and Council. These were presented in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 2. Related to ownership, has the PD evaluated possibilities on subletting for a revenue generation to return money back to the Town? No. PD (Town of Oro Valley) has not owned property that would be appropriate for subletting, so this option has not been considered. 3. Has the PD identified strategic spots in the Town for substations and have you thought about working with our Economic Development Division staff to learn when properties might become available at those locations? Yes, PD has identified strategic and ideal office locations and one substation (Sun City) from which it currently deploys staff. In fact, PD staff discussed the possible closure of an office location during the budget process for FY 10/11 and determined the lack of efficiency and logistical issues identified, including those identified by the Information Technology Department, and precluded such a move. No, PD has not thought about working with Economic Development staff. However, PD would welcome the assistance if the Town moves to annex new properties requiring a new strategic/ideal location. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING PROGRAMS AND DIVISIONS This report is in response to the following questions from Vice-Mayor Garner: 1. What specifically has the Police Department (PD) identified or changed in their programs and divisions that show an understanding of how to slim down the levels of service; i.e., the "need-to-haves" or"core services" v. the "want-to- provide services?" 2. Has the PD looked at consolidation of patrol and motors and the benefits of this and made any changes or determination? 3. Has the PD evaluated the ratio of motorcycles within a police force in cities with populations of our size, and why not use motorcycle officers as back-up to build in efficiencies? 4. Please explain what the value or disadvantage is to instituting a motorcycle squad. 5. Describe how the PD operates neighborhood patrols and how that works in relation to officers working major arterials and shopping centers. 6. How can the Town afford to have special assignment task force officers be rotated out for 3-4 years when the expense directly to the Town exceeds $300,000+ that is not covered? DISCUSSION 1. What specifically has the PD identified or changed in their programs and divisions that show an understanding of how to slim down the levels of service; i.e., the "need-to-haves" or "core services" v. the "want-to- provide services?" During the last budget year, the PD eliminated many "take-home" vehicles, eliminated both civilian and sworn positions, "froze" one dispatcher and one reserve position, eliminated public safety events (i.e. Investigate OVPD and the Riverfront Park Easter Event) and deferred the development and construction of an evidence facility and a training facility. All of these examples have "slimmed down" the level of service being provided to the residents of the Town. PD does not provide "want-to-have" services. All services provided to the Town residents are "need-to-haves" or"core services" and each service is directly tied to the Focus Areas expressed in the Town's Strategic Plan, PD's Strategic Plan, the Community Survey and PD Citizen Surveys. 2. Has the PD looked at consolidation of patrol and motors and the benefits of this and made any changes or determination? Yes, patrol and motors have been consolidated under the Field Services Division. Operationally, there is no benefit since the Traffic Unit and Patrol Bureaus have always worked cooperatively to answer calls for service. The separation of the groups existed solely for fiscal tracking within the MUNIS system. 3. Has the PD evaluated the ratio of motorcycles within a police force in cities with populations of our size, and why not use motorcycle officers as back-up to build in efficiencies? Yes, PD has done a comparison study with agencies of similar size. The comparison results support both the science and philosophy related to the Traffic Unit, as discussed during the March 8, 2010 Council Presentation by the Chief of Police. The PD Traffic Unit provides more than just enforcement, they respond quickly and effectively to citizens' complaints of specific traffic concerns. Motorcycle officers have always provided back-up to all patrol officers. Although, their primary function is dealing traffic related issues, they handle non-traffic related calls for service in an effort to assist all patrol officers. 4. Please explain what the value or disadvantage is to instituting a motorcycle squad. There is great value in instituting a motorcycle squad. Motorcycles offer greater speed and agility (through congested roadways) when responding to injury related vehicle collisions, crimes in progress and violent crimes. Motorcycle officers are able to enforce traffic violations on roadways, intersections or paths not accessible by patrol car. They play a critical role in the coordination and deployment of special events (i.e. 4th of July and El Tour). Studies have shown that police departments that deploy high profile motorcycle officers reduce the amount of injury related collisions within their communities and current studies are underway to demonstrate how they help reduce non-traffic related crimes. 5. Describe how the PD operates neighborhood patrols and how that works in relation to officers working major arterials and shopping centers. The Patrol Bureau evaluates and balances the deployment methods of its staff on a weekly basis and sometimes on a daily basis during "major incident" de-briefings. Much of this evaluation is data and condition driven from crime and call load analysis and citizen surveys. For example, if crime analysis shows a trend in residential burglaries or citizen surveys indicate "rarely" seeing a patrol car in the neighborhoods, officers are directed to focus more of their attention to those areas. The same would hold true if businesses indicated a greater need due to crime trends or lack of visible deterrence. 6. How can the Town afford to have special assignment task force officers be rotated out for 3-4 years when the expense directly to the Town exceeds $300,000+ that is not covered? As presented during the March 8, 2010 Council Presentation, Task Force Operations are collaborative, cooperative, synchronized and unified efforts that leverage all capabilities and resources of all the agencies involved toward a common public safety threat. These Operations improve intelligence sharing and operational planning among all disciplines of law enforcement. These partnerships act as "force multipliers" and increase the amount of resources to the Town of Oro Valley. They provide our residents with extra layers of protection against drugs, gangs, and terrorism. The economy to the Town is visible, as it receives over$600,000 worth of services for just over $300,000, while receiving anti-racketeering funds allocated toward public safety services and the highest level of training for PD members assigned to the specific groups. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING FISCAL CAPACITY This report is in response to Vice-Mayor Garner's question as to have the Police Department (PD) considered payment for use of personal gas for those with take home vehicles (anything with wheels) that could go into an asset depreciation fund that would be used to purchase new vehicles? DISCUSSION No, PD has not considered payment for use of personal gas in take-home vehicles. As many town departments utilize take home vehicles, any policy change related to this issue would need to be instituted at a Town-wide level. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING STAFFING This report is in response to the following questions form Vice-Mayor Garner: 1. Can you explain what the Police Department (PD) after hours staffing is by command staff in the office v. officers on the beat? 2. Please provide the breakout of assignments for PD sworn officers: e.g., patrol, motorcycles, special units, etc. 3. Why did the PD put the Community Action Team (CAT) squad up for reduction in force before other options like using the department's Special Events Officer who does administrative work; how many special events does the Special Events Officer work per month? DISCUSSION 1. Can you explain what the PD after hours staffing is by command staff in the office v. officers on the beat? PD Command Staff members are exempt employees who work flexible hours based on assignment. For example, the two Patrol Lieutenants commonly work after hours and each lieutenant is scheduled to work part of the weekend. The Chief of Police, Deputy Chief, Commanders, Executive Officer and Support Services Lieutenant primarily work during regular business hours Monday — Friday. This is in addition to numerous scheduled meetings that occur during the early morning/evening hours and weekends. The Criminal Investigations Lieutenant works during regular business hours Monday— Friday. However, the assignment requires after hours and weekend responses, when the need arises. OVPD deploys six (6) patrol squads: o Two (2) squads work during the day, 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., covering 7 days a week. o Two (2) squads work during the late afternoon, 2 p.m. to midnight, covering 7 days a week. o Two (2) squads work during the late evening to early morning, 8:30 pm to 6:30 am, covering 7 days a week. 2. Please provide the breakout of assignments for PD sworn officers: e.g., patrol, motorcycles, special units, etc. Authorized Full-Time Certified Positions Chief 1 Deputy Chief 1 Commander 2 Lieutenant 5 Patrol Squads 41 Patrol Traffic/Motor Unit 10 Patrol Community Action Team 6 Patrol K-9 Unit 4 Patrol D.U.I. 2 Criminal Investigations Unit 6 S.R.O. Unit 8 C.R.U. Unit 3 Task Force Operations 8 Office of Professional Standards 1 Training 1 Total 99 3. Why did the PD put the Community Action Team (CAT) squad up for reduction in force before other options like using the department's Special Events Officer who does administrative work; how many special events does the Special Events Officer work per month? PD presented a contingency plan which called for the elimination of the paid Reserve Program and the re-deployment of CAT Squad members. The Special Events Coordinator must handle logistics and planning for all Town events (i.e. general layout, traffic flow, staffing), coordinate outside agency and other Town Department assistance, recruit personnel to work an event, placement of equipment (i.e. generators, lighting, barricades) and tour site locations to ensure proper placement of staff and equipment. The Special Events Coordinator may have as little as two weeks to plan for an event, with some large scale events, like the El Tour, are planned throughout the year. In addition to planning for events, the Special Events Coordinator deploys the Traffic Speed Trailer for speed studies, attends pre-construction meetings with Town of Oro Valley Public Works staff, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and construction companies, like Hunter Contracting, for road projects and reviews all right- of-way permits filed with the Town. From a risk and liability stand-point, having a staff member dedicated to this position is essential to protecting the Town and residents. The Special Events Coordinator plans, coordinates and works (on average) one special event per month. This does not include traffic studies, construction activities or evaluation of activities that could have a significant impact on traffic safety in our community. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING CORE SERVICES V. EXTENSION SERVICES This report is in response to the following questions form Vice-Mayor Garner: 1. How does the Police Department (PD) determine essential or "core" services versus an extension of these services, added- value or public relations services? 2. Does the PD consider the department an extension of Economic Development when working with the businesses to develop relationships? 3. How does the PD justify responding to EMS calls when that is the responsibility of the Fire District services? DISCUSSION 1. How does the PD determine essential or "core" services versus an extension of these services, added-value or public relations services? All essential or core services are identified through the Town's Strategic Plan, the Police Department's Strategic Plan and the Community Survey. OVPD does not have "added-value" services. It is the responsibility of all Oro Valley employees to engage in appropriate service delivery with an emphasis on positive public relations. 2. Does the PD consider the department an extension of Economic Development when working with the businesses to develop relationships? PD develops relationships with businesses' management and ownership in an effort to prevent crime and victimization. Programs like "Adopt-A-Business" are designed to create a platform for communication and cooperation toward preventing and deterring criminal activity, making the Town more appealing to small and large businesses and providing a safe environment for their customers and employees. 3. How does the PD justify responding to EMS calls when that is the responsibility of the Fire District services? The preservation of life is the responsibility of all public safety organizations. PD police officers are "first responders" and responsible for saving the lives of many Oro Valley residents through quick and effective first aid. PD has established a reputation with the Fire Districts who have applauded PD's commitment to responding to medical emergencies in an effort to increase public safety. Moreover, the Town continues to have a large community of retired residents, some of whom may suffer neglect or abuse. PD is committed to detecting and deterring elder abuse. Studies have shown that the abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly are under reported by a factor of 12. As "first responders", police officers have been effective in locating and addressing these situations, as well as providing security for paramedics and firefighters. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING RESERVE OFFICERS This report is in response to Vice-Mayor Garner's question as to why the Reserve Officers line item is identified the way it is in the budget? DISCUSSION The line was identified the way it was because it accurately reflected the area where the Reserve Officers are assigned for fiscal tracking within the MUNIS system. The line has been re-named to "Training and Reserves." RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: March 31, 2010 TO: Vice-Mayor Bill Garner FROM: Daniel Sharp, Police Chief SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO VICE-MAYOR GARNER REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF MOTORCYCLES This report is in response to Vice-Mayor Garner's question as to how old (what year) are the motorcycles that are being replaced? DISCUSSION If awarded the Governor's Office of Highway Safety Grant, the Police Department anticipates replacing one 2004 BMW RT motorcycle. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: April 19, 2010 TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Kevin Burke, Assistant to the Town Manager CC: Jerene Watson, Interim Town Manager; Department Directors SUBJECT: Response to Requests from Town Council The attached report responds to requests from members of the Town Council made at the March 31 Study Session: Mayor Loomis • Budget Follow-Up: Parks and Recreation Department TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: April 19, 2010 TO: Mayor Paul Loomis FROM: Ainsley Legner, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP: RESPONSE TO MAYOR LOOMIS REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT This report is in response to Mayor Loomis' question regarding whether Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation had raised their fees since the Town implemented the new facility usage fees on January 1. The Mayor wanted to insure that the fees at Canada del Oro Riverfront Park were in line with Pima County's fees. (Riverfront Park was built, in part, utilizing Pima County bond funds; therefore, fees charged at that location may not exceed Pima County fees per the Intergovernmental Agreement.) DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Department has confirmed that the Oro Valley facility usage fees implemented on January 1, 2010 are equal to the fees charged under Pima County's new fee schedule. The Department will recommend no changes in the fee schedule for July 1, 2010. Staff will bring forward a proposal this fall for facility use fee increases effective January 1, 2011. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only.