Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (729) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JANUARY 14, 2009 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. Discussion on the future of the Naranja Town Site (NTS) 2. Discussion and review of the Oro ValleyPublic Library ry Operations ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 01/07/09 11:00 a.m. ekf 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. Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may attend this meeting as a member of the audience only. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDYDATE: SESSION JANUARY 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: AINSLEY ANNE LEGNER, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR JERENE WATSON, ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE (NTS) SUMMARY HISTORY: In 1996 and 2000, the Town purchased a total of 213 acres located between Tangerine Road and Naranja Drive east of La Canada Drive known as the Naranja Town Site. The property was identified fed as early as 1994 in the Town's Parks, Open Space and Trails (POST) Master Plan as an excellent opportunity for the development of a Community/Regional Park, and later adopted in the 1996 General Plan as Parks/Open Space land use which carried in the 2005 General Plan. A14-month Master Plan planning process commenced in 2001 with extensive communityparticipation participation from the general public and 38 stakeholder groups, including residents from abuttingneighborhoods g orhoods of Copper Creek, Monterra Hills and Monte del Oro. Monthly meetings of the NTS Executive Committee ommittee and Task Force, community workshops, a web-based survey, and 26 other forums were held that were all open for anyone to attend and provide ideas and comments. The Master Plan was adopted bythe Council in p November 2002. Sub-studies were conducted in the intervening years with a PerformingArts Facilities ' . Feasibility Study conducted in 2004 and a Naranja Town Site Programming & Concept Design Report undertaken g p between May 2006 and March 2007. Fourteen "Goals" were identified by the Steering Committee to guide the site analysis, programming, and site design. During 2007, the Council held discussions and public hearings on how tophase the project and what take amount to to the voters for a bond election. The bond question was developed in early2008 with $48.6 . p million set authorizing bonds to construct Phase I. A public education campaign was conducted duringthe year y ar with presentations made to community & civic groups to help voters understand what was before them on the ballot in November 2008. The ballot item to support the funding of the project bybonds was with . rejected a 3,452 vote difference out of 22,630 votes cast. BACKGROUND: On November 4, 2008, the Naranja Town Site bond election question did not .assThisquestion asked voters for authority to issue 46.8 million in bonds to construct phase I of the Naranja Town Sitepark . master plan which included infrastructure for the entire site and all of the outdoor recreation elements. The bonds would have been paid for through a secondary property tax. Since the bond election funding option did not pass, many people have asked "What's next?" At this study session, information is provided for discussion regarding the options for moving forward. • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: JANUARY 14, 2009 DISCUSSION: Although the following may not be an exhaustive list of all the Town's options, it does provide a starting point for discussion reg ardin how the Town Council may wish to proceed with the Naranja Town Site. regarding OPTION 1: JOINT DEVELOPMENT WITH ANOTHER AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION Joint development withagency another organization would mean that the Town would combine funding, or property and/or other resources to develop the park. Some examples include: p y Amphitheater School District Pima Community College Tucson Arts Center Greater Oro Valley Arts Council Arizona State Parks and/or Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department Chamber of Commerce Private businesses ( sports s orts stores, galleries, and/or concessionaires for specific sports such as skate park or BMX, etc.) OPTION 2: PHASING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN Attached you will find a phasingplan for the development of the Naranja Town Site. The master plan has been split into seven phases (Attachment A). The phases begin at the southern entrance of the property, and develop toward the north as thep hases are completed. This methodology was used in developing this phasing plan because of the incremental need for access roads, the proximity to utilities on the southern portion of the and an attempt to incrementally provide amenities that would appeal to a wide range of ages and property, p interest .rou sAdditionally, with the assistance of the Burns-Wald Hopkins Shambach Architects design g p y team, estimates for eachp hase have been provided. For inflation purposes, two year increments were used as a baseline timeframe for each phase beginning with the first phase in 2010. If there are no secondary pp y ro ert tax dollars to accomplish these phases, the following alternate sources of funding maybe considered and explored. Although some of these options have been looked at in the past, it fu g p may be fruitful to re-examine all options. Outside funding may include: Pima County Bond Funds Federal Funding, such as the $150 million submitted to Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's office for President-elect Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Heritage Funding from the State of Arizona Transportation Enhancement Grants National Park Service Land& Water Conservation Fund Grants Private Foundations OPTION 3: PUT THE BOND ELECTION ON THE BALLOT A SECOND TIME Although the Town has not completed a statically valid post election poll to determine the specific reasons for the failure of the bond measure, an informal survey was conducted by Council Member Salette Latas. The results of that survey are provided as Attachment B. • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 3 of 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSIONDATE: JANUARY 14, 2009 The general down turn of the economy and the poor timing of the vote may have impacted the results of the vote. It is worth mentioning that the general public maynot be aware that if the bond authorization question passed, the authorization for the bonds would not have necessarilymeant that the bonds would have been sold at this time. Another option would be to wait for the economyto improveand put the question to the voters again in three to four years, allowing the park to remain as aassive recreational area as it p is today. OPTION 4: NO ACTION The public has access to the Naranja Town Site from 6 a.m. until 10 .m. daily y (following park hours as identified in the Town Code.) There is a gravel parkinglot near the center of the property which allows the public to access the property, park and utilize the trail system. There are two porta-potties,y p p tees, trash receptacles, and waste dispensers for dog owners located at the parkingarea. There are benches throughout hroughout the park, located along the trail in areas that allow for patrons to enjoy the beautiful views. The Sonoran Flyers, a local radio control model airplane club, utilizes araded flat area of the he property to fly their model airplanes. They have a written agreement with the Town that allows for this activity. Current Town uses for the property include the storage of clean fill for ongoing projects;; a location g J p for the Christmas tree disposal project; as a large equipment training area for the Public Works Department;ent, as a location for occasional Police Department training activities; as overflow parkingfor events at Town . Hall; as a collection location for the annual hazardous waste disposal program; and as a stain for Water staging area Department and Public Works Department projects. If no action is taken with the property at this time, the above mentioned uses at thero ert would continue until further notice. p p y OPTION 5: OTHER TOWN USES FOR THE PROPERTY When the Naranja Town Site was master planned in 2002, the community determined that thero ert was to p p y be utilized for a park. However, there were many other uses explored (although subsequently rejected) during the process. Some of the alternate uses included: Public Works Department Operations and Administrative Facilities Police Department Training and Administrative Facilities Town Administrative Offices Zoo Underground Aquarium Development of a Pond/Lake for swimming, paddle boats and fishing Ice Skating Rink OPTION 6: SELLING THE PROPERTY Another option is to consider selling the property. The Town purchased the first 42.5 acres of the Naranja Town Site, located along the ridge just west of Copper Creek Subdivision and south of Copper Creek Elementary for $950,000 in 1996. Subsequently, approximately 2.5 acres was given to Amphitheater School TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 4 of 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: JANUARY 14, 2009 District fora parking arkin lot, leaving 40 acres. In 2000, an additional 173 acres was purchased from the State of Arizona for$2,580,000, for a total property cost of$3,530,000. Should the Town wish to sell theproperty, all State requirements would have to be met. Some of those requirementscompetitively include com etitivel bidding the sale since the property is valued over $500,000; taking care of any y existing bond obligations associated with the property; and taking the sale to a vote of the people in Oro g Valley. ATTACHMENTS: A - Phasing Proposal B - Council Member Salette Latas' Poll Results Ainsley Legner, Parks nd Recreati Director A14d-e-'1"t4 Je e Watson, Assistant Town Manager David Andrews, Town Manager ATTACHMENT A 4 • , :' ii,,,,,, - lik :,:411° t irl"*."'"*"*"'"."—",N\L i ,-.4..-. e ,,,,,,p_. -ii nr, 1 „,„ ry F NAPANJA i .r... " ,„: . . T 0 vs,' N : S ' T.,/ 0.,..4,,...„4,,, • °4_,A.T f .4sA , , 4, vvvisrirvirvviryvvirir:;:lirviririrs5,,it,„"1::,ii,z, ,---=,4' , vs .. rill 5. . , ,, , / - , . t . „,,,., ..., ,. , , .., „ . , . ,,„ .„ ,,.„ ... .,.,,,, .., - 4,,,,, :, CURRi-::,-,, li 2008 BON D-c , , ......._ ., .Ar.,..-- - - -:,,,Itt a, .. , , _,ir,,,..„ ,,,, .,,,., ,. , ,,,,. ., . W ; � . mi4,4 ' -,-.11 . tis... ,y,ao..-,,,,?, ‘ , ,,,,, 1 ,.,,,,.,„4,,,,..;, -7,"I/ ,, ....:„.ii..)-.4,-,,,a0 - •,,,,,,,,,i4.4•4 , VII,, 'tt..4,,,,4 \•• *., I .'.1 ' I .•,-'-'474 , '.',..- -sil 4,,, ,...-,..,,, 3).:•-•• •...- s ,,._,,...,.._ ,L...,:j..,-,A) r 444' .. ...k4 � 4 X44i ,,,.....,,,.,w it,,,,„.!..iit, -, ,, 4. ,,,,.7-„,.„,„. , pit !;,1 p "”' .a ,. _,� «a' l& . I , , ,,, *:,,e, **I' 44, „,a.,... ba. 4, - -,,,to --- , t. , il,Il *“ _. 4 . ti,le,-,i-1.4—:,\ ,„. , . : , .'1 t , ' 1 ......j , \..,, . .., ,.,,t,,,. .., „..„...„ , . ... .1. .,... 1 ,, fa ' r jet 'k ri .,{..,..:.r�• , cii,' v,'- j -, , 0\,,,,,„.., , r'4,'..4 .: ,, , -” ^� � d.. ... �.�,. ^�,,�"4„ 1:-., s'� ; i',:;;',';' ' d ,.'�' h ,:',':'1,W4' 4 tir 4 47,--, ,fa,-„,•"..,.,,,`,'AP.:''' •:„goommegt ,.... ., c''',-- ''- 1 r 4 i' "� st nJ lail.t. .!::,,,,, t. '' (t,,41°---40° 6 bra 4 i ' itte,kie _,,,.id 411 :ti.44, A L ,stf,';11% {-7--7-j L-..7-r: 'er,04 '','-_ 1 /"*i 'yr"--Tv _---_ .a '; 77.7....1,7-.41,...1 ',,,,,i 1::,.'iii ---","---- • 4,1, '''s-- ' ',4..a.."4''''4''1'4 ' 4 _ r y' i''-'''''' I it. '2: 1 ',. k` w�tia. k,rf M e � :: y4 f ► 4 IN .., , iy ,,,,, '_,it T. i s� t b wa+ •� • ,f t !1 / Ys`Y> ti .,,,.,-,.- ..1.1; 1 .,0, / ... 'i / .,4 ..., .•, - •..,„,4-,„..i,!j,--- .'",,-.....--,-,....z:,4,_,_ .,„...0 ,44 to i ,t4-: 4 ' 01 .' , '°".,;*e'- ; - —•-•,,i )...."' frTr-----_,;171 .41, ,3,44. i 191., ` /�f \ rIS 41c$4i,,... 47,..,..,,,,i 4-4 - :. , , ..., \ ,., i ;,- -7.0 )41 --1 . , - ';'''''' e al.)All-', --, - ' ', -, : .'-,''' , 1: ‘,._a,, - 4....,4 '7,' :'`. ' .." 2 ' :-'' ' '''/-s,.-•:z;:.:. '''''-,.'",, ,4 — 4 4,4 01,4 : , fr , ,. . ,„ • A. ...,,, ,,,, ,...,, k 1 , ,e,,..,,,,,„, ...„,N ..,44,,,,,,,„1 4/ 4 1 ; . ..-. ..,4 , 4,4 ..., .,,,,,,,./ ,- :. ,--,,,,s,„-,.! ,,,,,,4 , `47?) 4',) i 1 \ 4\44,‘ ,„ . .N, v 4-.- ,• '`;t '1 1t ,.ate ,,-, ‘,. - 4k,) i 44 *';'''' '''''*1 '''',3 '2."4. .',',..; .'...6-—46 P4 k,,,\:',17/I' / 4,, I L . . ' '.--, , - -' -;7-' *ji)lr A ....-4 4 4 ' 7,, ri-3.4i1 .......!...... . 4 - - ' .. pi ., , - ,,,,,,,..,/--- 4, , , . ....... ,I /. 44'.. ' w ,' . 1( _ t .4 i 1.4‘ .,, ,, .,.., , . .„.., 1 ' t. - 4..; , -:);,I,,, t-f- i ! ,10,1 i . itti f'—4 — '111 '''' ''''-''''' O.)3 1 , iltilto i.b.* 4, ,::.‘' ',;,'it.1::::.1 1414 -4'.,j) ,,...k.A 1 (... -.1') 1 4,„e7;".4,i ' 111431, "4"140,4 i J- 1 41/ ♦ , „AN,,,,,,,4\-,,-.,-/f. .4'4'..1* of �; $ ». _ gyp 1. ,.,t�' \ ';,,t,,,,:i 4,-,,, 4 4 ,,,,'?' -,4------4 4.',fr 4 — ,,o. ' ' 4 * J.- --- - - ,,,:,.ti,,,t„4 ..art F !III'' . 4 4 4 4 - 1?"i' f,.. ..may`. x .40 r41r. '''''1,13,4 4,.1 , Naranja Town Site Phasing Cost Estimate Phase I (2010) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 150,000 1 Dog Park Excluding restroom/ramadas, lit for evening use $ 200,000 1 BMX Track $ 840,000 6 Tennis Courts w/Lights Located in Master Plan area where basketball courts are shown. $ 215,000 1 Restroom Bldgs 1 at tennis area $ 100,000 2 Ramadas 1 at dog park, 1 at tennis area $ 40,000 1 Maintenance Shed Premanufactured shed in a fenced area with gravel lot $ 1,650,701 1 Infrastructure Includes associated landscape/hardscape $ 3,195,701 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 619,152 0.19 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 38,149 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 476,857 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC + escalation $ 38,149 Public Art @ 1% of CC+escalation $ 381,485 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC + escalation $ 1,553,791 Subtotal Project Cost $ 4,749,492 TOTAL PHASE 1 Phase 2 (2012) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 210,000 1 Multi-Use Field w/lights Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 630,000 3 Soccer Field w/lights Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 90,000 1 Group Ramada $ 72,000 1 Grassy Area w/3 picnic ramadas $ 400,000 1 Restroom/Concession Bldg $ 593,450 1 Naranja Rd. off-site improvements $ 6,945,139 1 Infrastructure Includes associated landscape/hardscape $ 8,940,589 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 3,051,352 0.34 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 119,919 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 1,498,993 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5%of CC +escalation $ 119,919 Public Art @ 1% of CC +escalation $ 1,199,194 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC +escalation $ 5,989,378 Subtotal Project Cost $ 14,929,967 TOTAL PHASE 2 Naranja Town Site Phasing Cost Estimate Phase 3 (2014) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 740,000 6 Tennis Courts w/lights Relocates 6 courts built in Ph 1 to Master Plan area, reuse equip $ 160,000 8 Basketball Courts w/lights Converts 6 tennis cts built in Ph I, restriping, & equipment $ 150,000 1 Large Playground $ 90,000 1 Group Ramada $ 150,000 3 Picnic Ramada $ 60,000 2 Sand Volleyball Courts w/lights $ 1,420,000 1 Support Building w/Restrooms $ 1,115,500 1 Maintenance Facility/Yard Remainder of maintenance facility from Phase 1 $ 72,805 1 Infrastructure Includes associated landscape/hardscape $ 3,958,305 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 2,007,161 0.51 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 59,655 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 745,683 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC +escalation $ 59,655 Public Art @ 1% of CC +escalation $ 596,547 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC + escalation $ 3,468,700 Subtotal Project Cost $ 7,427,005 TOTAL PHASE 3 Phase 4 (2016) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 600,000 2 Full-Size Baseball Fields w/lights Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 600,000 2 Slow-Pitch Softball Fields w/lights Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 400,000 1 Restr000m/Concession Building $ 20,000 1 Batting Cages $ 50,000 1 Picnic Ramadas $ 100,000 1 Small Playground $ 5,783,012 1 Infrastructure Includes associated landscape/hardscape $ 7,553,012 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 5,236,883 0.69 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 127,899 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 1,598,737 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC +escalation $ 127,899 Public Art @ 1% of CC + escalation $ 1,278,989 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC +escalation $ 8,370,407 Subtotal Project Cost $ 15,923,419 TOTAL PHASE 4 Naranja Town Site Phasing Cost Estimate Phase 5 (2018) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 500,000 2 Little League Baseball Fields w/ligl Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 500,000 2 Fast-Pitch Softball Fields w/lights Includes spectator area w/trees and bleachers $ 400,000 1 Restroom/Concession Building $ 20,000 1 Batting Cages $ 50,000 1 Pincic Ramada $ 100,000 1 Small Playground $ 1,146,721 1 Infrastructure Includes associated landscape/hardscape $ 632,070 1 Tangerine Rd. off-site improvements $ 3,348,791 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 3,022,781 0.90 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 63,716 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 796,447 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC +escalation $ 63,716 Public Art @ 1% of CC +escalation $ 637,157 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC + escalation $ 4,583,816 Subtotal Project Cost $ 7,932,608 TOTAL PHASE 5 Phase 6 (2020) Construction Cost Components Notes Group Use Area $ 95,000 1 Group Ramada w/Barbecue Facility $ 30,000 1 Sand Volleyball Court $ 215,000 1 Restroom $ 5,000 2 Hourseshoe Pits Nature Center Area Unlighted area by Copper Creek School $ 60,000 2 Sand Volleyball Courts $ 100,000 1 Basketball Court $ 150,000 3 Picnic Ramadas $ 100,000 1 Small Playground + Grass $ 40,000 4 Tetherball Courts $ 400,000 1 Nature Ramada w/Restrooms $ 155,250 1 Tennis Center $ 840,000 6 Tennis Courts w/Lights $ (221,468) 1 Infrastructure Infrastructure for this phase covered in previous phases. $ 1,968,782 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 2,240,111 1.14 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 42,089 Permits& Fees @ 1c)/0 of CC +escalation $ 526,112 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC + escalation $ 42,089 Public Art @ 1% of CC +escalation $ 420,889 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC + escalation $ 3,271,289 Subtotal Project Cost $ 5,240,071 TOTAL PHASE 6 Naranja Town Site Phasing Cost Estimate Phase 7 (2022) Construction Cost Components Notes $ 1,500,000 1 Skate Park $ 542,800 1 Facilities Not Built In Previous Phases (8-Ramadas, 1-Restroom Building, 1-Playground) $ (999,287) 1 Infrastructure Infrastructure for this phase covered in previous phases. $ 1,043,513 Subtotal Construction Cost(CC) $ 1,463,058 1.40 Escalation (7%/yr 2007-2008 and 6%/yr thereafter) $ 25,066 Permits& Fees @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 313,321 Prof. Compensation @ 12.5% of CC + escalation $ 25,066 Public Art @ 1%of CC +escalation $ 250,657 Owner's Contingency @ 10% of CC +escalation $ 2,077,168 Subtotal Project Cost $ 3,120,681 TOTAL PHASE 7 $ 59,323,242 TOTAL ALL PHASES Y r ATTACHMENT B Naranja Town Site Survey Council Member Latas conducted an informal survey regarding the Naranja Town Site The survey was conducted in order to understand why the Naranja Town Site was defeated and to understand residents' views concerning the future of the Naranja Town Site. The survey results are presented in three sections: how respondents voted, reasons people voted against the NTS, proposals for moving forward, andreferred funding g methods. It is also important to note that of the 159 respondents, 72%provided aro osal for movingforward p p and only 17% identified their preferred funding methods. HOW RESPONDENTS VOTED Table 1 Vote for Naranja Town Site (One Response Per Person) Yes No Didn't Say/Unclear 25 83 51 1. Not every respondent stated how they voted. Of those who did not say,their vote was assumed by the tone of their statement or was marked"Didn't Say/Unclear." Figure 1 Vote for Naranja Town Site Yes Unclear 16% 32% No 52% REASONS PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST NARANJA TOWN SITE Table 2 Reasons People Voted Against NTS Main (One Response Per Person) Total(Multiple Responses Per Person) Didn't Fit Council Quiet Taxes2 Economy3 Too Grand4 Needs5 Mistrusts Small Town' None8 Other9 Main 40 38 35 11 7 8 8 10 Total 63 54 53 17 15 8 10 29 • • Figure 2 Main Reasons for "No" Vote Quiet None Other Small Town 6% 5% 5% Taxes Council 26% x j Mistrust s 4% Didn't fit needs 7% Economy Too Grand 22% 25% 2. "Taxes"refers to property taxes as well as other taxes and fees. 3. "Economy"refers to the current economic downturn. Respondents may have felt it was fiscally irresponsible to move forward with NTS at this time,or felt the struggling economy has placed too great a burden on tax payers. 4. "Too Grand"refers to the size and scope of the project. 5. "Didn't fit Needs"—Respondents were not opposed to a town site,but felt it could provide different elements,which better served their needs,or what they believed to be the needs of the greater community. 6. "Council Mistrust"refers to negative feelings,primarily stemming from disappointment with the Oro Valley Marketplace. 7. "Quiet Small Town"refers to concerns over the noise and traffic that would be generated by the park,as well as disapproval of growth in general. 8. "None"—Some respondents did not provide a reason. 9. "Other"—3 respondents felt it had something to do with marketing/campaigning;5 respondents felt people who do not have kids or who would not use the park voted against it; 1 respondent was concerned with open space;and 1 response was unclear. PROPOSALS FOR MOVING FORWARD Table 3 NTS Proposal -Moving Forward (One Response Per Person) Original Natural/ Split Do None'° Modest" Concept12 Trails13 Land14 Nothing15 Other16 45 36 43 9 6 13 7 Figure 3 f Proposal Response Rate None 28% Made Proposal 72% Figure 4 Proposals Do Nothing Other 8% 4% Split Land None 4% 28% Natural 6% Original Modest Concept I 23% (Give or Take) 27% 10. "None"—Some respondents provided no proposal. 11. "Modest"—Many respondents in this category felt that the Town should wait,but suggested the park be smaller and less expensive than the original plan. 12. "Original Concept(Give or Take)"—Most responses in this category felt that the Town should wait or build it in stages. Some responses suggested modifications to the plan. Some responses suggested a longer time period to build the project. Some responses also recommended the Town try again.Most,importantly, none of the responses in this category suggested a dramatic scaling down. 13. "Natural Trails"—This would include minimal landscaping in order to incorporate trails and maybe some picnic benches. 14. "Split Land"—Respondents proposed that part of the land be developed by the private sector or for Town facilities,and a modest park built on remaining land. 15. "Do Nothing"-Respondents felt that no action regarding the site needed to be taken at this time. 16. "Other"—Responses in this category included other sites for the park,partnerships with schools,or other ideas that did not fit into the other categories. PREFERRED FUNDING METHODS Table 4 Funding (Multiple Responses Per Person) User Sales Bed Corporate Property None" Fees18 Tax Tax Impact Fees Donations22 Sponsors23 Tax23 Other24 132 25 6 9 3 10 5 3 6 Figure 5 r d1. Responded To Funding Question Responded 17% Did Not Respond 83% Figure 6 Ideas for Funding Donations Corporate Property 5% 3% 2% Other impact Fees 3% 2% Bed 5% Sales 3% None User Fees 65% 12% 17. "None"—Did not provide any ideas for funding. 18. "User Fees"—Responses included differential rates for non-Oro Valley residents.Responses also suggested entrance fee and annual membership. 19. "Donations"—Donations were not described in detail.For this category respondents simply wrote"donations." 20. "Corporate Sponsors"—This category includes responses,which suggested corporate donations. 21. "Other"—Included a variety of revenue generating ideas and responses that did not fit in the other categories. \ tic OS Lk)f) To those who might be interested: The following are some thoughts I have put together relative to the Naranja Site after the initiative relative to it was defeated. These thoughts were formulated based on that which I have personally experienced in my several stays and interactions throughout the country - from the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Area, North Carolina and a few other `excursions'. I am not claiming to be a technocrat in this field of community, but I have had extensive personal experiences relative to it and am bound by the desire to have Oro Valley continue on a path towards excellence. Zev Cywan Oro Valley Resident zevcywangmail.com zevcywan comcast.net CREATE A PARK, NOT A MONUMENT Zig Ziglar, well recognized business `performance enhancement' expert/motivator once said: [people don't buy things that they need, they buy things that they want and they buy them when they want them MORE than they want the money that it costs].And so it is that I believe that the Naranja Park Initiative got voted down- people simply didn't want it for the money that it cost and, because of the concept presented, the cost was forced to be a `non-negotiable' factor. In followup polls,many reasons were checked as to the whys individuals voted as they did and the what ifs as to the `maybes' if it had been or were to be different. The 'knee-jerk' after the fact reasons given really don't matter; the whole morass, after huge amounts of money were spent on studies, consultants, and the like,was simply rejected(as well as resented).Perhaps I am being redundant but, in short,the`park'was not a good fit for the projected amount of money requested nor was it a good fit for the citizens' perceptions of Oro Valley! After having mulled this over, I have come to the conclusion that we, the Town of Oro Valley, need to start from square one with a fresh approach, one which focuses on a plan that will blend well within the kind of general lifestyles already established, a lifestyle and environment which not only attracted people here to begin with, but one that can and will expand our ability to perpetuate it. One of the `complaints' that I did hear often was that the park, as proposed, was too institutional rather than `atmospheric' and thus not in keeping with the 'flow' of Oro Valley, another, that it was too `special interest' oriented and did not provide a `nest' for the community as a whole. One of the arguments for the `complex' that I heard several times was the thought that this `park' would fulfill one of the basic `requirements' that businesses measured in consideration for locating or relocating to any given area.. Having worked in real estate relocation in the early 90s for 4-1/2 years in the Raleigh, North Carolina area during the time that multitudes of businesses opened and/or expanded headquarter type establishments there and tens and tens of thousands of individuals and families poured in because of same and, in addition, that area became a new mecca for retirees, it was my personal observation that while yes, people wanted parks, they were NOT looking at parks as facilities for organized entertainment; the desirability of a `park' was more in keeping with places to picnic, walk, relax, utilize playgrounds, gather, etc. It has been said that when a person or persons may contemplate the purchase of a house, half the sale is `made' before the people even enter the front door- curb appeal(overall look, neighborhood, landscape)is the dominant factor. And so it is with municipalities. If it looks good, if it feels good, it will BE good. Did potential buyers want other amenities such as athletic fields, entertainment venues, and such? Yes, but they expected athletic facilities to be of neighborhood vicinity, whether it was school related, school `supplied', or a few `fields' here and there, along with available `open' spaces in order to 'punt'. As to the performing arts,the visual arts,potential relos(as they were called)were satisfied that there were many individual galleries scattered about, that a separate, world class regional museum did, in fact, service the area as a whole, that the surrounding universities supplied cultural niches, and, too, there was a regional convention center and theater available to be utilized for the larger`productions'. Too, `private halls', more localized auditoriums, and the like, which provided smaller venues for smaller presentations, were very much accepted as satisfactory accommodations for the smaller want. In addition, one of the most successful venues for the performing arts was an outdoor `arena' which offered a stage and a`bring-your-own-seating',your own blankets, and your own picnic materials area nestled within the naturally forested surround(please see attachments). People paid and paid well to attend the events presented here and eventually and in an evolutionary manner it grew to what is now the Koka Booth Amphitheater in Cary,NC. It now has a more`state of the art' stage and sound system and has added some ramadas but has not lost it's family attraction character one bit. This venue started with a minimum of equipment and only graduated to a more technologically inclusive one as the Town of Cary grew and the attendance and income provided a reason and a means for same. In summary, yes people do want many of the amenities (not all) that were (are) offered' by the `park', however, they are more inclined to accept these amenities as `sectionalized' functions `scattered about', rather than as a type of an'all inclusive' metropolitan megalopolis.And,they want them to be sociologically inclusive! Are there certain functions that can be blended into an area such as the Naranja Town Site?Are there ways to satisfy the wants for athletic facilities in the Town of Oro Valley?Are there ways to preserve and/or enhance the unique quietude and desert arena that is Oro Valley? Can all of this be attained by presenting the residents with a reasonable program, a reasonable cost, and a reasonable method to raise those dollars needed (not the original $160,000,000 or the `reduced' phase amount of $46,000,000)? I believe that there are reasonable solutions to ALL of the wants and at a price, if justified, that people might be willing to pay. MY THREE CENTS: Sports facilities are most appropriate IF they truly reflect an overall representation of the activities of MOST of the community. Must we have tetherball courts? I doubt it as this is a very specialized (limited) `sport'. Must we have a BMX track? I doubt it as this is a very specialized activity? What about softball and baseball? We do have facilities throughout Oro Valley INCLUDING within the schools;upgrade them, light them, and make certain that the schools allow organized public usage of them. Soccer - probably the most organized sport but ironically the least proffered in the original plan?We have a few fields around and the potential to add more. Swimming? We have a little used pool at Kreigh Park. Upgrade it! AND, while it's a bit 'down the road'we have the University of Arizona with more than adequate additional facilities. And then there are the facilities that truly can make a park a park, those that emphasize FAMILY PARTICIPANT AND/OR CASUAL sports - tennis, softball, volleyball, touch football, etc. Some of this could be achieved by incorporating multi-use fields as well as some of each of those `necessary' specific courts that could be incorporated without giving the impression of being a `complex'. Performing arts venues could be in keeping with that which I have described above with emphasis on blending the physical aspects with the lay of the land and allowing for a casual, family attendance philosophy rather than erecting some type of formal hall (please review the few examples I have attached). In addition, I would like to mention that a few years ago I performed in a hall that was constructed within the Frank Lloyd Wright,Taliesin West in Phoenix. Aside from the stage,the piano was actually placed in a niche surrounded by rock; the acoustics were outstanding; the atmosphere incredible! Visual arts and other displays can be placed in appropriately designed and scaled housing. The architectures should be of`natural' appearance and consist of simple,multidimensional appointments rather than of a straight `block' design in order that the desert surround be not compromised. AND, ALL OF THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A BOTANICALLY EMPHASIZED PARK OF MEANDERING TRAILS AND`REST' AREAS,AND DISTRIBUTED IN SUCH FASHION THAT THE AMENITIES CENTERS DO NOT DOMINATE THE TERRAIN BUT RATHER THE OPPOSITE WOULD BE EMPLOYED. So, where to from here? It is my strong belief that the Town of Oro Valley should create a focus group to reopen afresh the ideas of applications and study those possibilities for the Site as well as exploring the possibilities for utilizing existing facilities by upgrade and expansion AND by omitting some of those specialized arenas that target a few only. This focus group should NOT be comprised of the so-called `ins', but rather should be a representative cross section of the Town's residents, volunteers who have 'been places', who have lived `other lives', and who might have the ability to `think out of the box' AND,who have a passion and vision for`doing things right' for the community as a WHOLE and are willing to recognize and incorporate the'lay of the land' as a factor. This group should not be perhaps more than a dozen or so persons as oversized groups invite too many inputs which can easily lead to committee`gridlock',the result of which is that nothing moves forward(this is not to say that viable input from the rest of the community should be discouraged); AND, aside from eventual implementation, outside paid consultants should be left out! Once a virtual conclusion is brought to bear, a topographical, three dimensional, scaled map should be made available to gain as close of realistic impact insight as is possible. Attached are a few of the many entertainment venues that I have personally experienced; I believe they illustrate that `theater venues' can live in harmony with nature! Zev Cywan Oro Valley Koka Booth Amphitheatre at Regency Park,An SMG Managed Venue http://www.boothamphitheatre.com/ KOKA BOOTH AtnyttItheatre o yr REGENCY PARK TOWN of C. tY News fret,;i'.' Upcoming Events . " 4! 2009 New Events! LATEST NEWS-JANUARY 2009 With the start of the 2009 outdoor concert season Carolina Bluegrass Festival only a few months away officials at Cary's Booth '`• • Benefit Concert Amphitheatre announced an exciting change to r=''• .14111. May 17th - more info amphitheatre operations.Venue owner,Town of sp. Cary and Management Company,SMG has decided that Nashville based Outback Concerts will become i4%, „';,-. , To send us your ideas send us an the venue's preferred promoter booking ��` , {{� , i email at performances this year. For the past seven years * '' "� '`° • :,. �� info@boothamphitheatre.com. House of Blues/Live Nation has performed this , , responsibility.According to Booth Amphitheatre , General Manager, Becky Schmidt,the preferred i .°.. promoter designation gives Outback Concerts the . * , primary responsibility for booking national talent r *,,,mat ,, 4. 1 while not excluding other promoters from working 1 - 44,' • with them and the Amphitheatre to produce the .► ;.•–,.. .. best possible concert line-up for a venue that is ,A°) li - , 'v second to none. ...„.•*) MAO` * fix Look what Music Fans are saying about the Koka Booth Amphitheatre "Koka Booth is now my favorite venue. I thoroughly "I had a great time. My parking spot was just in front "The overall experience at Koka Booth was amazing. I enjoyed the atmosphere, the staff was kind and of the entrance to the amphitheatre, my seats on the love the convenience of food / drinks / restrooms... helpful,and I enjoyed myself.I never once thought'If lawn were great, my drinks were cold,and the bands Felt like I was watching a concert in my backyard". only they did or did not do...'Great job guys, keep it I rocked.I'll definitely be back!" I Train concert fan up!”. OAR concert fan Bela Fleck&The Flecktones concert fan i. surnmerfest , 1. . , , .. ,411.111=111.11,.4,111IMIMI. -41.1111111111=11111111111..-- terMitSi Pack your own picnic,bring your blanket and enjoy one be coldfoi those of the country's finest orchestra's at Booth Amphitheatre's Summerfest with flØ Series! if Click here to see Koka's TOP warm memories. 10 Fabulous(and fun) reasons why you should -.FrOtrt thr movie As AffairAt ktotrevrtyr attend the NC Symphony Summerfest Series! Let Booth Amphitheatre help create warm memories for you with a 2009 Ticket Package! Saturday,July 26 2008-"Evening with Click HERE for details or call(919)462-2025. the Avett Brothers"7000 tickets SOLD-OUT show in Cary,NC! For a quick snapshot of what Booth Amphitheatre has to offer click here ' -,..- ---- _ '-..... .y. .. .. Vii. — ' 44 ' Watch our new video! ,` -. . 71i. , • . ILY • *f '-` , R,I, « ,, 0 7, 7 4 414 lk`.,'',:'-' 1 of 2 1/14/2009 2:46 PM Koka Booth Amphitheatre in Cary,NC 27511 -Triangle.com http://events.triangle.com/cary-nc/venues/show/11065-koka-booth-a... PREV NEXT ar'1111, IV! 411111160100 ail '117. oth *; t • 'WIN" ti image from www.raleighconvention.com 2/2 Close 1 of 2 1/14/2009 2:53 PM Koka Booth Amphitheatre in Cary,NC 27511 -Triangle.corn 11tp://events.triangle.com/cary-nc/veni s/show/11065-koka-bootl-a... • «PREV NEXT» A}a �1 r,4w� 'S'2' ' i >?v spa sin' 41 , ,F f i "IE . *, N } , K I i A ' it ' - . - iii.r *. --,.* , l'' t -'-- , , , i * if,-,"..., , .,‘ .. . * "211114t 40'.,1011P11114pAiii:, ' ',, , .... )116.;ii 44-. \,.. 4 ,,,, , "":;" ' cd,,i...C4,,„*". ..‘ .9 74, • "••, ..,...,,,,i so).„ ,- „,,xpr,* e -',` - , ,, , , \ , , a»ktP o .. ,..,.. v • waw.I 1 1/2 Close 1 of 2 1/14/2009 2:55 PM Meredith Campus Tour-McIver Amphitheater http://www.nneredith.edu/about/virtual-tour/stop3.html w .::::,.„?..: :.-2.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,, '..s. ♦ p�2]Q v ,„ ,INA DITI71 Elkstop 3: McIver Ampihi«thea e uartip s Tatvr , 0, cat L k, Eli 40 40 1111 410 41, 1111 40 • 410 4I, ilk , ,,,, . „, , .. .;`` N -. t 1 e • _..e.,--/ fil r,• ,r,-; 1 iiic 1• F a .cYir H f 4 , R•1 , ;' ca'i. :: 2'ri��:� a�F$lytg �uL� 1 �L ' r'-‘.„(ii-,:.: ;?:-- •,:-,.---,.,,. ..._ . �' ,,yhT "rfiz7c 4 r r � _i yG , 0}'" ? 3 , s f,",r .... - ,,,,,, ... . ,, , - . . :-., .,..,.-:,.- - - .4,„e jot • a W_ , ty SSC 401111111 •9� 'Y ! ! A r. t _ 4 W _ , •:„„. --',.- - , ,..',-•,,,- ,i r , .n6. 4°- . s . , ,. "' � � •. ,L, . - ._ - g �� Commencement 401P2Siit.;,.t-. „. _ .,‘4...::::::4,111 a tri', view full campus map ' . Ailk, •�, ,. '' ' ." ,� .:,.ter °r . ..*, - MRelated Links: •—c,-,-•;-....,..,--, •Campus Theme ..." q W. . •Commencement . ■' N 4 i e Study Spot •Campus Traditions F , •Cultural Events ... ,.,...J.:- . :f lit Calendar ...... »� . r r,r:"0 DID YOU KNOW? "� �' ,� �,it.• �` mss. �El�r:�_,. .R � Meredith traditionally `' p iotP.t iv �� Jones Chapel holds spring {. commencement on Mother's Day. McIver Amphitheater Just inside Meredith's gate is McIver Amphitheater, an outdoor venue for campus events. With Raleigh's mild annual average temperature of 70 degrees, McIver Amphitheater stays busy for much of the year. previous I next 1 of 1 1/14/2009 3:01 PM Photos For Mountain Play I Yelp http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/whCMcnePpHY-kR7cgCbFJw?sel... •, • Search for(e.g.taco,salon,Max's) Near(Address,Neighborhood,City,State a-Zip) pw�..s....«...+.........ww.........w........^.............................v......u....v....w.r iSan ....,,.... . ...... ...... .�1 Francisco,CA ear. Member Search I Account I Log In Mountain Play;Photos 5 photos uploaded-click thumbnails below to enlarge Selected Photo e Prev I Next)> From Beth S. 1 • y' . • ♦aim . .4"........,, ''�� e 4 .•0 . . ., , .::,,,.::.,,,4,_.. :-., .4Viiiii:,,-:,.:,.,,,,„ ,‘,...4... 4 ..,...' ',4, -....:,... AK.1",V 14,.......,mihr..47_,.Y,....,,4,- R r-` „,,,....-+, A. 4• ,` d.,:.r .�y Sit¢ ,,,. — ,s ,,..,,-,,. 'e ,,,,,sJ •,,,,#- :�` w...-. w`f . 4�• ! .d s.1y, `�%/.;` ♦ - " y! sp •• f /r• t Rf� � !If+y - ♦ ,4 `.a Pte. - • . , , _.--.-,...,,,,,42:'s.1,r-. –44. 'f:.',LI—' .,.-- ,iiii"h:if'7', '-.- 4; 77:e7A;i:,-',4'..-- 4100011111k it _- : ,,,:*--*--v — .ugw- , 4,::::. -— -.--_.. 1,-, ,-.-, 3,, , -.......r 4,.. -.,),. .. „ r 1 F it s,;:i., Y 1, rix. ,llos�¢� ,. II**-,,r-,-fie: : �w 41116, r dr . ` �►4 + . \ ' - 7,, 4404‹4.e.; . N11 it A.0; : It...* , • I''' r -,?!.1.pi.,,, ,,-A', -... . '4 404;ilikk ''''''''-- ,• r• '° Inappropriate photo? i ' i * "n : .. w ,d, . 3,.. .0--- , ;0 ,. • -, 40. P --' i , _4010 14,-, ..,-.1e ..,.... : • From Beth S. From Beth S. From Beth S. From Beth S. From Beth S. Business Owners I My Account I About Yelp I FAQ I The Weekly Yelp I Yelp Blog I Yelp Mobile I Yelp Canada I Yelp UK I RSS I Developers I Feedback I Jobs Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service.By continuing past this page,you agree to abide by these terms. Copyright©2004-2009 Yelp I Pnvacy Policy Site Map I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Detroit I Honolulu I Houston I Las Vegas I Los Angeles I Miami I Minneapdis I New York I Philadelphia I Phoenix(Portland I Sacramento I San Diego I San Francisco I San Jose I Seattle I Washington,DC I More Cities Review Directories I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Honolulu I Houston I Las Vegas I Los Angeles I Miami I New York I Philadelphia I Phoenix I Portland I Sacramento San Diego I San Francisco I San Jose I Seattle I Washington,DC Talk Directories I Austin I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I San Diego I San Francisco I San Jose I Seattle I Washington,DC Search Directories I Austin I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I San Diego I San Francisco I San Jose(Seattle I Washington,DC 1 of 1 1/14/2009 3:04 PM TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2 Page 1 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JANE PETERSON, LIBRARY ADMINISTRATOR JERENE WATSON,ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY OPERATIONS SUMMARY: In mid-summer of 2008, a review of the Library was put in motion by Town management, resulting in changes in multiple areas of the Library operations. Actions were identified to respond to the workplace climate survey comments and suggestions and to enhance customer service without program expansion. The end goal was to implement process improvement actions resulting in cost-saving efficiencies and improved employee morale. A Library management review update was provided to the Town Council by correspondence in late October with progress given on seven identified action items. On November 19 Vice Mayor Al Kunisch requested, with a second from Councilmember Bill Garner, that a presentation be made on the Library to Council as information and for the purpose of discussion among the Councilmembers. They requested information not only in relation to the Town's operations but also our shared costs with Pima County Free Library District. The 5-year, cost-sharing agreement with the County took nearly 18 months to negotiate and is delineated by the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) (Attachment 1). HISTORY: In 1997 preliminary discussion began with Pima County to build a new library in the Northwest. Originally, Ironwood Ridge H.S. was chosen. Later, due to environmental issues, the Council decided to locate the library on the Town Complex. Starting in 1998, a Library Technical Advisory Committee began the design process for the library building and the talks with Tucson Pima Public Library (TPPL). It was decided that Oro Valley's library would have an "affiliate" relationship with TPPL whereby the library is staffed with Oro Valley employees, would make acquisition decisions locally, and would share training and circulation resources with the county. Agnes Griffin, Director of TPPL, in a memo dated January 25, 1999, discussed how the library would operate as an affiliate. (Attachment 2). The Library was completed in 2002 with the Grand Opening on August 17, 2002. By this time, the Friends of the Oro Valley Public Library had been formed and the group was already raising funds to supplement the Library's budget. They raised almost $35,000 when it was discovered there were no funds to put a roof on the patio. Friends gave $115,979.00 for the Library Expansion Project of 2005. They continue to support programming and supplies with a yearly donation of over $100,000.00. They also pay for the majority of our travel and training. The current IGA, which took 1.5 years to negotiate, was signed on October 9, 2007 and is effective until June 30, 2012. The Agreement retains the Library's affiliate status which the founders of the library believed to be very important. Community support of the Oro Valley Public Library has been impressive from the very start. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 In the Community Survey, which was presented in January 2008, the Library ranked at the top when respondents were asked what services were important to them and which services they were very satisfied in the Town. The Library is an integral part of the town culture and helps with programs such as Adopt-a-family, the Holiday Parade, Earth Day, and Investigate OVPD. It serves at the home to the Friends of Oro Valley Public Library Book Festival and has been the host to other one-time community events in the Town. DISCUSSION: Internal Operational Cost-Saving Analysis The greatest savings identified within the Library operations focuses on the labor-intensive RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) checkout system. During the Council's budget discussions last May, Council requested information on the cost benefit of retaining the RFID tags used in our "CheckPoint" self check-out system versus changing to the "Innovative" Self-Check system used currently by the County. The RFID system was initially installed as part of the County-wide library system but was abandoned by the County in 2006 due primarily to the cost of the system, especially the high cost of annual maintenance. While that system did a better job of keeping theft of DVDs and books lower due to improved check-out and tracking, it was abandoned in part due to the increased hands-on requirements of that system by Library staff. In reviewing records pre-CheckPoint System at our libraryy, our missing items costs hovered around $10,000. That number dropped by just over half, to approximately $4,700, once the CheckPoint System was installed. However, another factor in reduced theft of DVDs may have been the reorganization of the library where it kept high-theft items under the watchful eyes of the library staff During November, Library staff conducted a time-motion study that compared the same activity at Oro Valley with that same activity at the Nanini Branch of the Pima County Library System. Processing 75 reserved items in our system took 95 minutes with no interruption (Per item = 1 minute, 26 seconds). In comparison, the same activity took a total of 13 minutes to complete all 75 items processed at the Nanini Branch (Per item = 10.5 seconds). The time savings factor would be just over seven times less in handling "On Hold" items through the Innovative system instead of the current CheckPoint system in place. With 65,206 hold items processed for the past year (December 07 through November 08), staff labor freed up from the Hold check-out process would be reduced from 1,377 hours to 188 hours, or 86% less staff time spent on this activity, keeping the need for personnel down as other growth pressures and public requests for service increase. In summary, moving to the County's system would cost an estimated $23,000 in one-time fixed costs as compared to the initial start-up costs to the Town in 2005 of$177,000 for the County-mandated CheckPoint system purchase. Our recurring annual RFID cost (for maintenance and RFID tags) is nearly $40,000 as compared to just under $2,000 annual maintenance on the Innovative System , for an annual maintenance savings of nearly $38,000 or 95% savings. The pros and cons of both systems are listed in Attachment 3. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 3 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 Internal Personnel Savings Analysis Examination of the staffing of the Library led management to recommend analyzing the need for a mini- reorganization of the Library staff. A mini-reorganization is anticipated to occur after the first of the year to balance out some of the reporting lines and workloads as well as align functions under job titles that match the County library system. The analysis will explore down-grading a couple positions to better align with the County personnel system with potentially two reclassifications of employees. Any reclassification changes recommended will be brought forward to Council during the usual budget activities of the spring. This review will not change any pay, only take on evaluation of positions to one another to make for an apples- to-apples comparison of job functions and alignment of titles. Re-alignment of the functional jobs and transition to titles reflecting those of the County library staff is being considered for two reasons: • Eliminate confusion whether our job functions are the same and paid at a comparable rate to those in the County • If in the future, the Town decides it would like the County to fully operate our affiliate branch, Town employees would be working in like functions with like titles as those in the County, making for a smoother transition. Changes being made include: • Library Administrator being re-titled as a Library Services Manager, which is a lower-level classification within the County system, for cost savings of$13,291. • Eliminating the Senior Librarian title and aligning all Librarians as I, II or III. This would result in savings of$15,016 within that classification. Other title changes and functional alignments would vary and be slightly above and below existing salary ranges, but at no time would any salary adjustment for existing employees in these categories be made relating to the mini-reorganization. External Negotiations with Pima County on the IGA The IGA is very clear on what the County will reimburse the Town for in the operation of the Library and also sets the maximum reimbursement in some areas (see page 7 of the IGA attachment). Eligible (for reimbursement) expenditures include: Personnel, Outside Professional Services , some Equipment repair and Maintenance, rentals, Public Liability Insurance, Telecommunications, Advertising, Printing and binding, Travel and training (up to $2,500.00), Memberships and subscriptions, Non-capitalized equipment, Collection materials and subscriptions, Postage, Office supplies, Miscellaneous other operating costs, Water, Waste disposal, Natural Gas, and Electricity. Those expenses spelled out as Non-Eligible (for reimbursement) include: Building Repair and Maintenance, Grounds Repair and Maintenance, Volunteer recognition and ceremonies, Software Maintenance and Licensing, Program supplies, Capital Improvements to property, Landscaping, any food or drink for staff or volunteers, f , TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 4 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 any special events, legal challenges to the Town's internet filtering, costs associated with the RFID system, indirect costs of the library, salaries, raises, and other income adjustments to the extent that such exceed the percentages provided to Pima County employees for the same fiscal year, and, expenditures funded by Library Revenues (grants, donations, or awards) received by Town specifically for those Library expenditures. Currently the Town does not pay anything for the County's Internet filtering system that is used on County- connected computers located within our Library. Even if the Library went with the County's filtering system, there would be no cost savings due to the fact that our Internet filtering system is used for the entire organization and is not solely serving the Library. In Summary, aligning the Oro Valley Public Library's circulation system with that of the County would take a huge "non-eligible" expense off the table and bring the Town's costs of operation lower. Re-opening the IGA with the County after taking 18 months to settle on one may be counterproductive, especially during a time of economic stress when it is unlikely the County wants to take on more expenses than they already carry. The Non-eligible (for reimbursement) expenses that we can impact to lower our bottom line are in eliminating the RFID system and aligning our personnel to their functional titles and ensuring the salaries are in line with the County equivalents. OPTIONS TO CONSIDER: Some Councilmembers have expressed interest in greater reimbursement from the County, and as a result, staff has been examining the IGA. However, considering the economy, to re-open the IGA at this time is not good timing and may be less than beneficial. Staff proposes that Council consider the following collectively as ways to reduce costs at this time: 1) Internal Re-alignment: Give staff time to align Library job functions and job descriptions with those in the County as an efficiency move that results in savings. 2) Switchover to County Self-Check System: Change over to the County's self-check system and run our Library's circulation division using the same software that the County uses (Innovative), abandoning the RFID tag system. This is not a reimbursable expense by the County but will reduce the Town's percentage of operational cost-sharing through lower annual maintenance cost and eliminating supply costs (tags, covers, and green cards), in addition to saving staff time in performing this activity as well as. 3) Pinal County Resident User Fee: Initiate an annual charge for a library card from Pinal County residents, which our Legal staff says is allowable by state law. We have identified over 230 customers who list Oro Valley as their home library and reside in Pinal County. Pinal County does not have a dedicated library tax so there is not likely a mechanism to get funding for their residents other than charging library users directly. 4) Review Committee: It has been suggested that a citizen review committee be created to study library operations to use in re-opening the IGA with the County. If a review committee is the Council's desire, staff recommends this effort be internal to the organization, composed of town staff and elected officials for this practical reason: any committee needs to be composed of people who have a working knowledge of the technology, programs, needs and policies of the library. The library operation is complex and TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 5 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 interacts with more Oro Valley citizens than any other Department. We can document that 500 - 750 people a day come through the Library's doors. If including citizens on a Library Review Task Force is preferable, our recommendation is to use the already-established group of interested citizens, the Board of the Friends of the Oro Valley Public Library. They act as an ex-officio citizen committee which serves as a form of"checks and balances," routinely reviewing many library issues, and making recommendations. Additionally, they save the Town money by raising funds to support and pay for some of the unbudgeted needs and are already educated and familiar with the costs associated with running a library. FISCAL IMPACT: Current and historical annual expenditures by the Town and the County are listed in the chart below. The IGA spells out the maximum amount the County will pay for reimbursable expenses (IGA, page 7). TOV Annual Library EXPENDITURES & PIMA COUNTY & Free Library District REIMBURSEMENTS FISCAL OVPL -ACTUAL PCFLD PCFLD REIMBURSEMENT YEAR EXPENDITURES REIMBURSEMENTS RATES 2003/04 $918,536 $423,755 46% 2004/05 $954,866 $468,544 49% 2005/06 $1,035,856 $492,167 48% 2006/07 $1,202,920 $592,769 49% 2007/08 * $1,118,993 $368,205 33%* 2008/09 Budget $1,309,983 $620,083 47% *For FYI 07/08, the renewed Library IGA revised the PCFLD/OVPL billing and reimbursement method that had been in place in the prior IGA. The renewed IGA calls for the Town's payment to Pima County for services rendered on behalf of the Oro Valley Library (e.g., courier, IT, collection services)to be netted out of the overall Oro Valley Public Library reimbursement from the County. This resulted in the variances shown during that fiscal year. Town staff and Pima County library staff have worked together to revert back to the prior method used for billing and reimbursement, which went into effect the 4th quarter of FY 07/08. It is important to note that the lower reimbursement percentage shown for FY 07/08 resulted purely from the change in billing method that took place, and not from the failure of the County or our Library to uphold the requirements of the IGA. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 6 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 01/14/09 The financial impact of replacing the RFID self-check system with the Innovative system used by the County would reduce the Town's overall costs, including annual maintenance reduction that more than outweighs the costs of missing items that may lost or stolen. Percentages between what the County and the Town would pay if the RFID system was eliminated would bring the costs overall closer to a 50/50 split. ATTACHMENTS: #1 —IGA between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley #2 —January 25, 1999 Memo from County on Affiliate Library Status #3—RFID Tag Cost Information (Comparison Matrix of Innovative v. CheckPoint Self-Check systems; October 18, 2008 Memo from IT Director) #4—Library Construction Cost Sharing Allocation Summary / County Library Tax Information t • J.,Pe Peterson, Library Administrator ene Watson, Assistant Town Manager (4441/24) David Andrews, Town Manager :i�.r:�:�'-�.:�.^w...l_-..\'Jn..C:�iii.Y'.`T�.C2':_v:.V•.'..JTC..f-.:^•.'rte....'.Vi....:..._--�..�-.�......_L-:i':-.. RF-"'^^•a:.:',.s„ ._...__:::c.,�-...nr_J►-:-_..._-..v:-=.`^r._..._...._�.-1"-:�'...:-.1:.T-tea.;-^' a/ ‘, /2/e4.1 e 76 7 1! TM oinilow On ail b, l+ Z I ffit•t Gv�-`f f' ). t��_. f��J1 `1 f i t .• r !t r tr f ouIrientt ow'i;3im.!, z(. trii6 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Pima County Free Library District and the Town of Oro Valley For Provision and Payment for Library Services This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Pima County Public Library and the Town of Oro Valley pursuant to the authority provided under A.R.S. 11- 951 et seq. § Recitals A. WHEREAS District and Town may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-951 et seq.; and B. WHEREAS District is authorized by A.R.S. § 11-901 et seq., and § 48-3901 et seq. to establish and maintain free libraries; and C. WHEREAS, Town operates and maintains a free public library in Oro Valley, Arizona; and > D. WHEREAS, the Town Library was built in part with Pima County General Obligation Bond funds, � g and the Town has agreed to make the Library available to all residents of Pima County on the same terms and conditions as residents of the Town; and E. WHEREAS, District has been paying a portion of the operating costs of the Librarypursuant to Intergovernmental go ernmental Agreement No. 01-66-0-13 5568-0704 between Pima County Free Library District and the Town of Oro Valley ; and F. WHEREAS, District and Town agree that it is in the best interests of the inhabitants bi ants of Pima County to continue to affiliate in order to provide library services throughout the County; and g tY� G. WHEREAS,District is willing to continue to provide fundingforaportion the of operating costs of Town's Library. NOW, THEREFORE, District and Town, agree as follows: OV IGA FINAL—7-31-07 1 Attachment 1 AGREEMENT Tlefinitinm A. "Annual District Contribution" means the amount that District will contribute to the operations of Library. This contribution shall not exceed 50 % of Eligible Shared Expenditures and shall not, under any circumstances, exceed the Maximum District Contribution. B. "District" means the Pima County Public Library, a body politic and corporate and political subdivision of the State of Arizona. District operates and maintains all libraries in Pima County, except affiliate or privately operated libraries. C. "District Revenues" means all customer fees, dues, and fines collected,by or owing to Library. D. "Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures" means all approved expenditures for collection development and direct services set forth in III(B)(l) and (2) actually made by Town, or by District on behalf of Library, during the term of this Agreement for the operation of the Library. Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures shall also include actual expenses for staff travel and training up to $2,500.00. Expenditures made for the following activities and operations are not Eligible Shared Opgatin pen.ditures: (1) capital improvements to facilities or other real or personal property; (2) maintenance of the library building, plant, and parking lot; (3) landscaping and grounds keeping and maintenance: (4) travel and training in excess of$2,500.00; (5) any and all food and- drink for patrons, staff, or volunteers; (6) volunteers events and special events; (7) legal challenges or other liabilities including those associated with Town's Internet filtering policy and operations; (8) costs associated with the purchase, maintenance and operation of RFID programs and associated equipment, hardware and software; (9) indirect costs associated with the operations and maintenance of the Library; (10) salaries, raises and other income adjustments to the extent that such exceed the percentages provided to Pima County employees for the same fiscal year; and (11) expenditures funded by Library revenues. E. "Library" means the Oro Valley Public Library located at 1305 W. Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. The Library shall be governed by the Town of Oro Valley which shall retain responsibility for hiring, disciplining, and firing all employees, maintaining the Library building and grounds and for defending its practices pursuant to policies and procedures developed by the Library or Town. F. "Library Revenues" means grants, donations, or awards received by Town specifically for those Library expenditures. G. "Maximum Annual District Contribution" means the maximum amount that District will provide to Town to cover Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures. The Maximum OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 2 Annual District Contribution shall be as set forth in Article V. Financing, Paragraph A. The Maximum Annual District Contribution shall not increase by more than onepercent (1%) of the prior fiscal year's maximum contribution for each subsequent year during thetem of this Agreement. b H. "RFID" means the Radio Frequency Identification system hardware and software used by Library to track library materials. I. "Town" means the Town of Oro Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Arizona. II. Term and Renewal. This Agreement shall be effective on July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012 and shall be recorded with the Pima County Recorder following execution by • both partV ll1 parties. This agreement may be renewed for additional five-year terms, upon written amendment signed by both parties. III. Termination. A. Either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of a Fiscal Year by providing . p g written notice of the intent to terminate no less than 120 days prior to the end of the fiscal year. LAL,C',:-0- "_ C. � v "77 L-) B. In the event of such termination, Town shall remit to District 50%-of replacement value of the then current collection and computer hardware and software. All personal property of District shall be returned to the District. Such funds shall be remitted and such equipment shall be returned within 60 days of the effective date of the termination. IV. Scope. A. Town shall: 1. Provide free library services to all residents of Pima County on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to Town residents. 2. Follow conditions or restrictions that District imposes with respect to loans of books, materials or equipment to the extent possible to insure operational uniformity fiy throughout the system. 3. Collect fines, fees, and-reimbursement from patrons who lose or damage library b books, materials or equipment, using District circulation policies and procedures. All „N ,� such monies collected shall be remitted to District by day the 10th of the month 01- � ' following the month collected. "el:0 r-74. With the exception of Internet filtering, comply with District's Policies governing g confidentia i , circua ion, reference, interlibrary loan and system-wide programs to OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 3 the extent possible to insure operational uniformity throughout the system as such policies are adopted by the District Board of Directors and as may be amended from time to time. Town shall follow associated procedures and guidelines established to implement the policies. District will provide a full and complete set of such policies within 10 days of final approval by the P.ima County Public Library Board of Directors. The policies will be attached and incorporated into this IGA as Exhibit A. Any amendments to a District policy are incorporated into this Agreement and shall not require an amendment to be effective. Internet use shall be implemented by Town pursuant to Town's Internet use policy Exhibit B. 5. Respond to intra-library and interlibrary loan requests from District and other libraries. 6. Purchase, install and maintain additional furnishings required by the library for future fiscal years. 7. Own the Town's web links, all on-site telecommunication, and computer hardware and software. 8. By June 30, 2009, assure that all telecommunications, and computer hardware and software are compatible with District's systems and that all computer hardware supported by District is replaced when the warranty expires. (Town understands and agrees that District shall have no responsibility for upgrading, maintaining or servicing any hardware or software that is either incompatible with District equipment or that has an expired warranty.) 9. Purchase, maintain and operate RFID programs and all associated equipment, hardware and software. 10. Make any modifications at the Oro Valley Public Library, which are needed to accommodate equipment, including providing adequate electrical wiring, and assist • District in connecting the local equipment to the system. 11. Use District's on-line computer system to provide library system functions. 12. Use District's Internet gateway for public Internet access. 13. Assure that appropriate Town Library staff regularly attend District system-wide meetings and training opportunities. 14. Offer appropriate input into the collection development process. 15. At Town's option, participate in floating collections. OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 4 B. District shall provide collection development, outside professional (direct) and indirect services as set forth below. 1. ccollection Development: a. Coordinate the Collection Development process, including selection, acquisition and cataloging of library materials for addition to the collection of Town's library. b. Follow Town library profile, as submitted by Town, in the acquisition of appropriate materials. c. Seek Town input throughout the year regarding collection development. d. Base the extent of collection development on Town's budget allocation for library materials. e. Provide access to databases such as: i. On-line homework help. ii. Genealogical resources. iii. Business information. iv. Over 400 full-text magazines and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. v. On-line archives of the Arizona Daily Star and Tucson Citizen. f. Utilize District purchasing power and negotiated discounts for the purchase of materials. District Collections Development librarians will negotiate with vendors, train Library staff on the use of on-line ordering processes, and manage collection development activities. 2. Outside Professional (Direct) Services: a. Provide courier service between Town library and District libraries each weekday, except holidays, to ensure that books and other materials are available to be borrowed and easily returned by all residents of Pima County. b. Provide circulation services including, but not limited to, sending out holds, overdue and fine notices, servicing collection agency accounts and supplying library card applications and cards for issuance by Town library. c. Provide public copier and computer printer services for library customers. d. Technology Support: i. Provide telecommunications (not voice), including connection to the District network T-1 line. OV IGA FINAL-7-3]-07 5 ii. Provide computer technology support services including: upgrades, network troubleshooting and connectivity, circulation system access, firewalls and other security deemed appropriate by District for 30 computers that will be designated for staff computers or public-use computers. These support services will not be provided for RFID or for any hardware or software that is either incompatible with District equipment or that has an expired warranty. Support services for Internet filtering will be provided only to the extent set forth below. iii. Provide computer technology support services for internet filtering only as set forth in Exhibit C. iv. Provide hardware and software necessary to enable electronic reservations and printing for the public. v. Provide a help desk for all District-supported automation systems. Help desk services will be provided Monday through Saturday during normal library hours. vi. Provide automation services to include: access to the Innovative Interfaces, Inc. Millennium software and associated modules for library materials circulation and for collection access through an integrated catalog. District will provide: Millennium back-up, coordination of uploads of module releases, and automation security. vii. Obtain and maintain an on-line computer system, library central site hardware and software, web links, library catalog and library circulation • database and patron database. viii. Provide periodic back-up of the Library system, coordinate and load software releases and maintain system security. ix. Provide Town library with online library service modules for circulation, library catalog, database maintenance, management information, serials, and acquisition of materials. x. Provide standard computer training, database preparation, and ongoing installation assistance. 3. Indirect services to Oro Valley residents: a. Access to all District libraries and library programs. b. Ability to request over 1.5 million items in the District's materials collection. OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 6 c. Access to e-books and downloadable audio/video. d. Ability to submit and receive Inter-library loan requests. 4. Indirect services to Library: a. Process Inter-library Loan requests. b. Provide Library staff with the opportunity to participate in planning District-wide programs such as the Summer Reading Program and One Book Arizona and provide materials for such programs. c. Catalog records via OCLC/Amigos for all items in Town Library's collection. d. Provide cataloger and support staff to purge records and maintain bib records and to provide authority control and holdings information. e. Train Town Library staff on automation, databases and offer other continuing professional development opportunities. f. Process invoices, pay bills and manage accounts for acquisitions. g. Provide administrative support to the extent District deems appropriate. V. Financing. A. The Maximum Annual District Contribution shall not exceed the following amounts: FY 2007-08 (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008): $ 613,944.00 FY 2008-09 (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009): $ 620,083.00 FY 2009-10 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010): $ 626,284.00 FY 20010-11 (July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011): $ 632,547.00 FY 20011-12 (July 1-, 2011 through June 30, 2012): $ 638,872.00 B. Town shall complete the itemized Eligible Shared Operating Expenditure Quarterly Report in the form attached as Exhibit D. Town shall certify that the Report accurately reflects the Library's expenditures in each line and category of the Report. C. The Report shall be submitted to District no later than 15 days after the end of each quarter, except the final Quarterly Report for each fiscal year shall be submitted no later than August 30 of the following fiscal year. OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 7 . • D. District shall review the submitted. Report and make the appropriate adjustments as follows: 1) Add costs of purchasing and processing materials (see Exhibit V); 2) Add cost of professional services set forth in Art. III (B)(2) (see Exhibit F); 3) Credit for fines and fees collected; 4) Adjust personnel salary, wages, and benefits to District levels; and, 5) Adjust for expenditures excluded from Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures. E. District will remit 50% of this adjusted Eligible Shared Operating Expenditure to Town. Only allowed Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures shall be reimbursed. District reserves right to request supporting documentation necessary to determine the eligible shared operating expenses. F. District will remit the allowed quarterly Eligible Shared Operating expenditure no later than 30 days after the Quarterly Report is received from Town. Under no circumstances shall the total payments from District to Town for any fiscal year exceed the Maximum Annual District Contribution for such year. G. District shall explain the reason for the objection to any line items on the Quarterly Report and shall withhold the amounts associated with those line items until the Parties can resolve the objection VI. Operational Cooperation. A. Either party may request a meeting of appropriate administrators and personnel to discuss issues related to Library operations or this Agreement. Parties shall cooperate to resolve differences expeditiously and amicably. 13. Any notice required by this Agreement and regarding operations shall be provided to the following persons: DISTRICT: TOWN: Nancy Ledeboer, Library Director Library Administrator Pima County Public Library Oro Valley Public Library 101 N. Stone Avenue 305 W. Naranja Tucson, AZ 85701 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Chuck H. Huckelberry Oro Valley Town Manager County Administrator Pima County Oro Valley Town Administration 130 W. Congress, 10th Floor 11000 N. La Canada Drive Tucson, AZ 85701 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 8 Lori Godoshian; Clerk of the Board Oro Valley Town Clerk Pima County Board of Supervisors Oro Valley Town Administration W. Congress, 5th Floor 1 10n0 N. La C'� •.••• uufiul..iad,. Q Drive Tucson, Arizona 85701 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 VII. Audit Rights. District shall have the right to audit Town's books, records and documents relating to the operation of the Library and to use of fundsurrovided p pursuant to this Agreement. Town shall cooperate with such an audit. Anyinconsistencies betweenDistrictContribution Eligible the Annual Contribution and Eligible Shared Operating Expenditures P g p discovered by the audit shall be resolved as appropriate to meet the terms of this Agreement. VIII. Indemnification. A. Each party (as `indemnitor') agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless ss the other party (as `indemnitee') from and against any and all claims, losses, liability, cost, or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) (hereinafter collectively referred to as `claims') arising out of bodily injury of any person (includingdeath) or property P rtY damage but only to the extent that such claims which result in vicarious/derivative liability to the indemnitee, are caused by the act, omission, negligence, misconduct g b or other fault of the indemnitor, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers. B. Town agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless District and Pima County from and against any and all claims, losses, liability, costs, or ex enses (includingp reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of Town's Internet Filtering Policy in its current form (attached as Exhibit B) and as may be amended from time to time. IX. Compliance with Laws. The parties shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, standards and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona shallove g rn the rights of the parties, the performance of this Agreement and any disputes hereunder. Any y action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in an Arizona court in Pima County. Any changes in the governing laws, rules and regulations during the terms of this Agreement shall apply but do not require an amendment. This Agreement and all obligations upon District or Town arising therefore shall be subject to any limitations imposed by budget law or regulation. X. Non-Discrimination. The parties shall not discriminate against anyDistrict or employee, client p ogee, bent or any other individual in any way because of that person's age, race, creed, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to this Agreement. The parties shall comply with the provisions of Executive pV IGA FTNAL-7-31-07 9 Order 75-5, as amended by Executive Order 99-4, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference, as if set forth in full herein. XT.. /-a DA. The parties shall comply with all applicable provisions vn f th• Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and all applicable federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36. If Town is carrying out government programs or services on behalf of District, then Town shall maintain accessibility to the program to the same extent and degree that would be required of the District under 28 CFR Sections 35.130, 35.133, 35.149 through 35.151, 35.160, 35.161 and 35.163. Failure to do so could result in the termination of this Agreement. XII. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or any application thereof to the parties or any person or circumstances, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect, without the invalid provision or application and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. XIII. Conflict of Interest. This contract is subject to cancellation for conflict of interest pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-511, the pertinent provisions of which are incorporated herein reference. XIV. Non-Appropriation. Not withstanding any other provision in this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated if for any reason the District Board of Directors or the Town Council does not appropriate sufficient monies for the purpose of maintaining this Agreement. In the event of such cancellation, District or Town, respectively shall have no further obligation to the other party under this Agreement except for payment for expenses incurred prior to cancellation. XV. Legal Authority. Neither party warrants to the other its legal authority to enter into this Agreement. If a court, at the request of a third person, should declare that either party lacks authority to enter into this agreement, or any part of it, then the Agreement, or parts g of it affected by such order, shall be null and void, and no recovery may be had by either party against the other for lack of performance or otherwise. XVI. Worker's Compensation. Each party shall comply with the notice of A.R.S. § 23-1022 (E). For purposes of A.R.S. § 23-1022, each party shall be considered therim P arY employer of all personnel currently or hereafter employed by that party, irrespective of the operations of protocol in place, and said partyshall have the sole responsibility for the payment of Worker's Compensation benefits or other fringe benefits of said employees. XVII. No Joint Venture. It is not intended by this Agreement to, and nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall be construed to, create any partnership,joint venture or employment relationship between the parties or create any employer-employee relationship between District and any Town employees, or between Town and any District employees. Neither party shall be liable for any debts, accounts, obligations or other liabilities whatsoever of OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 10 the other, including (without limitation) the other party's obligation to withhold Social income and taxes for itself or any of its Y emp to ees. XVIII,Nn Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in the provisions of his Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties notparties to this Agreement . g or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement byimposing anystandard . p g of care with respect to the maintenance of public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 11 XIX. Entire Agreement. This document constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and b understandings, oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged herein. This Agreement shall not be modified, amended, altered or extended except through a written amendment signed by the parties and recorded with the Pima County Recorder. In Witness Whereof, District has caused this Intergovernmental Agreement to be executed by the Chairman of its Board of Directors, upon resolution of the Board and attested to by the Clerk of the Board, and Town has caused this Intergovernmental Agreement to be executed by its Mayor upon resolution of its Town Council and attested to by: PIMA CO ► PUBLIC LIBRARY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY lr, of 'Alp airman, Board of Directors Town Manager OCT 0 9 2001 ATTEST: ATTEST: / _ / . /J c dte,j_4e ‘ .L Pima County Clerk of the Board Oro alley Town Clerk INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT DETERMINATION The foregoing Intergovernmental Agreement between the Pima County Public Library and the Town of Oro Valley has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952 by the undersigned counsel,who have determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona to those parties to the Intergovernmental by Agreement represented the g p undersigned. . PIMA COUNTY: Town of Oro Valley: gd.1,-?7 C)/CA641:4-) Ag �f ,. D County Attorney -' ' - T. n Attor y OV IGA FINAL-7-31-07 12 List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Pima County Public Library Policies governing circulation, reference, interlibrary loan and system-wide programs Exhibit B: Oro Valley Public Library Internet Filtering Policy Exhibit C: Computer technology support services for Internet filtering Exhibit D: Eligible Shared Operating Expenditure Quarterly Report Form Exhibit E: Baker and Taylor Services Exhibit F: District Costs EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A District will provide a full and complete set of its confidentiality, circulation, reference, interlibrary loan and system-wide programs policies within 10 days of final approval by the Pima County Public Library Board of Directors. Such policies will automatically be incorporated into and become a part of this Agreement without need for an amendment. EXHIBIT B ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET ACCESS POLICY Town of Oro Valley Public Library offers public access to the World Wide Web as an integral part of its research and information services. Library users may use the Internet for educational and informational purposes. The Internet provides access to diverse resources from many countries and cultures that may not be found in the Library's collections. However, because the Internet is a vast and unregulated medium, the Library has limited control over information, images, and commentary available through the Internet and is not responsible for the accuracy, authority, or timeliness of the content. Further, the Library cannot protect users from information and images that they might find offensive or disturbing. The library uses filtering technology on all computers with Internet access. Patrons 17 years of age or older are given a choice of an Internet session with a basic filter or one that has additional filtering. The intent of the basic option is to block websites that are considered to be pornographic. The intent of the additional filtering is to block websites that are not appropriate for children. If a patron wishes to access a site that is blocked by filtering software, that patron may request Library staff to unblock the site. Parents and legal guardians have the responsibility to oversee their child's exposure to and use of the Internet. Parents and children are encouraged to seek guidance from Library staff, visit www.netsmartz.org (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), and visit the "Kids" section on the Library's website regarding sites of interest to children. Town of Oro valley Public Library reminds users that computers are located in public areas shared by people of all ages and backgrounds. Internet users must be considerate and respectful of other library users, and especially mindful of children in the Library, particularly when accessing information or images others may find offensive. Library user information is kept confidential in agreement with the Town of Oro Valley Public Library and state law. User Responsibilities All users of the Internet are expected to use this resource in a manner consistent with the purposes for which it is provided and according to the guidelines established by the Library. Responsible use of the Internet includes: • Refraining from illegal or unethical use, including violation of federal, state (ARS 13-3508, 13-3506, 13-3507, 13-3501), or local laws and regulations, • Using the Library's Internet resources for educational and informational purposes; Respecting intellectual property rights by making only authorized copies of copyrighted or licensed software or data on the Internet; • Respecting the privacy of others by not misrepresenting oneself as another user, by not attempting to modify or gain access to files, passwords, or data belonging to others; and by not seeking disaiiowed access to any computer system via the Internet; ▪ Refraining from damaging or altering the configuration of the equipment to access the Internet or the software or data residing on the Internet; and ▪ Refraining from the deliberate propagation of destructive processes such as computer "worms", "viruses", and "trojan horses". Failure to comply with these regulations may result in the loss of Library privileges, up to and including permanent trespass from all Town of Oro Valley Public Library facilities. EXHIBIT C Exhibit C Pima County Public Library Internet Access Support Services for k..ii v valley r- i.iOUUL �.iur ai l e District filtering policy': Pima County Public Library ("District") assigns one of three different levels (child, teen or adult) of Internet access to each customer. The available access is determined by age of the user as authenticated through District's Millennium program. Under District policy, adult users will have the option and ability to disable the filter to obtain unfiltered access. Filtering services to Library: District will assign Oro Valley Public Library (' Library") public computers a specific range of Internet protocol addresses. Internet access from Library public computers will be through these addresses. The addresses will be configured to block the disabling option for unfiltered access. Library customers will see the "disable filters" option on the Internet access screens. However, the option will not be functional. Library staff will be given a password which will allow staff to disable the filters on public computers at any time. When the password is used, the filter will be disabled for a one hour increment. District will change the password at regular intervals as deemed necessary by District. Library responsibility: Library shall be solely responsible for: • Providing customers with Library's Internet Policy • Developing procedures for the provision of unfiltered access • Responding to customer inquiries regarding disabling Internet filters Disclaimer: District is not responsible for Library's policies or procedures regarding the access to the Internet on Library public computers and accepts no responsibility for the contents of Library policy or for Library staff determinations regarding when to allow or deny unfiltered Internet access. The District filtering policy will be instituted upon completion of District technical programming and network conversion projects. OV IGA Exhibit C—7-17-07 EXHIBIT D aye({E (i) 1:rC tr, t� t F�� V 44;,:-.-., t t',t. _ -44,1T- yam,.t4: O •-.:‘, �'-'� ,P 0 yM rixi^ x��y• 4.‘..,, "t-ii.-'•!-:,f,, 4-.-i'lli-4,; • - ,,.-rsr iii1z ..•.-"fitts*W-i.3--4'• 4=.4-_,-41r$,.•' g$5 l'rt,'–'_*4 T.1.4-'),:, ,v • "a tq CO Q> N f)V- I to t, 0) O O O 0000 O O L0030 O O 0 N '``y _;"; ,;1. CO V- CT �O CT to o L CD tr) O O O O (Ni N O O CT }, r\JN T-1 O r'�i r� N r_ N N O Cr) ' ''3 s O N V- O 0) LC? N N N t--4 Ni ��gz d' N N N O `ct O LI) 01 I;ItSj ' ' Y Z;f4:7:11,,A'; 'rte ?-„..., w. im-z r• � L.r) Cr N O o v- cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C� to o O O O ..:.:._1•• ._. N co N CT Cr) .-4 M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 tt) O O M..- ': T CT Q� Cr)M (� M O N NiN 'd' t1� In �' O r. O •, ;rF.;,,.” T. N '4,4,._'',-4;:t >►y 'mss co .< .-E: '_'• >.is L .fes <r; .-1,= • -eir, :, !,._ _ •,> ryC`1 1,---r,;.--Y' :---;,-„7,- :1'y---i y.=T._ A•.t,:...2 '+iY;, t.,_ J r ,Vs ate. +� .` .., sc. 'mob V r'es, ,t,. r. �t„ �1a1 .M .ex _ ,;r I�^4+�?�^L� 'rte,;. / et ;'s. *s...,`.. S :i?rf +'"• .'3'u: x ,-• P -I, f •,t 0. /�� W./,f' t'%a M . V ,, ;: ?�W �, 2a• at # J ,-,-..-',,c .-n i -,:t, '1,,cj f ? • C ..} - `,; 4s - W ilnd +g i - �.ir � 9 i�Y !�e'tr'� i� a.- tf"'!.. f �' ,,,-,..)A i�° f`.[ •k�� 7,-,,,,..,f . � '?l: ,i s�;''` ,'�`.•r , a'' , j(•. ,)-y _.k. ,-..s,..„ i' 'L �� -�5 L ;••.°'t,,i ,,,.) •. 1•_�-; ,'•,5'; • , .F, sC . y.. L %='� q, 1 -;-h a� 1 r �,t �d } r.i:'J>; ?^f'l ,t..s.c � -i � •�'. ,� -r ! ��ifrirc �- //�� ' •1 Si: 4_ '�?'�. _ ' .:S ':?r,f, _t?"1t ,, ^. . Sr .I -9•i'=1y� sly �.3 ••- t�'k �l,�i -x ,.,r<r �� ..e:,7 §� ,': y�r •.�, -�� ..,.- �'"t�•p.3 �vC .0 ,' :tom t.t• '-- i•• a z'— ;ems. - ..- `r ] tt: t-. :t- r,..�;: :;Sx s - - i� 1F,k, �.5 - ",i� ,�� zytc � t ,r.�,,- jy., - %ti. . '+ygi,,,,,, .i -+[.� 1 •„K_ �"-• +. t/-, ft r: t- a .t lr.� -}„_,-.V 1, /��\ t 5�,�, >;� c� . _.i' yam..f.-- �"yr1 'y' �r4 � ;any._^ _p-iyx- s r c A;^ F: :k�> �i i......„,...„_, -�- .� V �� 3-_ ' s,''..3 ,a .j. 'a- 3' 5r ,7 , -�"r<. .t�1},a'a .,t7 , Sts ., 4 P . ,. -� .� ,�J. „�: ;-i'�J ••�`,'{`t� - ` ��t !'� .G�.9 ?�� y-'�+r.e: _X•>w 'i'...�•x -_ � ''r'1=� ��< fi�v /� r •yr. _;y V .� -0,:!,' '- -r..c.•A3+. w -, :.5r a'. _ .5.,,i..y.'• �;'a, �-4-,'4+G? tea;. . �I-..! t7• 3f - -t: ,.t ,r'..f3_. f� l .. 3y J:. K,, ice' '� t,. wtrl - .�° -',:•SC 1.w '.wr•r�..ri•- 4 S"J .i`a.y.�l, L t-... 1. V - t '3,({ _ J� 744-- �e„ ";-`.• < •'.K `''rt- ` [ .rwz <S.- 'sc ?4,-, i._rl, 'v4 � : 1' .t •t_In NM IIINIMI. :4�'� $ �y y ^ . .- •4} ex- -f-.�, :f4• : '3f }f S , t %,_ 3 -, 4`'- , •a..l` :r) ..G t _ ••.t»� *. 'zF ';rte' '..�:o: ,,,i'. L1.1 0. WS t rn 1. },•.. 0 - � >- c_ c .v) 1,' V U f) to i c _ c i -� 42) to n- CU oZS ...1 k c p O Cl) U .C].. c Ccu 1Z) ro C) o o6 Z ,_ to sp = 0 C 01 _ CU c CO o •�- o� o� O m O (n w c co c rt O c c U 0- 2 , c) O z '.-:4 of cn v a c oC °� -pro E c CZS H •Q4=1 �- c --..'s i c co L w C� N 0) v, --j .cncy) O� rn C 0 CU Q al rt '` '� c w to X C1) V).., -0 C c m3 u ,,0 "t C -63 ..OU c uA v) •Q `o c Ct1 :, > E C a O ;� cD '7} 4a = = O c _c > c co NJ. .,., _ c0 O O - V c cr 'c L- w c CU -a • O 0 0 0 ;�:};; � Ln � Ln Q � O i O w m L? � o_ f-- Q a. F- � Z > U v7 0 '� fC i C N1 w O' a V • cu ro t o J 4_ o OI M M o O O O O O O ,t" N o 0 Lr U rn M N N T--+ N C M M Cr) '-4 QO (II C L 01 O O F-- d) 4 N Q) �D O Ti O O O O O — .." ( -0 _O co CoOC) O O O O CO �=' Q) c) LU co co N 00 X O N Lr) Ln N N Lc) N N CU O .--� t\ N. N O ch cuN T--1 u▪ �,, 0 •> ra .C. ,_ ,,,, ,_,,,_ ,.., ,,,,,,, , --:, .-;=, ----,---- -7:,.-' 1! ''- ',,i-ti -,;, *'E.I ''' --., _ 73 4-, >, • -, 2.f.,.; in _. , ,: ..7 c, ...i. - ,rd..fi ".N yr .t j� �• F�, -liefI r tV�/1' 1�� •-iW4f: , ''...,"1,', ."'.'`: .. . fNi r4 4 ' --*,---,PI 94- 'i• ' -•';' • - . "o*.k- 41,''' -7t3: v): Y .7 -4?"--?, A,1, l}�:` ! -..,;ii 'L .r -'',c- s ,f'wT "jd�r' 7 .:..i •W � '�1 _ i a 2-'i1 ir�i ).. �:f } - -icy f=.y�- ta,` a . Kist F t f ,_ �, . !;i Yi:1'R i Ni - , n z.• `.1'7, .1 tq'•if. C Cn ^v' .:(ip..d; >t r :� id• ?{ t• _.�`` t i•' :..f., : �,c ilk!�t '•� � O ttC'' x.C t�X t:.. O •.fir ('FFy4g-, ,- ♦ -�`.ty' -Ytx ''1,..-- 'G 5 �. ca. v I �;ZSR. ?.<�rY- `� 5- � -441..i. fit. Y�. � 2.ts SA 1r{ ✓TN,�'�� • .t ',`,,,I..,- s..-,,,A;' i -P •�h. ,e�"!r' '` '' sys.i �.R"+�•3rt ',i -r *'er4 Vii''' ^s � �yi ,r.; i "X�t -, . a -;51.-4; f 3-t- ' r-'!: .S .r fes-,.. ..1+.s p .'' a, �'� } ..r • l; ''`I 't,�pj ..44 '.v�3:-74,_ t ,,7t Y. J1. r �`.s [J!F1�i! �J /� llt 1.-..N; 4i.r J L '1, .P,-,e.''# � l r,`- R rR ;Z,-- J' «it, , sr ,.' N -• LL LL (^1)` L. SFT -'+op t .,4"E- :_3",f a .- , 1.-..„6, a Yr a .. c:,- -,,,,A ,+ -:` _., r W t•;,i♦1_c !,�ti V� t� =�4,9', .t,' - .y-�. 5 3,.;"7-?-- �u ti- �;: � , ,-,,,,,t- .'''''Z ^k� � ,,,„,,if: •-J Yz_ rO a C) c N t� .; L 0 v MCD • �, to . ' ▪ V ro r i CJ -ice �i.-- t,. W ' O U Q3 { 1( .� 'C3 r ry �- O 4-, a.) a ra v to 4) CU 'O C a) a no U) E C O a) C '' C C c of C� ra < > E o O 0 p �O = ' 0 _ , :°� v U CU O C a C U ^1 �✓ 0a) co.r CZ: " z ra o.- a .4.4, . �,; O. = Q) aJ 17 ._. ra C C z = U I— w iz. ry = EXHIBIT E Pima County Public Library Baker&Taylor Services Exhibit E Contract Attachments 6,7,I and 9,oopia of which are attached'hereto and incorporated herein by reference, provide detailed irifcirmation regarding discounts offered per category,category definitions,and cataloging and processing per unit pricing Diaco►mts an applied to the publisher's list price at the time of rh iprnent Additiional clarification has been provided below some items. 1.0 PURCBASED PRINT MAThRIAL5 1.1 Hardcover (lnchide Adult,Young Adult and juvenile fiction,non-fiction and picturehoola) 1.I.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category I and II) Trade 46.10% 1.1.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories IX.and X1)‘,** Non-Trade II.00%•,•• 1.2 Quality Paperback (Includes fiction and non-fiction appealing to all age) 1.2.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category III and IV) Trade 42.00% 1.2.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories TX and XI)*,*-* Non-Trade 11 00•/0 •• • 1.3 Malts Market Paperback (Includes fiction and non-fiction appealing to all ages) 1.3.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category V) Trade 42.00°/. 13.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category V) Non-Trade 42.00°/. 1.4 Paperback Prrbound*(lecludes fiction and non-fiction sype..;lir.g to all ages) 1.4.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price (Categories III,IV,and V) Trade 42.00/. 1.41 Percentage,Discount from Cover Price (Categories III,IV,and V) Non-Trade 11.00%1%** 1.4.3 BTBound Titles-Percentage Discount from B&T's Advertised List Price 25.00% 1.4.4 Demeo Turtl ebac k (Invoiced at Bd&T net Advertised Catalog Price) paj6 (Sec Item 6.0 below for"rebinding prices.) IS Reinforced Editions (Includes fiction and non-fiction appealing to all ages) 13.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories VI and VII) Trade 25.00% 13.2 Percentage Discount front Cover Price(Categories VI and VII) Non-Trade 25.00% 1.6 Foreign Language(Include fiction and non-fiction appealing to all ages) 1.6.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories 1 and TI) Trade 46.10% 1.6-2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories IX and X.1)*,** Non-Trade 11.00%•,'" Ther.are discounts for Domestic foreign language title.(the majority of foreign language material supplied through BAT).Hardcover discounts have been listed above. Foreign Language paperback will receive discounts offered for Category iI].IV,or V,Discounts wilt vary by title,based on the categories at described in Contract Attachments 6,7,8 and 9.The librry can review the discount for each title through Title Souris. Pkaae see Category X on Contract Attachments 7 and I for Imported Editions discount information. 1.7 Large Print (Includes fiction and nue-fiction appealing to all ages) 1.7.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories I and 11) Trade 46.10% 1.7.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Categories IX and XI)°,°• Non-Trade 1 1.00'/.•,•• Meese books will receive the same discount as popular trade editioto.Hardcover discount=have boon limed above. Large print paperback wilt receive discounts offered for Category III,IV,or V. Some large print editions may be discounted aa outlined in Contract Attachment 7,Category IX of?0. The library can review the discount for each title through'Title Source Discounts are hued on the categories as described in Contract Attachments 6,7,S and 9. 1.8 ComICs and Graphic Novels (Appealing to Young Adults and Juveniles) 1.8.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price (Categories Ill and no Trade 42%. 1.8.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Puce (Categories IX and XI)*,** Non-Trade 11.00%',•• • Titles which receive•nuaitnal publisher discount will be invoiced at publisher's list price. ••Titles where Baker&Taylor receives no discotmt from the publisher or prepe anent is required by the publisher or publishers whose titles have limited demand and/or non-commercial publishers will be invoiced ah tut price plus S4.95/unit service charge. - .9 Series(Continuations) (Includes titles for reference and circulating collections appealing to Adults,Young Adults&Juveniles) 1.9.1 Percentage Discount from Coves Price' Trade 46.10% ' 1.9.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price* • Non-Trade 11.00%•,•• Pricing for Continuations will be the same as outlined for Firm Order Masenals. Hardcover discounts have been listed above.Trade paperback will receive discounts offered for Category 171,1V,or V.Refer so Contract Attachments 6,7,t and 9 for discounts per category and category definitions. 1.10 Government Documents 1.10.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price (Category IX) Trade 11.00%•,•* 1.101 Percentage Discount from Cover Price (Category IX) Non-Trade 1,1.00%'•• Government documents wilt not have a tndt or non-trade distinction. 1.1 l Replica Book 1.11.1 Percentage Discount Front B&T Net Advertised Catalog Price 5.00% Page 1of3 Pinna County Public Library Baker&Taylor Services Exhibit E 2.0 °i,TRC'HASED NON-PRINT MATERIALS 2-1 Sound Cassettes-Spoken Word,Abridged 2.11 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category XII) Trade 46.10% 2_1.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Pr"rce(Cautgory IX,X1)*, Non-Trade- I 1.00%', Approximately 83%of Spoken Word Audio Materials purl:hued fall into Category XII. The remainder of Spoken Word Materials will be classified u Category 1.,VU.,VIII.,IX_or XL The library can rtvirw the . discount for each title on their selection lists or through Title Source.Discount art baud on the categoric as described in Contract Attachments 6,7,8 and 9. 2.2 Sound Cassettes-Spoken Word,Unabridged 2.2.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category XII) Trade 46.10% 2.2.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category IX,X1)°,•° Non-Trade 11.00%',•s A.pptmatnridy 83%of Spoken Word Audio Materials purctsued fall into Category X11. The remainder of Spoken Word Motorists will bt clarified as Category 1.,VII,VIII,DC,or XI. The library can review the discount for'tacli title on tbeic selection lists or through Title Sourer.Discounts era based or the.categories as described in Contract Attachments 6,7,8 and 9. • • 11 Titles which receive minimal publisher discount twit be invoiced at publisher's list price. 1 L••Titles where Bakes&Taylor receives no discount from the publisher or prepayment is required by the publisher or publishers whose titles have limited demand and/or tion-commercial publishers will be invoiced ay list price plus$4.9SAmit service charge. • 23 Compact Discs-Musk 23.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price Trade 26.30% 23..2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price Non-Trade 26.30% 2.4 Compact Discs-Spoken Word,Abridged 2.4.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category XII) Trade 46.10•/. 2.4.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category IX,XI)*,** Non-Trade . 11.00%'," Approximately 83%of Spoken Word Audio Materials purchased fill into Category X11.The remainder of . Spoken Word Materials will be claui6ed as Category I_VII.,Vill.,DC,or XL The library can review the discount for cash title on their selection bats or through Title Source.Discounts are based on the categories as described in Cootra.c.t Attachments 6,7,8 and 9. 25 Compact Discs-Spoken Word,Unabridged 2.5.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price(Category XIl) Trade 46.10% 25.2 Percentage Discount from Covet Price(Category IX,XI)',•' Non-Trade 11.00%'," Approximately 83%of Spoken Word Audio Materials purchased fall into Category XII.The remainder of Spoken Word Materials will be classified as Category 1_,Vi].,VIII,IX.,or Xl. The library can review the discount for each title on their selection lists or through Title Source.Discounts art based on the categories as described in Contract Attachments 6,7,1 and 9. 2.6 Digital Videodiscs (Feature films,educational,bow-to,etc.) 2.6.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Price Trade 29,00% 26.20 Percentage Discount from Cava Price Non-Trade 29.00% 2.7 Kits (Multi-pan and mixed media) 2.7.1 Percentage Discount from Cover Pries Trade See Note 2.7.2 Percentage Discount from Cover Price Non-Trade See Note Baker&Taylor supplies book and tape or CD kits.These kin will receive the discount associated with the book catcRO►Y. • I•Titles which receive minimal publisher disoount.will be invoiced al publisher's list price.L••• v,4 Titles ere Baker&Taylor receives no discount from the publisher or prepayment is required by the publish.or publishers whose titles have limited demand and/or non-commercial publishers will be invoiced al list price plus 54.95/unit service chart. , 3.0 CATALOGING SERVICES (Unit of service for pacing is'each') 3.1 Editing of existing records based on a bibliographic utility(customized MARC) • S' 3.2 Creation of original records S' 3.3 'Generic'MARC $0.25/unit-non CLS 3.4 Cl?Upgrades 50.20/unit-non CLS 3.5 Print-Fully Shelf Read Materials (Ste Contract Attachment 6) $3.60/un c-" 3.6 Music CD/DVD-Fully Shelf Read Materials (See Contract Attachment 6) $8.50/unit 3.7 Spoken Word Audio on CD or Cassette $5.60/unit The pricing outlined for CLS services in items 3.5 and 3.6 is a blended unit price based on the volume of • material to be ordered,processing componmtts requested,arid the complexities of die library's cataloguing requirements. Our unit price is all inclusive of the services requested by the library including,but not limited to cataloging,processing and',inject management This price does not include the Kapco or Vinsbind process. Should the library choose not to utlize the CLS services as outlined and choose instead to use an a la carte processing without customized cataloging,the per unit pricing in items 3.3,3.4,4.1.0.4.1.10 and 4.2 4.3.13 will apply. Page 2 of 3 Pima County Public Library Baker&Taylor Services Exhibit E • 4.0 PROCESSING SERVICES (Unit of service for pricing is'each) 4.1 B4pk3 for the-Circiiiatin_g_Collection 4.1.1 Mylar rCover �('on Dust Cover $0.60/unit 4.11 D�Cove Taped tr.B cc 10.65/unit i tuni 4.13 Barcode 50.10/unit 4.1.4 Barcode Protector(when applicable: S0.05/unit 4.13 Property Label 50.10/unit 4.1.6 Radio Frequency Identification Tags(RFID) 50.75/unit 4.1.7 Anti-theft Devin $0.4.5/unit 4.1.8 Call Number Label $0.)0/unit 4.1.9 Shelf Location Label 50.10/unit 4.1.10 Label Protector(when applicable) S0.05/unit 4.2 As For Circulating Book (Plus two(2)Reference Stickers) $0.20/unit 4.3 Meda 4.3.1 Replacement of Original Case S 1_50/unit 4.3.2 Creation of Title Page from Package 50.50/unit 433 Barcode S0.10/unit 43.4 Property Label SO.10ftuuiit 4.3_5 Radio Frequency ldcntificaboo Tags(RFD)) S0.75/unit 43.6 Anti-theft Device with Overlay(all locations) S0.45/unit 43.7 Call Number Label $0.l0/utvt 4.3.8 Shelf Location Label t0,l 0%trait 4.3.9 Label Protector(when applicable) 50.05/unit 4.3_10 Intentionally Blank Labels(recordings in sets) $0.10/unit 4.311 Label for Pieces in Set S0,l 0/unit 4.332 Closed Caption Label(appropriate videos only) S0.10/unit 43.13 'Espanol"Label(appropriate videos only) S0.1 0/unit 5.0 STANDING ORDER SERVICES 5.1 Pri nt f u l ly Shtif Rid tvUarrjgls (see contract,waahment 6) $3.60• 'Shelf Ready Service is available forCoutinuation Services Materials. Should the library choose not to uttine the CLS services as outlined in this proposal and choose instead to use an a la carte processing without customized cataloging,the per unit pricing in items 31,3.4,4.1.2-4.1.10 and 4.2-4.3.13 will apply. 6.0 PRE-BINDING SERVICES (Unit of service for pricing is'each') 6.1 KlearKot.e or Other Equivalent Clear Plastic,Permanently Bonded to the Cover $ 1.99 "(Kapco) 6.2 Vinabind,DuraLam or Equivalent S 4.75 •'(Vinabind) "The 51.99(ICapco)or$4.75(Vinebind)prcbinding fres are in addition to the per unit crest listed in tum 3.5 for paperback material:. 7.0 APPLIED DIRECT SERVICE FEE to Third-Party-Supplied Materials 53.00 8.0 RUSH DELIVERY CHARGE (Overnight(24 hour)Delivery)' S0.25/unit • 24-bour Don around is only available for unprocessed material orders that are received prior to 12pm PST. The Library will have to order product only rusts material on a separate account and it will be charged For material:ordered for rush delivery. 9.0 UNLIMITED ACCESS to 77th Source NoCharge . G Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT F Exhibit F Pima County Public Library Professional Services Services 2007-08 Costs Comments a. Courier Services Personnel Costs: $5,490.00 FY 08 personel costs of 3 drivers divided by 23 locations Fleet $5,670.00 Mileage to/from TOV-NAN,x 5 days x 52 wks x fleet rate 1.585 b. Copier Services $4,200.00 $350 per month C. Circulation Services Annual Fees $6,670.00 5.8%of the Library's annual fee$115,000 d. Technology Support 30 Computers $23,757.30 $791.91 per computer costs 4% Lib Tech Personnel $15,496.00 Annual costs 387,402 T1 network $4,128.00 $344 per month PC Reservation Lic $4,143.00 based on monthly lease pymt of$345.30 County IT Network support $20,000.00 Per County IT/Finance charges Total $89,554.30 Prepared by Robin Samitz 7/31/2007 Page 1 DATE: January 25, 1999 TO: Dick Johnson Donald Chatfield Council Member Community Development Director Town of Oro Valley Town of Oro Valley Oro Valley Library Advisory Committee Members FROM: Agnes M. Griffen Library Director Tucson-Pima Public Library SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION PAPER: OPERATION OF THE ORO VALLEY LIBRARY BACKGROUND The Town of Oro Valley has raised an inquiry concerning operational models and costs for the Oro Valley Library. In considering a response, I became increasingly aware of the complexity of this task. There are myriad policy and procedural questions that must be considered in determining the operational future and associated ongoing costs of the new library under the Oro Valley proposal. This brief paper is intended to give an overview of models and issues. It offers specific methods to address Oro Valley's concerns regarding staffing, and suggests elements of cost. OPERATIONAL MODELS Two models of library operation are presented for discussion and consideration: • Integrated City County Library System The Tucson-Pima Public Library is an example of an integrated system, and '�, r( - 1/1 .7_ all public libraries in Pima County function within this system established \P-1 (t1/4.fi fifty years ago. The Pima County Library District contracts with the City of Tucson for the provision of library services to those areas outside of the 0 City of Tucson. Library services are delivered by the Tucson-Pima Public Library. • Affiliated Library System This model is being considered by Oro Valley, in which the Town of Oro Valley contract with the Pima County Library District for all library services Attachment 2 EXCEPT personnel and materials selection. The Pima County Library District then contracts with the City of Tucson for the provision of library services to Oro Valley with the exception of personnel and selection of the library collection. For this discussion, I've selected four major elements found in any library system model. Characteristics and a comparison of the advantages and drawbacks of each operational model are briefly presented. The system model suggested by Oro Valley would be new in the history of public library service in Pima County. This paper is intended to lay the groundwork for a beginning dialogue. System Administration Integrated System • The PCLD contracts annually with the City of Tucson for the provision of library service in Pima County outside the City of Tucson. The City of Tucson's Library Department, known as the Tucson-Pima Public Library, is responsible for the operation of the library system. • A Library Board, including five appointments each from the City and County, act in an advisory capacity to TPPL Administration. Library administrators work with Friends groups in support of community library services (a system wide Friends of the Tucson-Pima Public Library, and local Friends groups including Friends of the Pima-Green Valley Library, Friends of the Arivaca Library, and Friends of the Kirk- Bear Canyon Library).. A TPPL Library Foundation Board is being established. • Policies and procedures, developed with considerable input from the Board and library staff, are drawn centrally. These policies and procedures assure fair and consistent service to customers across the system. • The library system's operational budget is prepared and administered centrally. • A centralized courier service delivers and picks up materials and mail around the library system daily. • Community partnerships are developed, broadening the library's capacity to better serve its customers; grants and alternative funding are sought for the system. • Critical and difficult_professional decisions are dealt with,..including censorship and intellectual freedom issues. Questions from customers and elected officials are responded to in a uniform manner. • Outreach and literacy services are handled centrally, including Bookmobile services to rural areas in the County and Homebound services to those unable to come to the library. Homework Help is another centrally managed program with many locations in libraries and throughout the community. • A central Public Information Office handles publicity, design, and printing for library system programs and events. • Administration presents a strong system voice in local, state, and national library issues. 9 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Long established,successful library service model in Central administration could be perceived Pima County. as remote from outlying areas. Uniformity of high-quality library service to all customers regardless of location. Non-duplication of administrative effort and overhead. Town of Oro Valley could ask for representation on Library Board. Library service to the Oro Valley community would be customized to that community, as it is for all branches. Affiliated System • The Town of Oro Valley contracts with the PCLD for all library service except personnel and library materials selection. The PCLD contracts with the City of `, Tucson for provision of library service at Oro Valley by TPPL with the exception of personnel and library materials selection. 4 • The Town of Oro Valley sets in place the administrative structure for the library, such as a Managing Librarian (Library Director) and Library Board. • The Town of Oro Valley, in conjunction with the PCLD and TPPL, would address and define many issues under this model, including to what level now established TPPL services Oro Valley would expect for its library and community (such as courier service, outreach and literacy services, central grant applications, technology support, and representation in the broader library community). ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES The Town of Oro Valley has direct control of library staff in An affiliated service model would have to be the Oro Valley Library. developed to overcome lack of unified command. Duplication of effort,replication of service is not an effective or efficient use of tax dollars. Potential for disagreement on any issues would .. . require additional administrative attention. Staffing Integrated System • Tucson-Pima Public Library staff are recruited, hired, and trained as City employees by the Library Department of the City of Tucson. • Staff participate in system wide service and program development efforts. Committees that meet regularly, for example, include Administrative Council, Public Services Managers, Adult Services Committee, Childrens Services _ ._Committee,..theStaff Development_Committee,__.and others. ._..__. _._ ._ _..__ .. _ • Staffing levels within the TPPL system provide for library program development, representation on system wide committees and task forces, training, school and community visits. Centrally located staff provide support for many system wide functions, such as Administration, Collection Services, Circulation Services, and Courier Services. • Training is crucial in staff development and retention. The library profession is literally retooling its workplace and workforce in response to new ways of organizing and presenting knowledge. Training is provided to library staff through the City, the Library Department, and through professional conferences. 3 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Provides for unity of command in direction and supervision "City"employees may be perceived by some Oro of employees. Valley residents as"outsiders",rather than Employees from all branches are available to fill in during TPPL staff. staffing crises. TPPL administration has management right to Personnel oversight and problem solving are responsibilities assign all employees;some well-liked of TPPL; Oro Valley Town Manager can focus on other employees may be transferred to other critical issues. branches. Affiliated System • Oro Valley's Library Manager would take on some functions of a Library Director in dealing with TPPL, the County, and the broader library community. • Job descriptions and criteria for staff performance evaluation must be established. • Library staff are recruited, hired, and trained by the Town of Oro Valley. • Oro Valley will need to determine the degree and depth of the library services they will provide and staff appropriately. • Oro Valley would determine the extent to which its staff would participate in systemwide efforts, such as service level committees and the development and execution of the Summer Reading Program for children and teens. • An ongoing program of training for library staff will need to be developed. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Oro Valley would have direct control of its library staff. Duplication of effort in the recruiting and hiring of staff. Replication of training programs. Stand alone staff could limit professional development. Level of Oro Valley staff involvement in system wide programs may be too limited to maintain consistency of high quality services. Transfer and promotional opportunities available to TPPL employees not available to Oro Valley staff. Oro Valley would be on its own in solving staffing shortages and other personnel crises. Oro Valley could perceive lack of local control in dealing with performance problems. Library Collections •Integr_ated.System..- _ • The richness of the system is available to all its customers; a single library card provides entree into the entire system. • All library materials and resources in the system are available to all customers and those materials and resources can be delivered to any library location. • Branch library collections are selected to reflect individual community needs and interests; discretionary materials budgets for branches reinforces this concept. Special collections and resources at the Main Library support the more general collections at library branches. • Materials are selected, received, cataloged and processed centrally. Staff from around the system participate in selection decisions. Input from citizens throughout the County is considered in the selection of library materials. An 4 economy of scale is evidenced in purchases and in the preparation of library materials for public use. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Provides structure for full resource sharing across system None and maximizes access for all users to entire collection. Eliminates duplication of effort and in selection and maintenance of Oro Valley collection. Affiliated System • Oro Valley must decide on whether or not its staff will participate in the selection of library materials at a system level. • Oro Valley must insure library staff is selected with adequate background to make collection decisions at that location. • If Oro Valley selects its own collection, a decision would need to be made on. resource sharing. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Oro Valley staff may wish to make selection decisions TPPL Collection Services staff have additional independent of system wide policies and needs. burden of accountability and coordination of Oro Valley staff may be able to provide a collection more Oro Valley staff selection and expenditures. suited to the needs of the community. Oro Valley town residents'concerns could override benefits of system wide selection approach. Library Technology Integrated System • A centrally located and managed automation system provides the library with a fully integrated system: online catalog, circulation and inventory control, and online acquisitions. • Circulation services, including the mailing of overdue and hold notices are handled centrally. Inquiries about customer accounts also focus in one office. • Central technology management staff oversee maintenance and development of the library's automation systems and networks and of the automation related equipment in library branches. • ATPPL-staff_group, the Electronic Resources Trainers, acquaint their coworkers with new information technology through branch visits and systemwide classes. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES All integrated systems and technologies are managed None and maintained centrally in close communication with branch staff. Affiliated System • Oro Valley must determine to what extent it will support and staff library services represented in current and future technologies. • , Oro Valley must decide how to train its staff in this critical and ever evolving area. a • • Oro Valley would need to assure it had the necessary expertise within its staff to manage and maintain library automated systems and electronic resources represented in its collections. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES All integrated systems and technologies are managed Training of staff would be a considerable and maintained centrally in close communication investment,both initial and ongoing. with branch staff. Oro Valley would need to have additional technical expertise on staff. Recruiting of qualified staff in this area is highly competitive. Potential for disagreement on technology issues would require additional administrative attention. Decisions related to these four elements could be developed further if the decision is to continue to explore or adopt the Oro Valley library system model. Other areas to. address would include library facilities and enhanced library programs and services specific to age level interests, e.g., storytimes for children, homework help for teens, and highly specialized information services for adults. Oro Valley Staffing Concerns Concern regarding the staffing of the Oro Valley Library has prompted the affiliated library system model suggested by the Town of Oro Valley. Tucson-Pima Public Library administration suggests the following measures to address these concerns under an integrated system model: • The Town of Oro Valley management would be involved in the selection of the Oro Valley Library Branch Manager and senior staff positions. • Transfers of staff to and from the Oro Valley Library would be in consultation with Town of Oro Valley management. • Input would be sought from the Town of Oro Valley management on performance evaluation. • The Town of Oro Valley management would be consulted on special staff assignments. Cost Elements Listed below are cost elements that would be associated with affiliated library operations at Oro Valley, beyond the initial cost of building, furniture, equipment, and opening day collections. At this point there are too many unknowns to more specifically estimate cost: FULL COSTS TO BE CARRIED BY ORO VALLEY • Annual preparation of intergovernmental agreements, contracted services. • Library administrative staff, including Oro Valley Library Director and Branch Manager. 6 • Public service library staff, including professionals, paraprofessionals, customer service clerks, and pages. • • Utilities and maintenance; janitorial and custodial work; maintenance of grounds. Longer term upgrades and renovation. TO BE NEGOTIATED UNDER EITHER MODEL - PERCENT OF TOTAL COST TO BE SHARED BY ORO VALLEY: • Collections. Library materials and resources of all formats, including print (books, periodicals), non-print (CDs, videos, audio tapes), and electronic databases and CD Rom products will annually be selected, acquired, cataloged and processed. • Technology Management. Staff must be devoted to this area for general administration, development, operation and maintenance. • Professional services, consultants. Membership and subscriptions for professional organizations. Staff training and development. • General supplies and small equipment. Office furniture, computer equipment and software. • Postage and printing. • Administrative and system overhead costs of the Tucson-Pima Public Library. • Administrative overhead costs of the PCLD / Pima County. If direction is given to provisionally adopt the Oro Valley library service model, specific library costs can be developed as detailed operational decisions are made. 7 Comparison of Innovative v. Checkpoint Library Self-Check Systems December 2008 INNOVATIVE CHECKPOINT PROs: CONs: Cheaper for Town Very costly for Town Customer stays informed of account Customer is not aware of account status by system (customer status by system information, fines due, holds, overdue items) User-friendly More confusing/frustrating for patrons Less staff intervention to assist More staff intervention to assist customer customer More intuitive & direct / reads barcodes Less intuitive/reads hidden RFID tag; also reads barcodes but is confusing to patron RFID tags, covers or cards not RFID tags, covers and cards are necessary; printers and scanners necessary, costly and labor-intensive; needed RFID tagging system needed Labor saving Labor intensive Compatible with Pima County Public Not compatible with Pima County Library system Public Library system eCommerce capability (pay fines eCommerce unavailable through system) Legible/consistent printouts reduce Staff handwriting inconsistent; patrons' error and staff labor easily erase writing increase error and staff labor Customer can view fines, holds, No fine/holds/checked-out information checked out items using system available to customer Any equipment Proprietary equipment CONs: PROs: Higher statistics for missing items; Lower statistics for missing items; less increase in staff labor to staff time to acquire/process new items acquire/process new items Security gates inoperable and therefore Security gates operable & therefore more items can be taken from the assists in keeping theft costs lower Library without tracking, resulting in higher thefts Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM TO: JERENE WATSON - ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER FROM: KEVIN VERVILLE - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2008 SUBJECT: LIBRARY RFID SYSTEM COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Per your request, I have conducted an initial cost benefit analysis of the Library's RFID system. Using as much up-to-date information as I was able to find, I am able to calculate many of the costs associated with the RFID system, and replacing it with the traditional barcode scanners. There are however, a few pieces of information from internal sources and Pima County Public Library (PCPL) I have yet to receive. This information will need to be collected and included in the analysis in order to get a true picture of the costs and benefits. Below is the summary of my findings with all the data gathered thus far in the attached spreadsheet. Please note all dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest $1000. The Town purchased the Checkpoint RFID System in February of 2006 for $177,000; a server/software upgrade was installed in September 2008 costing $20,000. Using a straight-line depreciation method, the estimated present day value of the system is $133,000. Ongoing O&M for the RFID system is $40,000 annually, which includes the hardware/software maintenance contract and RFID tags. To replace the RFID system with a barcode scanner system (PCPL method) would require replacing the three self-check systems and perhaps upgrading the barcode scanners throughout the library. The current cost estimates for this hardware and software is $22,000, with a yearly O&M of approximately twenty percent, or $4,000. These are best guess estimates however, as actual costs are yet to be received from PCPL. The recently purchased server ($20,000) and some of the existing components of the RFID system can be repurposed and deployed in other areas of the Library to defray some of the cost associated with abandoning the RFID system. Most of the other components of the RFID system can be auctioned to recoup some of this investment. According to Library personnel, staff currently processes an estimated 1000 new items per month. This processing requires applying identification labels, RFID tags, and a green card (to hide the tag). After conducting a test with 75 sample items, library staff concluded that it takes 1.5 minutes per item to add the RFID components. This equates to 25 hours per month of the library staff time to process new items. What is not known at this time is the labor savings in processing an item without the RFID components, and other circulation issues associated with the RFID tags that take up staff time and frustrate customers. Attachment 3 In addition to the labor savings, one of the major components of the analysis should be whether the security aspects of the RFID system are actually paying for itself. The present dollar value of the 96,000 items is estimated to be $2,016,000 or $21 per item on average. Library staff estimates that the item loss per year is 0.5%, which equates to $10,100 in lost items annually. What is not known is how much this loss rate will increase without the RFID security system in place. Pima County will be providing actual statistical data regarding average loss rates at other libraries; however industry studies have estimated this loss rate can be as much as 3.0%, which equates to $60,000 in loss items for us. While I doubt that we would see a 3.0% loss rate, it's important to point out that the difference between 0.5% and 3.0% is equivalent to the annual O&M for the RFID system. One area that needs to be taken into consideration is customer satisfaction. I would suggest a study (if not already done) to determine customer satisfaction and ease of use with RFID vs. traditional barcode scanners. If there is a more positive experience for our patrons, this needs to be taken into consideration as well. , • OVPL RFID SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS RFID System Value Original Purchase Price (02/2006) $ 177,000 Server Hardware/Software Upgrade (08/2008) $ 20,000 Present Day Value (Straight Line Depreciation) $ 133,000 RFID Operations& Maintenance Yearly Hardware/Software Maintenance Contract $ 16,900 RFID Tags (Budgeted Amount) $ 23,000 Purchase Costs for Barcode Scanner Self Check System Self Check Hardware/Software (3) $ 17,000 Barcode Scanner Upgrades (10) $ 5,000 Annual Harware/Software Maintenance $ 4,400 RFID Processing Costs Items Labeled & Tagged Per Hour 40 New Items Per Month 1,000 Average Labor Rate $ 10.00 Monthly Labor Cost $ 250.00 Current Collection Loss Average Item Cost $ 21.00 Current Loss Rate Per Year 0.50% Total Number of Items $ 96,000 Dollar Value of Items $ 2,016,000 Dollar Value of Lost Items Per Year $ 10,100 Missing Information Estimated number of lost items without RFID Labor savings from not having to affix RFID tags Actual costs for Barcode Self Check Systems Customer satisfaction/ease of use TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, AZ PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COST SHARING ALLOCATION LIBRARY LAND PURCHASE - 1996 Funding Source Amount Status Oro Valley Certificates of Participation (COPS) $700,000 Paid Off ORIGINAL LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION - 2001 Funding Source Amount Pima County Bond Funds ('97 PCO Bond election) $2,000,000 Unknown - County repayment schedule Oro Valley MPC (Municipal Property Corporation) Excise Tax Revenue Bonds 3,255,000 $1,290,164 debt service remaining Friends of the Library Donations - FF&E 65,267 TOTAL FUNDING $5,320,267 LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT - 2005 Funding Source Amount Pima County Bond Funds ('04 PCO Bond election) $1,100,000 Unknown - County repayment schedule Town of Oro Valley General Funds 61,768 Friends of the Library Donations - FF&E/Planning 115,979 TOTAL FUNDING $1,277,747 TOTAL COSTS (Land, Building & Expansion l Funding Source Amount Pima County Bond Funds $3,100,000 Oro Valley Bond Funds and General Funds 4,016,768 Friends of the Library Donations 181,246 TOTAL FUNDING $7,298,014 TOTAL OUTSTANDING TOWN DEBT $1,290,164 Attachment 4 T Town of Oro Valley County Free Library Tax 1986 - 2008 Prop. Owner Annual Town of Oro Valley Tax Tax Payments to Year Net Assessed Value Rate PCO Library District 1986 $ 26,548,333 0.0855 $ 22,699 1987 $ 32,068,497 0.1081 $ 34,666 1988 $ 48,793,156 0.1585 $ 77,337 1989 $ 53,843,156 0.1704 $ 91,749 1990 $ 57,361,643 0.2025 $ 116,157 1991 $ 61 ,090,215 0.2025 $ 123,708 1992 $ 65,098,105 0.2025 $ 131,824 1993 $ 71,925,888 0.1924 $ 138,385 1994 $ 84,327,297 0.2024 $ 170,678 1995 $ 119,234,229 0.2124 $ 253,254 1996 $ 130,338,334 0.2224 $ 289,872 1997 $ 165,265,200 0.2224 $ 367,550 1998 $ 178,766,882 0.2224 $ 397,578 1999 $ 196,647,641 0.2024 $ 398,015 2000 $ 220,687,234 0.2024 $ 446,671 2001 $ 257,234,738 0.2124 $ 546,367 2002 $ 294,649,424 0.2124 $ 625,835 2003 $ 326,699,884 0.2124 $ 693,911 2004 $ 358,081,078 0.2124 $ 760,564 2005 $ 418,489,154 0.2575 $ 1,077,610 2006 $ 463,211,743 0.3675 $ 1,702,303 2007 $ 582,838,439 0.3975 $ 2,316,783 2008 $ 686,707,506 0.3393 $ 2,329,999 TOTAL TAXES PAID $ 13,113,513 Attachment 4