The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (772) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY 9, 2008 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 regarding the potential adoption of Development Impact Fees in the areas of Library and General Government 2. Discussion regarding regional cooperation between the Town of Oro Valley, City of Tucson, Pima County and other regional governmental units ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 07/02/08 10:00 a.m. cp The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at (520)229-4700. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 TO.• HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN THE AREAS OF LIBRARY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUMMARY: On August 1, 2007 the Town Council voted to contract with TischlerBise Inc. for Phase I of a development service studyto determine whether the Town could support the creation of impact fee feasibility/cost of additional development impact fees. Based on land use and population data, interviews with staff, and of TischlerBise completed established demand factors, Paul Tischler a comprehensive cost of service study and provided a draft report of his findings. The results of Phase I of the project were presented to Council on October 24, 2007. In his report, Mr. Tischler recommended that the Town pursue fee development in the areas of police, parks and recreation, transportation, • facilitiesui ment (now referred to as general government). TischlerBise estimated library, and municipal and equipment the cost of these new developmentg fees could range anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000, which would be used to fund capital costs associated with maintaining current service levels as growth occurs. On November 7, 2007 the Councilto proceed chose with Phase II and asked TischlerBise to create a sound methodology for formulating development velo impact fees in the five areas recommended to Council. Through the p of the fee development data collection and analysis portion process, TischlerBise has been able to provide accurate data on the cost of maintainingthe current levels of service for the areas selected and calculate legally q Town that will re quire new growth to pay its proportionate share of capital costs. defensible impact fees for the On May 7, 2008, the Council adopted the notice of intent to establish new fees in the areas of police, parks and recreation, andgeneral transportation, library, government; however the Mayor expressed an interest in on each of the fees prior to the public hearing scheduled for July 16, 2008. This spending additional time evening will be the second of two studysessions to discuss the proposed development impact fees, having thepolice, parks and recreation, and transportation fees on June 25, 2008. already discussed ed due to the cancellation of the Regular Session meeting on August 20, The fee adoption schedule has changed 2008. Below is the revised schedule: Study Sessionon proposed osed development impact fees April 23, 2008 p Notice of Intent to adopt new fees May 7, 2008 (60 day waiting period) Public Hearing on potential new fees July 16, 2008 (30 day waiting period) Adoption of potential new fees September 3, 2008 (90 day waiting period) Effective date of newl adopted fees December 2, 2008 p TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of the library and general government sections of the final report from TischlerBise Inc. °.,44//d David Andrews, Town Manager 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE 5240 1 BETHESDA, MD 20816 IschierBise T: 800.424.4318 1 F: 301.320.4860 .. .-_ .. - Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91105-1404 T: 81 8.790.6170 I F: 81 8.790.6235 WWW.TISCHLERBISE.COM Executive Summary �� The Town of Oro Valle Arizona has contracted with TischlerBise to calculate development fees for the following infrastructure categories: • Parks & Recreation; • Library; • Police; • General Government; and • Transportation. DEVELOPMENT FEE OVERVIEW Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. A development fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facilityneeds. By law, development fees can only be used for capital improvements, P not g op eratin or maintenance costs. Development fees are subject to rigorous legal standards, which require the fulfillment of three key elements: demand, benefit and ProPtY. rst, to justifyortionali Fia fee for public facilities, it needs to be demonstrated that new development will create a demand for capital improvements. Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. The development fee methodologies established in this report show that: • The capital facilities for which the fees are prepared are a consequence of new development, • Development fees will substantially benefit new development;and that • Development fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital facility service demands of new development. Anotherg eneral requirement common to development fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. Two types of credits should be considered: future revenue credits and site- specific credits. Future revenue credits are necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from a one-time development fee payment plus the payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. Future revenue credits are dependent upon the development fee methodology used in the cost analysis. As new development will provide front-end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal payments on existing -Fiscal Impact Analysis•Impact Fees- Revenue Strategies-EconcyriN rnpact Analysis• Fiscal Software• Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments if interest costs are not included in the development fees. The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been included in the development fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements should be addressed in the Town's development fee ordinance. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the development fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REQUIREMENTS Arizona's current development fee legislation requires that municipalities adopt an infrastructure improvements plan prior to assessing new or modified development fees. Development fees for municipalities in Arizona are authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 9-463.05. The complete legislation is included in Appendix 2 of this report. Subsection E states that, "for each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, the infrastructure improvements plan shall: 1. Estimate future necessary public services that will be required as a result of new development and the basis for the estimate. 2. Forecast the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, other capital costs and associated appurtenances, equipment, vehicles, furnishings and other personalty that will be associated with meeting those future needs for necessary public services and estimate the time required to finance and provide the necessary public services." Each development fee component in this report includes a corresponding Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP). Based on development projections, the IIP illustrates projected demand for public facilities, the amount of capital facility required to serve projected growth and the associated capital costs to new residential and nonresidential development. DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IIP CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES TischlerBise evaluated several possible methodologies to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. This report documents the appropriate methodology and demand indicators by type of development for each IIP. The report documents the relationship between the IIP and the development fees. Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. The general formula for calculating the development fees and corresponding IIP is shown in Figure 1. The formula used to calculate each development fee is diagrammed in a flow chart at the beginning of each section. Also, each fee category includes a summary table indicating the specific factors used to derive the development fee. These factors are also referred to as level-of-service (LOS) standards. There are three basic methods used to calculate the various components of Oro Valley's IIP and development fees. A plan-based method is best suited for public facilities that have adopted plans or commonly accepted service delivery standards to guide capital improvements. Under the plan-based methodology, there are two approaches considered. lischlerBise 2 Fiscal,Economic$r Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan • __ _ -.....-,.. . . ;.• '..i •v..,;...:.: 't:....nx`,.: ...... _ r....t.......:.i-:.7:.."",.x, ..... ....•'........ "t ...... ,. .. ......£..'��..'.xss.2:a4` _ �..-:.. . s,x +x•.fr:ry„.,--.-T-..•.,,.:t°.-:.•-tis>:......;F:.T e x.-. The average approach is used for projects that are the result of both new and existing development. The planned costs are allocated to both new and existing development which ensures that new growth only pays its share of the costs. The marginal approach is used for projects that are the result of only new growth. The planned costs are allocated to the net increase in new growth. The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each type ofP ublic facility. LOS standards are determined using the Town's current inventory of capital facilities and assets as well as current costs to construct or purchase comparable facilities or assets. However, Oro Valley will not use the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather the Town's intent is to use development fee revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development. A third method, known as the cost recovery method, is best suited for facilities that have been oversized in anticipation of growth and have excess capacity available. New development would buy-in to the excess capacity of the facility. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development will pay for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of recently constructed facilities. Theg eneric formula used to calculate the IIP and development fee is diagrammed in Figure 1. The diagram starts in the upper left corner and progresses left-to-right and down through the lower right corner. lischlerBise 3 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 1. Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and Development Fee Formula 1.1NONA'.*:*,40110i441M-4.:7:Fz_tsTFRASTRUCTUREIMPROVE MENT - y INFRASTRUCTURE FORECAST FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT Level-of- New Infrastructure Service to be Provided x Development = Demanded by to New Development Projections New Development (e.g.acres per person, (e.g.new persons (e.g.total number of square feet of facilities and/or jobs from acres,total number per person and job) new development) square feet demanded by new development) COST FORECAST FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure Planned Cost Total Cost to Provide Projected Demand Cost per Demanded by x per Unit of = Infrastructure to - Units Served by = Demand New Development Infrastructure New Development New Infrastructure Unit (e.g.total number of (e.g.cost per acre, (total dollar amount) (e.g.new persons (e.g.cost per person acres,total number cost per square foot and/or jobs from and/or per job to square feet demanded of facility) new development) provide the new by new development) infrastructure) NOTE: The infrastructure forecast and cost forecast calculations are repeated for each component of the infrastructure category. +r r �\as t ►.` ,. �k�.'r�� -DEVEI:OPMENT Total Cost per Demand Units Development Fee Demand Unit for x per Development = per Development Complete IIP Unit Unit (Includes all (e.g.person per (dollar amount by components for the household,jobs per type of housing unit, infrastructure category) square foot,trips per dollar amount per housing unit/square square foot by type foot) of nonresidential development) SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATIONS BY FACILITY CATEGORY As noted above, TischlerBise, Inc. calculated the IIP and development fees for five types of public facilities in Oro Valley: parks and recreation, library, police, general government and transportation. All types of development— residential and non-residential — create a demand for capital facilities. This analysis determines those capital needs — and the related costs — brought about by new development. The resulting IIP and maximum supportable development fee amount represents each type of land uses' fair share of the capital cost for different improvements. For parks and recreation and library, residential development is the only type of land use that directly drives the need for additional facilities. The need for police, general government and transportation improvements, however, is brought about by both residential and non-residential development. Therefore, calculations for these development fees are based on both residential and non-residential demand, with the lischlerBise Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan resulting development ment fee amount reflecting each type of development's fair share of related costs. The following summarizes the methodologies used in each fee category. Also presented is the maximum supportable development fee amount. Parks and Recreation Theparks and recreation development fee is allocated to residential development. The fee utilizes the incremental-expansion method for all fee components. The development fee is P calculated based on household size and the capital cost per person for parkland acquisition and park development, amenities, park recreational facilities, park vehicles/equipment and theParks and recreation component of the development fee study. The maximum supportable development fee amounts for parks and recreation are: $2,699 for a single family housing unit and $1,607 for all other housing types. Library The librarydevelopment fee is allocated to residential development. The fee utilizes the incremental-expansion method for all fee components. The development fee is calculated based on household size and the capital cost per person for the library facility, land for the library facility, collection materials and the library component of the development fee study. The maximum supportable development fee amounts for library are: $694 for a single family housing unit and $413 for all other housing types. Police Theolice development fee calculates new growth's contribution for the planned police P P . . . facilityat the Municipal Operations Center, the land acquisition for the police facility, police p police e vehicles/ i ment and the component of the development fee study. As demand for police facilities is driven by residents and businesses, the development fee is allocated to both new residential and nonresidential development. The maximum supportable residential development fee amounts for police are: $513 for single family housing units and $305 for all other housing types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. General Government The general government development fee uses the incremental-expansion method to calculate new growth's contribution for future general government facilities, general govt. qP u e vehicles/ i ment, transit vehicles and the general government facilities component of the development fee study. As demand for general government facilities is driven by residents P y and businesses, the development fee is allocated to both new residential and nonresidential development. The maximum supportable residential development fee amounts for general government facilities are: $389 for single family housing units and $232 for all other housing types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. Transportation Thep lan-based method is used to calculate the road construction portion of the Town's transportation development fee based on projects defined in the Pima County Transportation Improvement Plan and theRegional Transportation Authority Regional p �' Transportation Plan. The development fee provides the per development unit cost for the 5 ........ ., ....... .. : ,.,--,—, .._,. , .. ,__...,..... _. . Ise e ise Fiscal.Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan v 3 v .: Town's planned expansion of its transportation system. The plan-based method is also used to calculate the expansion of Public Works facilities at the Municipal Operations Center Other fee components are calculated using cost recovery method (public works portion of land acquired at Municipal Operations Center) and the incremental expansion method (road vehicles and equipment). Demand for the transportation system is driven by residents and businesses, so the development fee is allocated to both new residential and nonresidential development. The maximum supportable development fee amounts for transportation are: $1,908 for single family housing units and $1,314 for all other housing types. Non-residential - development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Figure 2 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development fee amounts for residential and non-residential development in Oro Valley. The development fees shown are for parks and recreation, library, police, general government, and transportation. For a single family housing unit, the maximum supportable development fee amount is $6,203 and for all other housing units, $3,871. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. The maximum supportable development fee for a commercial/shoppin center from 100,001-200,000 isg sq. ft. $3,654 per 1,000 sq. ft., while the maximum supportable development fee for warehousing is $580 per 1,000 sq. ft. The maximum supportable development fee for a lodging room is $595. Figure 2: Schedule of Maximum Supportable Development Fees Reside tia =.T'er Housin Umt: ` .- f x`i ,.,,, -- , --, :.- . - Parks and General Recreation Library Police Govt. Transportation Total Single Family $2,699 $694 $513 $389 $1,908 $6,203 All Other Housing $1,607 $413 $305 $232 $1,314 $3,871 NVii 1Zesidential -P' r: rc. ..►•.YW,y'h��YY'M'i`.�`f E _.,-p'lr♦ `7T t'6�..V •x•y.�+..4,dam. 1 if Y'k t. �000�� care Feet of`,Flonr:1�r�ea..l.�..�. �.�,��Aa.4� ,...q}Y T r..�� ,��:�.,� � tp,� � .ter. .._•,rasa.+�t--a.e'G"•:.•iW't' 'i7'.t:Ci.-.:ihxF.i ...`... 4Y.1 s_._.-.r X4,14' _t ..4 �1',.,• --n�- .t.4._;w.� a••1 x ,,:�f -r._,. :._4 ,_..__-. _.... ..,n � ...��'iri+ t's+3•,:^+�kS•�+:2 �x- �e�Y. r,� a �� J� Parks and General Recreation Library Police Govt. Transportation Total Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less N/A N/A $199 $209 $5,462 $5,870 Com/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF N/A N/A $172 $179 $4,745 $5,097 Com/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF N/A N/A $144 $157 $3,963 $4,264 Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF N/A N/A $123 $139 $3,392 $3,654 Corn/ Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF N/A N/A $105 $125 $2,883 $3,113 Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less N/A N/A $59 $260 $1,789 $2,109 Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF N/A N/A $50 $245 $1,526 $1,822 Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF N/A N/A $43 $231 $1,301 $1,575 Office/ Inst 100,001 -200,000 SF N/A N/A $37 $219 $1,109 $1,364 Business Park N/A N/A $41 $198 $1,244 $1,483 Light Industrial N/A N/A $22 $145 $680 $847 Warehousing N/A N/A $16 $80 $484 $580 Manufacturing N/A N/A $12 $112 $373 $497 +N `h>7 r "' ->- .r! '+��PSL 7,.i�..`��J_"`,�.�'i%`' , ��'b'{��r �•�Lv`�r,�;�lf.�,a«c_ L Aittgek::-,--,70,-, -,-leo � ��si��en� --:�'�r� �� F r�. '�. � , �.-�.t� ,{�,�� - , �`,�� - - ...c:.k.,:'F�A+kYb:ih'r•:.:.__dlc::e.• Y`F.':.t•_F r`.u?A�i=•,Ls� :rte c .v7t'�.'+..e.. .!FLY �ti .4 �F`:. �{yr... ;r. �.?�� "x d t �7:.v . ��4:�.~-. -. .. Lodging I N/A N/A $18 $28 $549' $595V lischlerBise 6 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ..-.-_...: .:- .:... ..<-.,.,,'+.: -.a.. u.•'..e-..:.s v.;f-=:.<.ap#:n;rr..:.Y4s.;•.stOP?'''frt^.-°�-,✓rte%:';'2_.. •...:x•+l::s:?' -i.:,?r...'..^.i-a;.,Y.+_....^.'°:^.-.,,_.`af xf-4:=r'` s<.-.Y'y,iv:!..., ._fi..... ...:._."rr.,.S.. .n;.ate.7 H. s4wY±..a•a ..--. -w ,"ti�'.,..,4....,:.5.+.. .,.(:...i...:._.13.x.......44.._Xt _:5.. .. .•n4`<: i.].K l.-/ :?.A}yi:a' All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments should be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and update of development fees. The Town will use the Engineering News Record Construction and/or Materials Cost Index for the annual update of the transportation development fee. The Marshall Swift Valuation Service will be used to annually update the remaining development fee categories (parks and recreation, library, police and general government). The multipliers will be applied against the calculated development fee. If cost estimates and/or growth projection change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using one-and two-digit places (in' most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). I TTischlerBise ...-• - _. ----------- - - isc e Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Library METHODOLOGY The components of this development fee include library facilities, land for library facilities, library collection materials and the library component of the development fee study. The incremental expansion methodology is used for all development fee components. All capital costs have been allocated to residential development. Standards have been shown on a per capita basis. Persons per household is used to differentiate the development fees by type of housing unit (see Appendix 1 for demographic information). All components in this development fee have a Town wide service area. Figure 14: Library Development Fee Methodology Chart Library Development Fee Persons per Housing Unit Multiplied by Total Capital By Housing Type Cost Per Person Library Facility Cost Per Person Land for Library Facility Cost Per Person Collection Materials Cost Per Person Development Fee Study Cost Per Person LIBRARY FACILITY—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the facility component of the library development fee. Figure 15 provides the square footage and replacement cost for the TischlerBise 18 Fiscal.Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan y.�.:•:a.±yu?;e..,,F:o:+cSa;.i;::f..s::.,.-:-x�sR.E,s,+t:., ,. .r.w...�:;v,to-t.•.:''d�.f-"'ao-. y.. .tn.^...... ,... ... r.,a... ..... _.- _ _...: .....'.:._- .... Town library. Current replacement cost is from the Town's cost of construction and expansion of the library, escalated for inflation. To calculate the LOS for library facilities, 25,000 sq. ft. is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551p ersons (25,000 sq. ft. /42,551 persons = .59 sq. ft. per person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The library facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of$8,377,982. This results in a libraryili cost of$196.89 per person ($8,377,982142,551 = $196.89). facility Figure 15: Library Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards Facility Sq. Ft. Replace. Cost/Sq. Ft.* Replacement Cost Town Library 25,000 $335 $8,377,982 TOTAL 25,000 $8,377,982 Proportionate 2007 Sq.Ft. per Cost per Share Demand Units Person Person Residential 100% 42,551 population 0.59 $196.89 *Source:Oro Valley Public Library for 2002 construction and 2004 expansion, updated for inflation per Marshall- Swift (Class D,Wood Frame,Phoeniz,AZ) Figure 16 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for library facilities. The IIP is calculated using development dlment projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338P ersons. Based on the existing LOS standard of.59 sq. ft. per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately 1,961 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $657,259 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $196.89 per person ($657,259/3,338 persons = $196.89). 19 lischlerBise Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan -Jii:.:'i' .t..-. e'�..:i- -.:..._..nl yrt.'..:`... 4.. ,...:. ♦.n.T ,'.w.1 - Ct Figure 16: Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 LIBRARY FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Sq.Ft.per Person 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 5-Year Total Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Development 371 398 398 398 398 1,961 Cost per Sq.Ft. $335 $335 $335 $335 $335 5-Year Total Library Facility Cost For New Res.Development $124,260 $133,250 $133,250 $133,250 $133,250 $657,259 Library Facility Cost Per Person $196.89 LAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITY—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the land component of the library development fee. Figure 17 provides the existing acreage for Town library site. The land acquisition cost is from the Town's 2005 acquisition of land for the Municipal Operations Center. To calculate the LOS for library land, 7 acres is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (7 acres/42,551 persons = .0002 acres per person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The land for library facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total land acquisition cost of$2,500,379. This results in a land for library facility cost of$58.76 per person ($2,500,379 /42,551 = $58.76). Figure 17: Land for Library Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards Site Area Acres Acquisition Cost/Acre* Acquisition Cost Town Library 7 $357,197 $2,500,379 TOTAL 7 $2,500,379 Proportionate 2007 Acres per Cost per Share Demand Units Person Person Residential 100% 42,551 population 0.0002 $58.76 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ from 2005 acquisition of land for the Municipal Operations Center. Figure 18 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for library facility land. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0002 acres per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately .55 acres The ... : ..:... i` a i 20 Fiscal.Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ....s i '. '.- ...nh,".c,.-...._--.. t_...#."3✓:'r('.za/-..:'1;-'t:F.:+`, r_ - _. .':i:^-....... -.s�.._'•Bf_ -.a.:}iK`,.'..N..."i�' ._ ....^+t.,..-.7. -s..._..... '... .. .. ..+ t-.rr ..Y<, .:... projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $196,157 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of$58.76 per person ($196,157/3,338 persons = $58.76). Figure 18: Land for Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 _ Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 LAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Acres per Person 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 5-Year Total Acres Demanded by New Development 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.55 Cost per Acre $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 5-Year Total Land for Library Facility Cost For New Res.Development $37,085 $39,768 $39,768 $39,768 $39,768 $196,157 Land for Library Facility Cost Per Person $58.76 LIBRARY COLLECTION MATERIALS—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the collection materials component of the library development fee. Figure 19 provides the inventory of the library's books, audio,videos and magazines. Replacement cost is provided by the Town library. To calculate the LOS for library collection materials, 98,689 units is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (98,689 units/42,551 persons = 2.32 units per person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The library collection cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total collection value of$2,079,136. This results in a library collection cost of$48.86 per person ($2,079,136/42,551 = $48.86). I I T . s :F �, .. � . 21 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 19: Library Collection Materials Level of Service and Cost Standards Collection Materials #of Units Replace. Cost/Unit* Replacement Cost Adult NonFiction(hdbk&pbk) 23,806 $27.12 $645,652 Children's NonFic(hdbk&pbk) 12,662 $18.90 $239,309 Video(Adult) 1,336 $22.77 $30,42? Adult Uncat(pbk&vertical file 12 $8.12 $97 Youth Uncataloged pbk 1 $5.95 $6 7-day Express 1 $20.00 $20 AdulfCatFictionPaperback _ 4,576 $6.95 - $31,804 _ ChildCatFictionPaperback 4,075 $5.15 $20,995 Adult Cataloged Magazine 2,345 $4.06 $9,524 Youth Cataloged Magazine 330 $2.02 $668 Children's Video 1,036 $16.47 $17,058 Boardbook 1,153 $6.40 $7,376 Adult Large Type 2,233 $26.48 $59,124 Teen Non-Fiction(hdbk&pbk) 2,915 $21.07 $61,421 TeenFicCatPaperback 1,679 $5.70 $9,574 Teen Video 36 $18.89 $680 Picture/Reader Books 11,846 $14.20 $168,159 Adult Fiction(hdbk) 12,075 $25.77 $311,162 Teen Fiction(hdbk) 2,045 $13.08 $26,748 Children Fiction(hdbk) 3,432 $14.87 $51,035 Adult Music(Cass,CD) 2,560 $18.50 $47,358 Teen Music(Cass,CD) 151 $18.79 $2,837 Children's Music(Cass,CD) 567 $14.92 $8,460 Adult DVD 1,863 $23.43 $43,645 Teen DVD 200 $22.96 $4,593 Children DVD 847 $19.12 $16,192 Adult Talking Book(Cass,CD) 2,623 $66.75 $175,093 Teen Talking Book(Cass,CD) 297 $42.33 $12,572 Child's Talking Book(Cass,CD) 548 $31.12 $17,053 Children's Kit 707 $11.98 $8,467 Child Playaway 21 $29.51 $620 MEGA Best Seller 614 $25.10 $15,412 Contribution to Online Subscriptions 97 $371.13 $36,000 TOTAL/AVERAGE 98,689 $21.07 $2,079,136 Proportionate 2007 Units per Cost per Share Demand Units Person Person Residential 100% 42,551 population 2.32 $48.86 *Source:Oro Valley Public Library Figure 20 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for library collection materials. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next fivey ears, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the LOS standard of 2.32 collection material items per capita, this amount of residential development will require approximately 7,735 q Pp y new collection materials. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $163,110 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $48.86 per person ($163,110/3,338 persons = $48.86). lischlerBise22 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan • ..- i,u.. ... -•^. ..:-:_..� .:.T..._. :'.;-.'a'-..:G'tlt::.:..u,_':-S'�.G.-.'J` ..?'l.o+-.^'.,'.df.. .__.s_ idis�., ..u?t.0 .r :a'':n't.:wi f.._ ,r">:'..I ... r.C'..-fy�1, -. . .. _.w:.... 3...? p: Figure 20: Library Collection Materials Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 COLLECTION MATERIALS -- - - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Materials per Person 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 5-Year Total Materials Demanded by New Development 1,464 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 7,742 Library Materials Cost per Unit $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 5-Year Total Collection Materials Cost For New Res.Development $30,837 $33,068 $33,068 $33,068 $33,068 $163,110 Library Collection Materials Cost Per Person $48.86 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY The Town plans on updating its development fees study every three years to ensure the methodologies, assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing this portion of the study in the library development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($6,500) is allocated to the projected in• crease in population over the next three years. This results in a development fee study cost per demand unit of$3.28 per person ($6,500/1,985 people). LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES Figure 21 shows level of service standards and cost factors for the Oro Valley library development fees. Development fees for library are based on household size (i.e., persons per housing unit) and are charged to residential development. Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for library facilities, land for library facilities, library collection materials and the library component of the development fee study. INCL. . TschIei��..1 y 23 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 21: Library Development Fee Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential` r Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family 2.26 All Other Housing 1.34 Level Of Service Library Facility(Incremental-Expansion) Library Facility Cost per Person $196.89 Land for Library Facility (Incremental-Expansion) Land for Library Facility Cost per Person $58.76 Collection Materials (Incremental-Expansion) Collection Materials Cost per Person $48.86 Development Fee Study !Development Fee Study Cost Per Person $3.28 Total Capital Cost per Person $307.79 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR LIBRARY Figure 22 contains a schedule of maximum supportable librarydevelopment fees for Oro Valley. The amounts p are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each type of unit by the total capital cost per person. For example, for a single familyunit, the persons per housing unit figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total capital cost per person of $307.79 for a library development fee amount of$694 per sing le familyunit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing category. Figure 22: Library Development Fee Schedule MAXW[ i SUPPORTIBLE D ;_._. .... :.n s..._. . RWNf t.F.C I V $ *_R an i Development Fee per Housing Unit Single Family $694 All Other Housing $413 TischlerBise 24 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan • -,..=:,.y- ,..r,•_ -,....,v:a>>a- •-,.-snri:-tsJ-c':,,-.._.;.;x-+.c-.....-. ..,.,-_,_:;ri.,..rr.:an. ..7,.¢F.s:'.. ..iswh _.....r...f+`,.c .,......._...-A' x... ... ,. .. -,_..-... ..c...,- i -- .i.Y;i ti yi.......W.,,`..r-o.er.iw✓..?:cam .5-+23..-aG -.iir . General Government METHODOLOGY The incremental expansion method is used to calculate all components of the general government development fee, including general government facilities, general government vehicles/equipment, transit vehicles and the general government portion of the development - fee study. As shown in Figure 33, this development fee is allocated on a per capita basis for residential � fee development. For nonresidential development, the development methodology allocates the capital cost on a per employee basis. Figure 33: General Government Development Fee Methodology Chart Residential Development Nonresidential Development Persons Per Housing Unit Employees Per 1,000 By Housing Type Square Feet multiplied by j multiplied by Total Capital Cost Per Person Total Capital Cost Per Job General Govt.Facilities General Govt. Facilities Cost Per Person Cost Per Job General Govt.Vehicles General Govt.Vehicles Cost Per Person Cost Per Job U Transit Vehicles Transit Vehicles Cost Per Person Cost Per Job Development Fee Study Development Fee Study Cost Per Person Cost Per Job TischlerBise 35 Fiscal,Economic Si Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan -S- c• .. -2!; .v.--:j i .r _... s.`..-i✓ .........eS?Y: r. ..r.rc.:.hR .rr PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL The general government development fee uses a functional population concept to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development. Figure 34 distinguishes time at home (2/3 of a day, 16 hours) versus time at work (1/3 of a day, 8 hours) and accounts for commuting patterns in the Town of Oro Valley. According to 2000 Census data, 42% of residents in Oro Valley worked in 2000. This percentage was applied to the 2007 population.e .timate of 42,55.1 for,the Town,resulting in 17,672 resident workers in Oro Valley in 2007. The remaining 24,879 resident non-workers are considered to be in the Town 24 hours a day, generating 597,089 residentialp erson hours. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that of the total employed residents, 17%o of Town resident workers both lived and worked in the Town. Applying this share to the current labor force estimate for Oro Valley of 17,672, 3,040 residents of the Town are estimated to work in Oro Valley. The balance, 14,632 resident workers, commute out of Oro Valley for work. The time that these resident workers spend in the Town for residential functions (16/hours a day) is calculated at 282,757 residential person hours (48,643 + 234,114 = 282,757 residential person hours). Added to the person hours for non-working residents (597,089 person hours), this brings the total residential person hours to 879,746. The 2007 employment estimate for Oro Valley is 6,091 jobs. As discussed above, 3,040 of these jobs are estimated to be Town residents working in Oro Valley. The balance, 3,051 jobs, are considered non-resident workers. The time spent at work (8 hours/day) is allocated to nonresidential development, resulting in 48,728 nonresidential person hours (24,321 + 24,407 = 48,728 nonresidential person hours). Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 95 percent, while nonresidential development accounts for 5 percent of the demand for general government facilities. ,.. ...... lischierBise 36 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan .. _ .. ,.....__ . .. ...... r.. i. - � rrt.,'rr.<,!z-.:-:.w1:.,,;.x S;!+.':'tus'�.,.:_..._��«...:d_...,..- =7.::. r_..._T F .....,._ ... ..__.?. .. �,..,..: x_. ....i .:r-+ ...--..•,r.. ..Figure 34: Proportionate Share Factors —Functional Population Demand Person Residential Demand Units in 2007 Hours/Day Hours Year-Round Population(2007)' 42,551 Residents Not Working 24,879 24 597,089 Workers Living in Oro Valley2 17,672 Residents Working in Oro Valley3 3,040 16 48,643 Residents Working outside of Oro Valley 14,632 16 234,114 Residential Subtotal 879,846 95% Nonresidential Jobs Located in Oro Valley(2007)4 6,091 Residents Working in Oro Valley3 3,040 8 24,321 Non-Resident Workers 3,051 8 24,407 Nonresidential Subtotal 48,728 5% TOTAL 928,574 1 Source:Population estimate for 2007 from AZ Department of Economic Security. 2'3 Source: Town residents working in Oro Valley based on data in Table P27 from STF3,Census 2000 detailing the proportion of residents working in the Town. Data presented in figure based on applying 2000 proportion of Town residents working in the Town to 2007 employment data. 4 ESRI Business Information Solutions,2007. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the facility component of the general government development fee. Figure 35 provides square footage and the replacement cost for Town Hall. Cost figures are from plans for the Municipal Operations Center. To calculate the residential level of service, the total square footage of general government facilitiesq sq. ft.) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (28,401 (see Figure 34) and then divided by the 2007 population of 42,551 persons, resulting in .64 person. sq. ft. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying the square footage by the nonresidentialp pro ortionate share factor of 5% (see Figure 34) and dividing by the number of jobs in the Town in 2007 (6,091 jobs), providing for .22 sq. ft. per job. See the Appendix for detail on employment estimates. The general government facilities cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $7,276,738. This results in a general government facilities cost of $162.77 per person (($7,276,738 x 95%)/42,551 = $162.77) and $57.56 per job (($7,276,738 x 5%)/6,091 = $57.56). TischlerBise 37 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan -w Figure 35: General Government Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards Department Sq.Ft.* Replace.Cost/Sq.Ft.** Replacement Cost Magistrate Court 48.41 �". tati "� r - .' $11 240 333 r Aa�i LDevelopment Services 7,811 s eyliA$ ,^ v $2,001,289 +• m 4 47"=Finance 1/229 } , d µ f $314,887 Human Resources 746PiirkriliW,.**;:4,, $191,136 ;Yn . Info.Tech. 1 394` . ,4l11.4: st* $357/163 ; c qli 1.Legal Department 2.757 4 L $552,654 Town Clerk 1,17641 4- x -..4 $301308 Town Manager 1,315 L .y '`r ,�,� y-, W` $336,922 Shared Space 7,732�� ; -; `.; e.t'.'`-t $1,981,048 TOTAL/AVERAGE 28,401 $256 $7,276,738 Proportionate 2007 Sq.Ft.per Cost per Share _ Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 95% 42,551 population 0.64 $162.77 Nonresidential 5%_ 6,091 jobs 0.22 $57.56 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ **Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ from estimated construction cost for planned Municipal Operations Center. Figure 36 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for general government facilities. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons and 3,591 jobs. Based on the existing LOS standards of .64 sq. ft. per person and .22 sq. ft. per job, this amount of residential development will require approximately 2,121 sq. ft. and non-residential development will require 807 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $750,071 over the next five years. Of this, $543,362 is attributable to new residential development. This equates to $162.77P er person ($543,362/3,338 persons = $162.77). The remainder, $206,709, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This equates to $57.56 per job ($206,709/3,591 jobs = $57.56). TischlerBise38 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants .._._................ Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ......,.:.. .e;.-.:. -<. ..�:/.�-+:=" .t....,,}...w, _.. .... .5..:�`sjC>.". i:csS::J"C 3a:n'"+..Y. r. .w ...,.-.Y t. .-....♦..a.. s_... N_z .r... .._- .-�-z-... Figure 36: General Government Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 Employment Projections 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 5-Year Total Net Change in Population Y' 631 ''677 677 677 677 3,338 Net Change in Employment 707 891 665 665 665 3,591 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Sq.Ft.per Person 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Incremental LOS-Sq.Ft.per Job 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 5-Year Total Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Res.Development 401 430 430 430 430 2,121 Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Nonres.Development 159 200 149 149 149 807 Cost per Sq.Ft. $256 $256 $256 $256 $256 5-Year Total Gen.Govt.Facilities Cost For New Res.Development $102,727 $110,159 $110,159 $110,159 $110,159 $543,362 Gen.Govt.Facilities Cost For New Nonres.Development $40,701 $51,264 $38,248 $38,248 $38,248 $206,709 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $143,428 $161,423 $148,407 $148,407 $148,407 $750,071 Gen.Govt.Facilities Cost Per Person $162.77 Gen.Govt.Facilities Cost Per Job $57.56 GENERAL GOVT.VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the general govt. vehicles/equipment component of the general government development fee. Figure 37 provides an inventory of current general government vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost for vehicles/equipment is provided by the Town of Oro Valley. To calculate the residential level of service, 13 vehicles are multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (see Figure 34) and then divided by the 2007 population i of 42,551, resulting in .0003 vehicles/equipment per person. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying vehicles/equipment by the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5% (see Figure 34) and dividing by the number of jobs in the Town in 2007 (6,091 jobs), providing for .0001 vehicles/equipment per job. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 employment estimate. The general government vehicle/equipment cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $236,723. This results in a vehicle/equipment cost of $5.30 per person (($236,723 x 95%)/42,551 = $5.30) and $1.87 per job (($236,723 x 5%)/6,091 = $1.87). I TchIei T39 r .._1.. �. ......' ....,.-..,. .. .v, ,... a.. .... -s.. . , ...u, .v. Fiscal,Economic L Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 37: General Government Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost Full Size Sedan 2 $23,285 $46,570 Compact Sedan 1 $14,123 $14,123 Mid-Size SUV 2 $28,123 $56,246 Compact Pickup Truck 8 $14,973 $119,784 TOTAL-/AVERAGE - - 13 - $18,209 - $236,723• - Proportionate 2007 Vehicles per Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 95% 42,551 population 0.0003 $5.30 Nonresidential 5%_ 6,091 jobs 0.0001 $1.87 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ Figure 38 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for general government vehicles/equipment. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons and 3,591 jobs. Based on the existing LOS standards of .0003 units per person and .0001 units per job, this amount of residential development will require approximately .97 units of vehicles/equipment and non- residential development will require .37 vehicles/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $24,401 over the next five years. Of this, $17,626 is attributable to new residential development. This equates to $5.30 per person ($17,626/3,338 persons = $5.30). The remainder, $6,725, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This equates to $1.87 per job ($6,725/3,591 jobs = $1.87). TischlerBise 40 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants r Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan 1 .... ,.... ., �.z...: .t. ......,s'3-'•.9';«.:;¢r.r„Ee, fi-.irk:+- :�'•.r.,.+.!e..•.r.-`.. -...!a:'-.-..sf...."..:w �:I.v,a•:1'?... .. _-d-.:.,....+...1 ..s..s....r: t ,. <..-..,•.. _ .......a..,._.._-. Figure 38: General Government Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 Employment Projections 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 -s Net Change in Employment 707 891 __ , 665 665 665 3,591 GENERAL GOVERNMENT VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Person 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Job 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.97 Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Development 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.37 Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $18,209 $18,209 $18,209 $18,209 $18,209 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $3,342 $3,584 $3,584 $3,584 $3,584 $17,676 Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Nonres.Development $1,324 $1,668 $1,244 $1,244 $1,244 $6,725 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $4,666 $5,251 $4,828 $4,828 $4,828 $24,401 General Govt.Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Person $5.30 General Govt.Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Job $1.87 "TR..ANSIT VEHICLES -INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the transit vehicles/equipment component of the general government development fee. Figure 39 provides an inventory of current transit vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost (which is based on the Town's share of the total cost- 10%) is provided by the Town of Oro Valley. To calculate the residential level of service, 9 transit vehicles are multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 100% (as demand for transit vehicles is a function of residential development) and then divided by the 2007 population of 42,551, resulting in .0002 transit vehicles per person. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. I The transit vehicle cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $53,100. This results in a transit vehicle cost of $1.25 per person (($53,100 x 100%)/42,551 = $1.25. I I TischlerBise 41 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants , Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 39: Transit Vehicles Level of Service and Cost Standards Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement Town Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost Share(10%) Transit Coaches/Vans 9 $59,000 $531,000 $53,100 TOTAL 9 $531,000 $53,100 Proportionate 2007 Vehicles per Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 100% 42,551 population 0.0002 $1.25 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ Figure 40 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for transit vehicles. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons in Oro Valley. Based on the existing LOS standards of .0002 units per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately .71 transit vehicles. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $4,166 over the next five years. This equates to $1.25 per person ($4,166/3,338 people = $1.25). Figure 40: Transit Vehicles Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '121-13 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 TRANSIT VEHICLES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Transit Vehicles per Person 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 5-Year Total Vehicles Demanded by New Res.Development 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.71 Cost per Vehicle(Town's Share) $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 5-Year Total Transit Vehicle Cost For New Res.Development $788 $845 $845 $845 $845 $4,166 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $788 $845 $845 $845 $845 $4,166 Transit Vehicles Cost Per Person $1.25 GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY The Town plans to update its development fees every three years to ensure the methodologies, assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing this portion of the study in the development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($13,800) is allocated to the projected increase in population and jobs over the next three years. This results in a development fee study cost per demand unit of$3.25 per person and per job ($13,800/4,247 people and jobs = $3.25). -...... lischlerBise 42 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan .-..t'L'•..;. -••---r..'..r✓,.,.r.4.....?tli4..iv ..,,i.r..r..r..,-^:...,. ..s.- r•. GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES Figure 41 shows level of service standards and cost factors for general government development fees for Oro Valley. Development fees which are based on household size (i.e., persons per housing unit) and employment per 1,000 square feet of floor area for non- residential development. Level of service standards are based on current costs per demand unit for general government facilities, general government vehicles/equipment, transit vehicles and the general government component of the development fee study. Figure 41: General Government Development Fee Input Variables .. -. _.. �� PUT VARIABLES ; ! x0:Mi...s � :.wyr'`°°re..t(,.f.v.,:.._.r.r{.:...'�!,'W'.t...rya,w,..s;.+.•.ic.`'..r x......4 . ..R._e..sidw..`es«-yn„t...�a.]..4,yr7.'- 1.r,..•4_:,r_- Nonr_e_s identra1 .t,.. Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family 2.26 All Other Housing 1.34 Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area 820 Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 3.33 820 Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 2.86 820 Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 2.50 820 Corn/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 2.22 820 Corn/Shop Ctr over 200,001-400,000 SF 2.00 710 Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less 4.15 710 Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 3.91 710 Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 3.69 710 Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF 3.49 770 Business Park 3.16 110 Light Industrial 2.31 150 Warehousing 1.28 140 Manufacturing 1.79 Employees Per Room 320 Lodging(per room) 0.44 Cost Factors Per Person Per Employee Incremental Expansion Component for Facilities $162.77 $57.56 Incremental Expansion Component for Gen.Govt.Vehicles $5.30 $1.87 Incremental Expansion Component for Transit Vehicles $1.25 $0.00 Development Fee Study Cost $3.25 $3.25 Total Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $172.57 $62.68 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT Figure 42 contains a schedule of the maximum supportable general government development fees for Oro Valley. Residential development fee amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each type of housing by the total capital cost per person. For example, for a single family unit, the persons per housing unit figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total capital cost per person of$172.57 for a development fee amount of $389 per single family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing category. For non-residential development, employment per 1,000 sq. ft. is multiplied by the total capital cost per job. For example, for a commercial/shopping center from 50,001 to 100,000 sq. ft., ISChleralSe 43 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan 2.50 jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. is multiplied $62.68 per job for a total development fee of$157 per 1,000 sq. ft. This calculation is repeated for the remaining nonresidential categories. Figure 42: General Government Development Fee Schedule <..:w.:.a .n n: c s r::.a....vui.p.L:.. ..ny,o...c-<,:,<-:+ +.a;c...,:.'....:. >,•i vtx a._.tr:lCL2ys r.,n,t..., Y. 4._a L .a. �jF ��'--''r�tx,�c.•'� r� �'J�'),�'�� .i�� .iJN7,_:� 1 i _-'j' it y. {/'�/T��`''J+'�7 - , : T.-sa F.' ' '.J? :• :..'kt: -,,j`.';''s: _. ....moi t�.:.•v' ,...... .sf. �; _ ��r��V V 1 7;i�r 'hs :k. x��7: 'l:?:t -t'Y'.."t;'•.i '"f'z'•_l •-• -:..2v.f,S.':112:.:a.iY..��fL.Nf.:4.ar-..... 4.-.. .'•V:..r....l>f.Y..:4=':-M.K'.lnSi... Q.f._ .+.::.L...-...nf.`t.a.;fliT,.".G:..l..r�.-I--1'.I.t:'.:. ^.S-_ ..t.a.......J.s..=t �C.R..T�K.��.�'+•.+y!9..a.�M '.:.i._'t+. .. �.1s ..'.3.-.S T.'. Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family $389 All Other Housing $232 Nonresidential - Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $209 Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $179 Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $157 Corn/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $139 Corn/ Shop Ctr over 200,001-400,000 SF $125 Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less $260 Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $245 Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $231 Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF $219 Business Park $198 Light Industrial $145 Warehousing $80 Manufacturing $112 Per Room Lodging $28 TischlerBise 44 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: David L. Andrews, Town Manager Stacey Lemos, Finance Director RE: Fiscal Impact of Proposed Residential Impact Fees In anticipation of the Town Council's consideration of implementing new impact fees in the areas ofp arks and recreation, police, library and general administration and revised fees for transportation, staff felt it would be valuable to estimate the monetary impact these fees might have on the Town in future years, focusing primarily on the fees applied to residential development. To perform this analysis, the attached map was prepared showing an inventory of the remaining undeveloped, residentially-zoned parcels of land currently available within the Town boundaries. These remaining residential parcels are shown on the map according to the legend. Based on this inventory assessment, there are approximately 4,500 residentially-zoned lots remaining to be developed within the Town's boundaries. Assuming the average issuance of 300 single-family residential building permits per year, the Town could expect to reach full build out in about 15 years. Using this estimate of 4,500 remaining lots and the average of 2.4 persons per household for Oro Valley per the 2000 Census, the Town could see its population grow by another 11,000 residents over this 15 year timeframe. With the Town's current population estimated at 44,000, the population at full build out could reach approximately 55,000 residents. These population estimates confirm the fact that the Town is now approximately 80% built out in terms of residential construction. The table below illustrates the estimated revenues that could be generated from each impact fee by category to provide funding for future infrastructure and capital needs: Proposed Impact Estimated Annual Estimated Total Revenue Impact Fee Type Fee Per Housing Revenue @ 300 SFR over 15-Year Build Out Unit _ Pmts/Yr. Period—4,500 SFR Pmts. Parks and Recreation $2,699 $ 809,700 $ 12,145,500 Library $ 694 _ $ 208,200 $ 3,123,000 Police $ 513 $ 153,900 $ 2,308,500 General Administration $ 389 $ 116,700 $ 1,750,500 Transportation** $ 1,908 $ 572,400 $ 8,586,000 Subtotal New Proposed Fees $6,203 $ 1,860,900 $27,913,500 Alternative Water Fees $4,982 $ 1,494,600 $22,419,000 Potable Water Fees $2,567 $ 770,100 $ 11,551,500 Subtotal Water Impact Fees $7,549 $ 2,264,700 $33,970,500 _Total All Impact Fees $13,752 $4,125,600 $61,884,000 *Estimates do not include the effects on annual inflationary indexing. **The current impact fee for transportation is$3,467 per single family housing unit. New proposed fee is reduced to $1,908 per housing unit due to the applicability to commercial development. 1 Therefore, if the proposed impact fees are adopted, and residential development occurs at the assumed rate of 300 permits per year, almost $1.9 million in impact fee revenues could be generated annually to supplement the Town's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needs. With an added $2.2 million generated from potable and alternative water impact fees, the estimated total annual revenue from these sources becomes slightly over $4.1 million. The totals become even more significant over the 15-year build out period, with the proposed fees generating almost $28 million. This total, together with the potable and alternative water impact fees of nearly $34 million, results in approximately $62 million in total residential impact fee revenue from all categories. Please feel free to contact either myself or Stacey Lemos with any questions you may have regarding this information. aewzd atplw.,), David L. Andrews, Town Manager 0 /4 g11 Stacey Lem , Lt/4/1/01 Finance Director Attachment I I I a 2 • 9 y/• { i '~'•S .e r-K •1 •• i ''t+ '..a,, - Y '' "�' ;fir,.• ♦ Y-,,,o.,-,54- Y' ,41.1r?,' d `f f '� `'4. is 1 r: 7`, '°ti y'r t" 'x.•t£.. < "" ..11' "'+`ya • s:l • •i= . - • M. �.� •�'�r R�^ �� •�'` ,r.. ��•4' {a".'a F yf t`R,'It-, �3` t r:�4�3s-- �' . �i� �a ••. •- ; ... .^may•' ..n! r. �.„ ,'. ' � ,.,.�• `..:�N -'i tom, � 40 o r,+„t/•�. ,�9'+.-S,i,. 'f'.. b i, Y?�IY � M( ��.t. r. t.+t •)�• .,�. ,.s7{�: ,rOa' „„.ry '''�5$.(,.-s•r• y.:�. �:. • � r. `f''� Y /" 4 ,.i.11.. ::: ''', r. 4,4t w t{ 'E tQ� �.."'^ A ^, �,��.;�,y�+'I f..Y�` ".5'�._`+•1 - •Lh s.".y'��--^t�'r}�!A'"t"ir l�'�rri �, i'i'$�. t�•�1 / t a�t.�- , i-� g, �' ,•+ rt .ii►,'4 : y w+.•r'l�'`/• t'�yK, ,y+.� , s f.. �C' � '�'��• '�� t r,,� � •�' S/t y�� r} jam$p J ' 1 +qt x` �` liCirid,,'%4,44•4 a1i ,4` $''t•j 4' aJ '�,' �.4s{ �, *w...,:-,-,,-',.. •df A+� �.' `: '75{S'°A ,, � -d. )�t• . 'f41 •' _ � Y :ti� fit'� # •s• ti <„• .,11'.'=-•a. .j' •►9 •IA t' "'l"�K: ,y w. ra s. •1'� • ,� 1e:'� ''k. r. v , 1•JL_+• ..,:::.,7,;,-,,,.,i,..71::.,,.•.;,,,:,t.m:y` 'J9, .i •♦ yl '8..,,.,,. ., , t , r I�: t� ✓a •. 'r ' S.� � i.�•� • M• f+� ~{''"� `r :, i L •. [ t � w �,^'t�f• i�lFM. ,�\ r .t�'. .lt`.� �♦ s,_-L .�:• N w3j"!{,+ +� .•,�a.`z:tr` �+��G . f '� ia� i • • ^'.{�� t'w �° '�. a ..tig+° '�`•" f j 4 t,:t� �?�;••�^! �tr' fG +Ili �Y•' t.. , fpr' 6.t�+R a:.t- •t':" 7 t ..j !; .'�t a.'`..01.:•-•. 7�a •ti' ty• - � '''Aft kt \ 'arM. -r t; f'a • { y��{,} 1`..%. a7�. ....A•.'•„ t e., � :af-;4,1414'414za-Viltr"44.1*, � ! t tc ,•£ b�. �.y�1 �•.i "�; i.� �t;iC r '''' .'V+ frAo. 4Irsda.: N"'' •in4SA4.1.1.t•NO ) G-414.- nil.-..if. a t,,.:�• •� 'v .,,� - Y '� � � r�� `��►f�'�:.,�;��`` .. �+�� "- �.f.I'� y � r, �R.. _ __'^� "" .�. <j'•�" rr?'�'-•f/-�i'f` ..��.'- • r q��.t,,. . fOV.4�+,it - e'++. x'.-- 2. f S ��.r� Kj.i...:,,,, ,,'',!/,,,,"mo �. +a��1f ' :II i q .. e,i Yj1�kS•M `r '�- '.s•� ri t- 4e ".:�'.;s • ,,Lf ate' k. 1::,:,,,,,...,...4,'y+ r r r ,� - ..Yy ♦ `»� `�r,w.,, .. � 1• v-• .l�ii �:� /•+ .T/ .,; A r•. � r; , - rt _• '` * •1, 11�i-'� r1Wer 104 11 ,r eA '".,itt�s ♦j tn.. ' �[ 4. r fps <` �r(3' L' 4Afr i r . •"ut�t ♦�r�►• F Ix' 71►. I� r 9� .., �.: ,r!tum s.: f.' r^ t` t " Ms d`e„k E. ,a `'` .•:::, kft..it; w r,J $1 .' stj4°'. 11��5w �„, .aMtirt., ;+f .,N !_ �'` • ,. .�, t r i L ti 434,16,.... .....L. �'4 - s :r` yew C` Lp�� q ' r{ / Ve • ;I,L,[ w �`.R•I /�e-'�, �*At�`gd. i ' J �t ��T r4K` S{r� € :.• ,, fy ..*:`......,i :� / ^ .' ` .*� -'It., •.Yi// in .. ,•.. ,-, ,,T'.,7,-:)., .F'. ., `.1.-v.11-if YY e 1 r�: • .,. !V� A' ' , ili "'I�' 'Ste' ,+ �. �•i..-4 .. t, - ,,..*aL -1' iiit's:%,•. •'• �, ttr , �Y � r ..e^ •,Y�� f„�tf Fly • � •':R� '#.• •�'rIL•� T- �„7t.•.. i. '( .,{ ':rY••1 (.t^�'. 1 0-I�:T1"4,�;\`*' t. c.! ',' ''..,4`. 4. f,+ • !• .*':."...,1,4,44, ,e !Tli,i•--• 'f '.t+''.- S.: ' t,~I� '' h . -f '4 �� /P�•_,. .,, �. � .� ��1' trill-!_,,k,.. �,sr•,. ••, t,:] 1^,;" ..--4,'.3.- r�'.`t ];t:fp, <y� � �: �,t� a 1' i. ��d.st4 1-�"S ' •.4 �'+'"}'b :.'��7`', � J' `y'•I1n, '•�" rr,I«F�.�I i, Rr� i.t, r • rA �+r� .S _:_ ,.py ..r i rt v.... y� .fit +�•.S.; _ ,a a. r t .:'-'.-1;---.•i'''''-4.71' ;.tt �r� Ca' `,' sir .`r T00,. . , ..,,, ,ii,la',..., ••fwT ' . `. ,,, ,! ,i'','4, �R,.^r .i '^, i m �. t bra, • _▪ Rs'r'•,ii +n._ !" L'. (t y �,.. •'i,4 s. 1 tilk ' 4. • .�. f' •a Y.-- i _± • 3 ''. +\j\',''til Y. • :r/" Tit..•,/f24 • `.. 5` a r,,N,,,,,,.;:,,,,:„,,,..: -'1,,..' : > ! ±t•i•. °4• r 4`�5.re •- E X'�., y_'�m L'.a '` S•; Iii ♦ `� 1, i+ ++..f�t a. 1 i w xe`"'t ► /''e'�f '' t ti Ir• y ... . , `' #y"-' t ; 1< a ��C }• 's.• '•it . M�t _ '�Iati. f +i.•,,,� , - T _."t�•,i. ,XR#L t * �. V , Yr :�, r(;• 44'•e*. v+ .... �!":'. ...."��f .."" 1�/�►h� ti'�,t �jtet ,�'r ; -:F .'� �q♦ r-. &tyr..' :,� . � ..1. • ! 1 •! •��,.:••''��,rr :R ... .. 411111,4.:'-',..7...,, •'��*•'!; ,•.z:'".•'/ ti A.., 's�i� :.'. �p y r. '�', '...r'�, s .r ! �� '� �.5y �;• . -. r{ =�► , i .f'i •ri' t\ •,.. t : 4 - •,' •�1, • .." � +. + �.:.d"' ,�.n r 1i.. .�.. fir' •�,ft ttf�+�y` .�' f4rly?^�^ �,y ''• y. / - �.,� • "1arT�r l.� i`I'^.-••:,•,,,,•!... : w9°� - �• { �� % � r 1%it / /rj1- t .. �1• w••. ..t�� '-.7-74')''t 4t,c .' j r, a j••L•r K,,-..w + t..l •y 'Ae, 5A' •�, w o?''; -.,� .!r �p 7�,.. • �. orf; �� ! t� yF y;• r'. J t.. r a ' y + u;;v •1.1 irA •' LI ( . , . : t • ' ~.. • s4. 1:'i. ;,°2:-.,":..„'i t'�,'^ ...A- 1.t." vi 5. t •t i• e '�7 1`'. • i' ,,,-**',„,eirf,, ' ' yt 1 K li"J•':`R�FO .. Y..., . ......,,,I:* � rr+�.� :t.?„,:.:-."4,�"'.L•1 Bj � .�' � � +'�-. .r r, .-, Y •fie; .•/ �' ~ LI t, }, dr 1' �' • i y!".' .t if {`r r p `,.•,, 4, L/!t1.7,r•,«R•.+? t. . ,�.-�r.••� "a, ".a• �r'a f _$>. ♦ a ) { . ,y • . 'tR T ~�, a • �.',a 1.&:.':* ...•tr•;5 .3 p'✓t _ ii,le.,,,, Y C t� �" .1` ( , �`x, . '`,.��. .r� .b ,'•' '7•." t1IIN x y&:.':/i r:tII ' ; • r ? ('' ,!; mo m � o = 13 cz —11 m O Z O s" Iftri < m a) m . ,,.-r;;, ig ---CD ;1 4)1 =-. * (10 Nv rl CD *;%% 3 z;0 r) tili N 0 a.i i 0 5) asib . C c ei) 00 no • • • • • cia G) -0 -0 CD2.= ri9 533 Cf) I (11) (1) a wj 7:3 ati3 3 rft‘ ca) ruNi p•ia < (1) = CD3 -cmbs 0 3 CD O CD N n O N CD Ems Cl. c� Co .. .1I...IIIl1C,I ) CO C < 3 Z 4 = 0 o Z > c ' CD 1-, , 0.,-.' ►-r,,-, o ft :7,-- 4. PF,- 5 0 aq m crq. i eD e-i- ,t , ,F,,- ,.- mem 3 5 , O . cin \ \ 1:1)'ai: a 4,. '- 0 '6, ,,-, 5 .. IV pip. 5 Cr4 x N n e, `< 1—.,. r. Ctq A� CTt F..,. An, ,t 2 Q — © ft) r pN © i .{�q ,", (D .4 i = '-4 Z 0 oet O Ort, o O p p ~' = Milli oo o cr)5 ,-ri 0 © rola, cr0 CI) ,-1- 71 '71 Pie 03 rflcl) rDa) zi rD .■■.■ m z o'"P' a Cn a 0 co-t N N cn co -=-,''r �- II Pl. \ \ \ \ \ \ E:),. 0 11 -- , 3 : Z Z Z X Z Z X tD > > > > > > > C-1 4.P 0N o o CIS CJS CP CIS F-, W Cal N —' N N 4, 01 4. n' O N c 0 00 N C N N O 4. (% CTt C) co 1.10 -Ffl -UCP -EP -00 ro c' '--1 N N) N z) -EP 00 4=, 4, 01 N -1N0 ONO N) O 01 00 01 • . z N 0 ; . H A) O OCr ip. W ��+- mom _� 4, \1 00 00 4. N 4- O N p CDO L) 14, O FP C.k) FP 00 cD -E0 -EA Cn 00 CP C0 4. Cit O0 4CP -EP P 00 N • 00 FP 00 N C O Z 01 1 0 G.) N 4. N C).) • • 0 m cao > cA)SSO � o o �. CD a 0 0_ CY 0_ CD -0 ix. a) 0 • k< • `< z cv, CD 0- tl) 5)4) ta) a) — a) xi: -3 —• —• —. W = z ca CD co CO (c) (1) I -0 "0 I 73 CD (D cp =-3. 3 71 o cr- o — 0 0) (St CI cip 0_ k< 0_ k< Cok)(1) stN Q r tz z E min CP rim.. m m CD (Dfr, Cli % .%3 Cr CD 0 11+ ‘ir ih% NI o 4 =iico su .0 I et. m c CL. 0 Q z al ri. m Ima:$ 3 11 m0 1,4 0 m 4 ...... z ` CD 0tr: an et tait =0 CUihi � .;0 ...„1,0 m 4c n .3- isal4 OD , -- c, )71 ! 0 n r:::• X )71 cfp R-. 1 CD o ri 4 i t.t. CD r n fa- o n o ►rt, o �'• o ''d 4 " n '71 n p n CD n .,,)-t a_ ,,,.. " t CD P., O , 0 in ' 0 p 0 :i. C1H.1. • r_i. ' n 'T-I. .II.III. '"'_• ar xi in , ,..., H ...„ qg ,t. , 4 SU 0 dn r , 5 Art, ° A Q`, ° , ,-i cT ,, - -) ,, ,..7, %...,c › 4 ,, l'j( liQ inrl, g o ; c--:71 ro Q c, m Cn O co a z O N `C AC .4 A) '7; z O �•S N. N. rp P M7.. '''' "Z' r--' Pi) z m ,-1-, E tz , .AD '11 4 , Er- , . - 4. r-4 IV N 7+- co A, " ct 0, `C z tali . `-',.., CP C ' 0 2 '''. tl. c'z' `< n n n :i "'', r- 4 z,.., ,- , '71 '''' 0 c',1 Crq Z. gm+ tr ',?, (4? c,,., ,,,--- ..., pi, 7.,-., c„ ". ,.., z r) ,+, ,,_ n cm ct co 14) C4 M c . 't 'Z' 14) n ,-„imn ,-) '- i 2) ,,, s), 0 z c) ;,t, 2., t-ri 0 .--.4 1--,1 Z '-- ''' 0 -.Zt (1) r2i LDI t41 rD INC o '—'-t Za �. Cr s? O cin O ry, � O A N ,, co fb ON. Z zU) li ril fp ... 1.4 1 ., CD —, N VI .CJ.) i ) P"" Pt _lic W kP O Cly ►.P 01 C "I W 00 00 0.00 bc� CU cc m 0 d � I— t rt) _i< cr › 4 4' 4 In )._, cp SU O . m 5- ' Q ri:, ,ri rn.,..i cf) ,_t p), r,, , R. '''t i-J E O . ot ,< rt , 0 2) cf) N -'• hi..J cr4 . , x 0.,4 N ...•tr:- ....•. "r?-'4 2 zu O CJ m ;3 ,..,. rrim f-s. < 3� o o ./ r lz rt 0 0 1-t Mm 4 CDz c C r.t. , tii z CD M N °T1 0 Arri z- .10 (D 4 3 QCD Fe. Z ct) m roe- = zum m 0 In .,______ 0 E o 't ',. P:J Om 2111 - el,eC)5 n ,_i (it: n ,,C) Pc,) ',',, i !', :L'.): .... 0 i i 't 4•• 't L!1 5 Cit ,-, to 0 cn al 2-0 ghl< rDOP. ■ rD R-. , 0 . __ „._. < 0 CD I k '', an: : g:::; t , ..... O 0 p n r° O Ort) ID D' �Ci) � � � ter '-"d p O cn CD O '7, , CI-. , rD 0 3,s, . DP:7 a CD rulli, Enri CD toCD zi CD c vi m 00 .. -- m ..1 m 11,9 z rim li Z. ,; .. o m a, � o opo ta O O M NNM H N4. � N c Z0 LT O '� 0 0 0 0 0 0 cin 1-4ro r � 4 netnnnzompJp,, ef-q-. . .4.,,, 0 „ ,_ Ae < ., ,.., .„ n :1., ,, , , , ,. .. n � cn � � '"� f D CD CD (1) C74 CI',-- , CD r-�- n cn O ►-, co ..—M74 = '13 r-:: O.- 5 5 E .c . f-6.,,- (1) P.) )-ci ci) CD CD cf) cx? .c'4 p.), 8 ?„ F,', (f) '-'4 rD )T1 0 ,-,- r�1- fi ^ E- ci, ' - gh--, za)>, 4 0 — — — CD , - dd CA e Lai tll tal • G4 . N p `C C`"' I, �1 x x x o cin °Q tri tt3 ft) rD 'TS 'TS O '-' p p• Ch 0) ..., t- cn cn cn ,..., r-,. — rt, N.= w eD i c) ,z, O' p. p• O Fi.,D h-i cp . ,t, 4 � n n n oo �. GI) °-' o 0 0 o O o 0Z111 (1) CID (1) '-i-1 < CO rilik -1 z • W so% H n ,--,J GI ,-, a) p,) O ' .. n ' -'. =% , _., 0 a) rt. ,, < u, 73 (t, ri 0 --,'. cl C MKcD O cn VIS C al) Z M, U, O CD e C -c* " , a) Su 0111 tal -Qt - n- -EP- c-.3 CD 0....4 Q N C)..) Cil N N V iv ui 01O V4=. 0* 11111111111• c a)rim z C (1) eDIll CACU 0 Cr -Eit} - e. 1:); m a� 01 CD N Wo ►-, \1 O O N N W C).) N V1 aN3� O rt,0o Cn � � �1 N W 01 �+ 00 C \1 CD 4 . 00 O a ,:. ,., x r-, 4r... = onz ›- ,Y? ,- 0-4 la) ,,o ;1) p,) (2;-' c n '-z n ) 4 � cy,'-, scry � � rt (I) 4 -,,-,, c cn cr. ti mai ii ac? n cr g2 'E. It) 7-r• ci) 3 xi a c.n. ,--d c"-: 0 rt ,..,, pg FE, r-4 ',:mt. -1',. e—p- ,. . t, . , 1--.64 M Csc? -,1. N) n '5,- `< ...4 'it aq cii . 0 C cD 01 :11 &I © > 3 to. , FE t„, = . „..., r trl'.e M © o0 c:::, rri CD N © �C CD �CP C-4 = 0 ti 0 CD �° mil.1 rttuia).... Zi_., C1 0-ri am. 0% o � G) cn >. 0 5 4 0 , C -cp- cr) 0 "laito a N .0 .. z S cn m a) min ,-t ft, )--i •a)� � o � oCD m 0 CI) -E,e- -UrD- - e. -QA • U) A � cop ,.4. � N,P 01 ? 1.) © cry 00 cs, v ti fi m 1 ir r'� O � N O Oo t r Zr c7i p n Z > (.4 (1) ° '-t .. '—`• 0 crq (13 ‘11% 3 cf5,t1• CD�, FID '7.1rD 3 el) n :1 - "* ., ' cn ,.- P.,. 5- 3 ' a$1 .. ce'+' -7; (I) '-'-' G4 5 `,--d ,-J 0 p" ).-ri )--,. ri) 't. 5 . Sa' -'_ .N O `C i Gq 01i) — © ,..., . ft, c=, (.,-, --' ,..t I ,--, © . 0'4 Pt Z 3 Q et, 4 ,PF,,,. . Pt ID �O p CD 0 04 CD 0CD 0 O o o cr'4 5 cp , OO © cr = ilial" CI) ,,• rola ..ri A, CD ti min ..__, ro 131) CD ,---• ,-t- ,--- coq .__, ,...„ _, -t z 0 , z x x) , , -.„, i,. cp , ...., m ....• (D Z Z Z ZZZ Z O ,__, kJ z , a, 0, —. z w 2 0 cp :§ "it 4" III Z ZZZZZZ P' Cr � � 2 t4 > > > > > > > w ►.P alt Cill) Iv CI} CI) Ln QJ J N w 01 f..i. 00 N C" N MD iP CP C!} Cn co N N N N N p N W p cooIV N N 4. FP Q100 1 00 N O 01 00 Q1N ;-'' Z H H 0 PlikCA -Le' -CPCIS CID 0IN Cly f Ch ►-1 N W ►-a h-' 4. W FP 00 N 01 O N O ;:-.,"-• Cr W 4P O 4. 4 W 4. 00 CP CP CP CID -Le CD ._., ,...., 4. H c.,..) ,C3" ,---] ‹; 000 00 00 00 Z 'N) O Z ►-1 w ti 01 �l 0 �l W N 4. _ _ • • 0 7-1 (/) .-1 > > 0 o CD N (T) 0c rmIL 0 mow CCD " (Do C cn (I) (7 ,-77 0_ E < • w . 0- en--1 LI w ou Wu) (.0 (1) (7) < CD CD- 1:3 . OhCDç) co o Cl)F-4- 73 < CY. c CD CD M CD 3" 3o CO ca) m um.° ‘w 3" cp ZIP CD =1.1 " CD n (I) Z ti) 3 CD &3 CD 0 • 0 0 D 0 CD (7)" u) c n cp 0 (1) C = .5.• J = � TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, CITY OF TUCSON, PIMA COUNTY AND OTHER REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS BACKGROUND: Community governments are the creatures of the state in which they are located and derive their power from state law. Locally, in addition to the Town of Oro Valley, these governments include Pima County, the City of Tucson, the towns of Marana and Sahuarita, as well as various districts that provide schools, water, fire, and emergency medical services. These governmental units have had differing viewpoints on various issues related to political, social, economic, and legal considerations, however concerted efforts have been made over the years to serve the public in the most efficient, effective, and responsive manner possible. Over the past year or so, and due in part to the successful passage of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), there have been concentrated efforts by Pima County, the City of Tucson, and the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) to capitalize on this momentum and perhaps expand upon existing cooperation and agreements particularly in the areas of land use, water and wastewater. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to inform the Council of current regional cooperation efforts being undertaken by the Town. Additionally, it is to garner Council insight and thoughts regarding how the Town should proceed with regional cooperation efforts specifically with respect to land use, water and wastewater. The Town Manager's Department recently conducted an informal survey of regional activities that the Town participates in including partnerships, participation on local committees or task forces, and intergovernmental agreements (IGA). Not surprisingly, given the importance of regional cooperation, departments submitted nearly fifty examples of current regional cooperation efforts. The first attachment in your packet tonight (Exhibit 1) is a detailed list of all of these efforts and the service or program that they relate to in the Town. Every department within the Town has at least one regional effort in progress and many have multiple efforts underway. In areas like elections, drug enforcement, SWAT teams, conflict case management, procurement, and GIS regional cooperation is pragmatic and a wise use of resources. Acting as a regional unit to accomplish these tasks is more cost-effective and allows jurisdictions to pool their dollars and resources to provide far greater services to the region's residents. Puna Association of Governments The Pima Association of Governments was established in Pima County in 1972 as a 501(c)4 nonprofit metropolitan planning organization with Transportation Planning, Environmental Planning and Technical TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 Services divisions. These divisions coordinate efforts with all the local jurisdictions in Pima County, and with the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and Tohono O'odham Nation. PAG's mission is to help promote good decision making for the region by providing accurate data and encouraging consensus among its members and the public. PAG is governed by a nine-member Regional Council with an elected official serving from each member jurisdiction, including the Cities of South Tucson and Tucson, Pima County, the Towns of Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Tohono O'odham Nation and a board member serving from the Arizona State Transportation Board. PAG embraces a vision which recognizes the independence of each PAG member jurisdiction and celebrates the region's diverse environmental and cultural influences. PAG's programs focus on cross jurisdictional planning issues, such as air quality, water quality, transportation and population growth. On of PAG's responsibilities is the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which is a five-year schedule and budget of proposed transportation improvements within eastern Pima County. The current program is the 2008-12 TIP. The TIP is typically updated annually through a multi-step process in association with PAG's member jurisdictions and other implementing agencies. The goal of the process is to develop a TIP that makes optimum use of available federal, state and local funds and resources to serve the region's multi-modal transportation needs. The TIP implements the long-range transportation plan known as the Regional Transportation Plan. The RTP covers a minimum 20-year planning period and all projects included in the TIP must be drawn from the RTP. One of PAG's other responsibilities as the metropolitan planning organization is to coordinate development of a long-range regional transportation plan which secures federal funding. Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Pima Association of Government manages the Regional Transportation Authority and its 20-year regional transportation plan. The $2.1 billion plan was approved by Pima County voters on May 16, 2006, and projects scheduled to be completed within the first year of the plan have been implemented. The plan is funded by a 1/2- cent sales tax, along with other regional and local dollars, such as developer impact fees. The plan includes roadway, transit, safety, and environmental and economic vitality improvements. The RTA is the fiscal manager of the plan. Projects in the plan are managed by PAG-member jurisdictions. Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) In the realm of economic development, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc. (TREO) was formed in 2005 to serve as the lead economic development agency for the greater Tucson area and its surrounding community partners. TREO replaced the Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) when GTEC dissolved in 2005. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 3 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 TREO strengthens the Tucson region by providing a comprehensive menu of solutions and effective regionally- based economic development leadership with vision and coordination. TREO offers an integrated approach of programs and services to support the creation of new businesses, the expansion of existing businesses within the region, and the attraction of companies that offer high impact jobs and share the community's values. In the last fiscal year, the Town provided $50,000 worth of funding to TREO. Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau On April 14, 1982, the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) became incorporated as an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the Tucson area as a convention, visitor, and film production destination. At present, MTCVB has 30 full-time staff and nearly 800 individual and business partners. Tucson's combination of a beautiful environment, distinctive offerings, dedicated marketers, and welcoming hosts make Tucson a destination of choice that now draws more than 3.5 million visitors per year. MTCVB is financially supported by the City of Tucson, Pima County, and the Town of Oro Valley. Pima County Library District/Oro Valley Public Library One of the most prominent displays of regional cooperation in the Town is the Oro Valley Public Library (OVPL). The OVPL has been affiliated with the larger Pima County Library System since 1997, and is the only library to be run by the jurisdiction in which it is located. The remaining libraries in the Pima County Library System are operated by Pima County. The Town has a current IGA with Pima County to share the library costs until the year 2012. The Town's library affiliation allows for regional development of library services such as collection development, special events (summer reading program), loaning services (throughout the county and the United States), and database access both regionally and state-wide. The Town's affiliation with the regional system allows the Town to provide the services and materials that our residents desire and at the same time makes them part of a larger collection for the region to enjoy. Services like the database access would be cost- prohibitive if the Town did not cooperate regionally, putting our residents at a disadvantage. CURRENT ISSUES: Land Use A few months ago, PAG presented the idea of creating a regional land use plan that would connect all member jurisdictions together in a larger planning effort. They have identified the successful passage of the RTA as an indicator of the community's interest in regional cooperation and are hoping to coordinate and manage growth by creating a regional blueprint that identifies activity centers, employment centers, and growth areas across the region. PAG envisions the result of this effort would serve as a guide for local communities as they update their general or comprehensive plans and help to achieve greater coordination among jurisdictions for land use and infrastructure planning, prioritization, and investment. Additionally, as part of their proposal a regional leadership group would be formed to steer the efforts and public input would be sought to determine if the goals defined in the PAG blueprint reflect the desires of the community. At PAG's Management Council (composed of County/City/Town Managers) level, the land use proposal was supported by Pima County and the City of Tucson. A copy of the PAG proposal is attached and labeled Exhibit 2. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 4 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 Rather than redraw a map from scratch the Town, along with Marana and Sahuarita, recommended that the voter-approved general or comprehensive plans of all member jurisdictions be combined to form a bottom-up approach to regional land use planning. This idea was proposed in hopes of retaining each individual community's defined way of life and level of comfort with development. The project is currently proceeding along the lines suggested by the smaller jurisdictions. While the Town would be remiss to dismiss the idea of regional land use planning entirely, Council comments and possible direction is sought on this issue moving forward. Wastewater The Town's wastewater services are provided by Pima County. In 1974, Governor Jack Williams designated PAG as the Designated Planning Agency (DPA) for Pima County. The PAG 208 Plan was completed in 1978 and it identified both Pima County and the City of Tucson as Designated Management Agencies (DMA) responsible for sewerage facilities. However, the Environmental Protection Agency preferred a single management agency and the 1978 PAG 208 Plan recommended the consolidation of sewage treatment programs in the metropolitan area. In 1979, the ownership and all responsibilities for construction, operation, and maintenance of the City of Tucson's sewerage systems were transferred to Pima County. In recognition of the pending consolidation of facilities, the PAG Regional Council passed resolution 78-12-07 in December 1978 requesting that the Governor designate Pima County as the single 208 DMA for municipal wastewater treatment and sewer system operations. This designation is noted in a 1980 amendment to the 1978 PAG 208 Plan. Also in 1979, an intergovernmental agreement transferring the sewerage system to the City stipulated that the City would own and have unilateral control over the use and disposition of effluent discharges from metropolitan treatment facilities. The IGA stated that the County was entitled to up to ten percent of the effluent for use on County parks, golf courses, and recreation facilities. A supplemental IGA was negotiated in 2000. It addressed control of effluent from non-metropolitan facilities, access by other water providers to effluent derived for their water supplies, and the establishment of a conservation pool of up to 10,000 acre feet per year for use of effluent habitat conservation plans or other approved projects. Pima County remained the sole DMA in the PAG planning area until March 1999, when the PAG Regional Council approved a 208 Plan Amendment designating the Town of Sahuarita as a designated management agency. The area designated for the new Sahuarita DMA encompassed the incorporated Town of Sahuarita limits excluding areas already served by Pima County. No additional DMAs have been proposed since that time. Water Oro Valley currently delivers water from two sources of supply. Groundwater is pumped from wells in the aquifer below the Town and delivered through the potable water distribution system. Reclaimed water is used 1 II TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Pages of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 for turf irrigation and delivered through a separate reclaimed water distribution system. In addition, Oro Valley has an allocation of Central Arizona Project (CAP) Water that is used indirectly through storage credits. Currently, the Town has agreements in place with the City of Tucson and the Northwest Water Providers. The Northwest Water Providers include the Town of Marana, the Town of Oro Valley, Metro Water District and Flowing Wells Irrigation District. These entities have come together through a Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 3) to deliver CAP water to their customers by 2014. The Town has an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tucson to purchase treated effluent water from Tucson Water for use in the Town's reclaimed system. The IGA was executed as a result of a settlement agreement with the City of Tucson and is set to expire in 2010. The Town is participating with the Northwest Water Providers to deliver CAP water to Oro Valley. The Northwest Water Providers are in the process of determining costs and pipeline routes for CAP delivery from I- 10 and Tangerine. The group is also creating a Request for Proposals to generate a more detailed analysis of pipeline eline routing, land and rights-of-way. The Northwest Water Providers are working with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to complete a study on the need for reliability storage. The storage is needed for the Northwest Water Providers to continue deliveries when the CAP Canal is down for maintenance. The study will look at needs for all CAP Project beneficiaries in Pima County. Federal funding for reliability storage is a critical element of this project and discussions with our Congressional representatives have taken place and will need to be continued to assure funding. Recently, discussions have occurred between the City of Tucson and Pima County on the idea of creating a regional water/wastewater authority. A memorandum (Exhibit 4) dated April 1, 2008 to Mr. Hein and Mr. Huckleberry, lays out a proposal to conduct a detailed study of water infrastructure, supply, and planning approved by their respective governing bodies. The initial study would be focused on the two entities and their relationship to one another; focusing on "completing a water inventory and analysis", "estimating the current and future population that can be sustained given the municipal supply", and `improving communications, coordination, cooperation between the City and the County." After Phase I of the proposal, the second phase will be to define the City and County's joint values and come to an agreement on population growth, water, urban form, land use planning, and infrastructure and to increase the use of reclaimed water. The project is then proposed to expand into Phases 3 and 4 which would repeat the same process for the entire region. The final step of the process would be to define and develop a sustainable water future and a livable region. Interestingly, a recent study by Sharon Megdal and Aaron Lien of the University of Arizona's Water Resource Research Center (Exhibit 5), indicates that while local stakeholders are interested in cooperating regionally to plan for water in the future, the same stakeholders believe that it would be premature for the community to create a regional water authority. As has been demonstrated by just some of the points in this communication, regional cooperation has occurred over they ears and is alive and well today and will be into the future. Water has shaped much of the State, Pima County, and Oro Valley region's past and will assuredly impact the future. Water and local land use are highly TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 6 of 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 07/09/08 interdependent in that the availability of water heavily influences what can be built on any particular piece of property. Intergovernmental cooperation at all levels of government will be essential to long term water supply planning and related growth and land uses. CONCLUSION: Regional land use, water, and wastewater planning efforts by PAG, Pima County, and the City of Tucson have significantly increased and gained in popularity over the past six months. These efforts are also strongly supported by agencies such as the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (Exhibit 6), Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association, TREO, Tucson Association of Realtors as well as environmental and wildlife conservation groups. Some individuals have privately and officially commented that the Tucson metropolitan area should be governed by a single region-wide retail water provider. These conjectures would have serious implications for the Town of Oro Valley which would impact potential land-use decisions from resort hotels to bio-medical employment opportunities. Staff is seeking Council's thoughts with respect to these initiatives in the region, balancing the imperative need for regional cooperation and the local autonomy and future development and quality of life in our community. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Table "Town's Current Regional Cooperation Efforts" 2. Copy of PAG proposal dealing with a regional land use blueprint 3. Copy of MOU with Northwest Water Providers 4. Memorandum dated April 1, 2008 to Mike Hein and Chuck Huckleberry from Nicole Ewing-Gavin and Melaney Seacat regarding the joint study of water infrastructure, supply, and planning. 5. "Tucson Regional Water Planning Perspectives Study" by Sharon Megdal and Aaron Lien 6. Letter from Southern Arizona Leadership Council to David Andrews dated June 3, 2008. 64A David Andrews, Town Manager a) 0 i.� En co O : U) a) 0 D O O '}, O _ O = CV U 0 (o C ,> V) -a a) r O C •L C CC L O U L to O - m a) v) _ O R3 C C -C O C E O 0 -0 a) -0 U C •� O C _c u) W W •ct L to En - n- O o c cm o_ O .� ca ° C a) C o 0 - • O a) — U c_n U a) w Q -� p 0 O O t o c a) o 0o o U o a) a) � o U c� � 0 � o _ 0 W E m o p coo 0 a) _ o � � c co co c ~ o j - .� . •cn _C E 0) s C O co a) § a) co co RS m _ a) H m o CC �_ o GD Q Q •E •0 c CL CO O co O O U a) Q p o •,. o O RS c C OU O Co O c O O 4, a) 0) Q C C Co L cn C .� o a) O E a) o 0_ •0 0) U L a) a) n_ D C c13 a) to ..E' c c c (o > _ c -O o a3 c (n C o EEn = co .c O to 0 a) E m c 0)a) a a) o i0- Oco .O 'C U O a) .0 O- -� Cr) D O 0 C 0 ,c X - C 1— > C -O W - (II O _o E — Q) a) i a) a) > u) _ c > 0 -0 a`ti -6 co a) - — E c — .� a) 0 a) o O A C .o O co m 0 -J CD 0 < 0 _a co — > C C C a) a) a) E E E +-+ Q. Q Q _ O _O O a) a) a) a) t a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) � �,-U 0 0 0 Co R3 Co co 4- O'U) U) U) U) 5U U U O 0) 0) 0) 0) E E E C C C Co O O '6 C C C O O O '� '� .� .- DU 0 0 m m CO m 0 W W W N co 1t) co ti o0 c O E L- co > O o o L_ -0 _0 o .>, •� c a) C W 0 U a) o c� c 0) a) n P U) 0 - .c—,� co' o c U U c a) a_ O 0 co a) 2 a) ca' - L_ v) a) c U c — 0 0 coo § caQ a) L E U >; c�E -`) ca 0- o co _ E2 0 2 o � c Cn � C� = - c `n0 u) � cn LLJ .,7, LI, 0) t 0,) cn con a) •a) 0 co U D c� - ~ cn -0 '0 E a) cn cn < >, s •� 0 E. : -� 0E U) -0 m U a) 0 �-- U) .c cn ° L O L-- -�-� D -O 4-- = O 0 0 CL U U c k m CO 0 c > c CO a) H c * voi c o o cE D cO D L n Q_ a) v N O > U E v U `w '� U .15 o cn r1 > D L_ U .= a_ 0 U a_ Q o a_ Q E a_ w U) C5 -� CO ^c - W E -E W E L. W < a) L 0) 0 a) coE E 0 c UCU O u) u) c D E c CII L _o a,. C. 0 U a_0 H >, >, 0 o c c 0 0 ..o O ..:. :..:. c c co co El.). a) a) a) 0 0 0 a)a) H H 0 0 0 Cc Cc c c C c U CO CO C6 CO CO 175 c '- ._ ._ ._ u) to co 8 L 0) 0) 0) - - c 4O O CO C6 CO CO co L L _J 2 CL a_ O 1- N CO �t (0 CD N- 0) N— U U) > m U C m a) c U) a) m o a) a) a) E CDE Q a) O a_ i-- a) cn OIii U -o o U CL a) cn D 2m cn o m C C > 2 C co w -o O 0) D a) (0 O U C U ° 2 o > a) a) a) 0 a) � 0 a) 0 = a- a) m C V Ea C C -c C E 'C_a >� �c m °) C E Q -o c O o +' o Cl UO C RI o 0 a) D E a. 0 co -o C 0 To U o Q _ - C a) z a� -� -� > .- 0) Z 0 c co O- (2 O o O m ai CLD 1--- U C .�.� Q W C7 C� C� C 0 1 CL CL a_ a_ U o = 0) C C co m m n- C C C C C o a) a) 0) C m _ 'C c _C -- E E CoN •— 0 C C C -�_ C Co co o a) -Oa a C O o a -o a o o ca'n con o c = a) a a) — C = Co a) o 0 N > > Q o) 0) U cv co co O 2 L... E m m F-- -J J 0_ 0 0 C C C C Oo o O m m m ;,.;, C C_ _C Co Co Co (13 -C 'C .C O O O U 0 0 U NJ NJ N a) a) a) a) p p -C cC c f C C C -o -o -o -o CO Co Co C C C C m m m Co Co Co Co C C C 0 0 0 w C C U U �C �C �C ,C C C C .- - Co Co Co co co Co co a_ TD CL a_ a_ a. E. d cc 0) O N co -cT LI) CD 1.-- r- N N N N N N N U) L C n, ^ � W co ^c O c W Co E.-_) w. 2 o >, E ....r W a) a) O - E co o 0 E CO 0 U) O Q CO O >, F- a) . a) a) .c z CO W a) O Co co 0 cm L -J Q Y a) a) E co , 0 N LL CU Z3 — F- 2 U -L u) CO a N >>Q p a) a Q_ U c coa_ co O E ca 0 > 0 5L N 0) -s-- 0 0 0) L _ - E E a) a) co O o a) c 0 c W 0 0) -c -'-C' co .O co 0 J CO cco o .o .E E N U al- CD u) —� E_ cr Q = c c O o > CO ) a) a) �c o CU a C cn c o . 0 co L L — p Q) F- .Q c }, C L.. •C -.>' c a- C6 Q CO c� — a) U U co i- ••c s- U)U) C U O p O a E oaC U) a) cp E _ E 2 p �' o c ...r +; U 0) a) L U ,C 'ma=r ca c c CO .E U O Q (O -.--' � a) a) a) E .� E U a) U) Co a) n-,_ �- U � C c 0) a) i.--_ Q -0 +' E .2 c� CO L c6 -c CO E � c > -c CO a) > L a) C a) p a) CO a) O 0 0 F- U F- W C c.o fY E 0 .�_ O O O o O O O O O 0_ a. 0_ 0_ W a. a. Li C N- co a) O T- N CO �t LO (NJ N N CO CO CO CO 09) CO C - a) vEcn I CU a) co >. Q H c _ E a) a) V) o 1E5 — a) if, - u) = a O o > CO E •( a) a) a) 0 ao 2 T 4- cn C coa) — — C Ca) W o Ua) W a cn Q a) .- u) U) 0 0 0cc 0 0 E a) T. � U •- L o ;U) p i- o D �+- o — .= .o 0 U (13 - (13 0) C c = C a — C a) tY 0 ir_ 0 0 U C .- c a) O v v 0 a) •C H CO o a) o_ ca C c Cl_ — a_ Q 0 V) ~- ( ci • CO C) o C o C9 C Q o E c N 0) CCf Q E CO ci 0_ c 0 U U) 0 0 2 U) C 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) '� C C CC C C C C ,., 'C 'C •C C 'C C C C L- C C C C CCO CCO C(13 C cri co CD CO CO = C C C C C C C C cn p O O 0 O •O .O 0 C .....= 4%7; ...:.r o cu t(0 RI ca c, c6 (13 c0 :ice 1�... L t lam._ (0 p 0 O O O O 0 O O Q C_ o o o o o a O C C C C C C C C O (i3Ez2 (D T T 2 (0 T U H H H H H H H H U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) - - - .. - _Se - - p o 0 0 0 0 � t) O U _U U U U 0 U U p = D C C = C = D CV CO V 6 _ CO Q U O . C LL .(7) 0 -2 c0 O o O c) Qc a) O iL• O V0 0 T N cn c13 E 'L7 O m C O Q N 03 O E a) , .o Q) _c c w U = D Q cu U) S a)o 0 Eoo O(I) O �' O a) cu L D E C to sp kL, > a3 O Q a) cio • D O) N N a) Q () C N E t O 0 c 0) E a) E 0 �C •_ L _c 0) O)• a) o 0 O 0 O n w 0 Z Cl) E— U) a) c U) .O c a) CD ca = Ca _C 0 o ` -o 0 Cr.) w w — °6 0) >a) C CO a) a) cto c (t o Q.. O a) o 45 a) c .E cii c a) 0 ra_ a) a) a) E Q a) c) U o (n C r a) cu G L L a) a) a) a) O co co cu Ln co t— CO a) Proposal for Regional Land Use Planning Coordination Introduction Much has been discussed recently (not to mention over the years) about the need to better coordinate and manage land use planning and growth issues in the Tucson region. Several efforts recently highlighted this need and elevated the dialogue: the Regional Town Hall by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC); the Community Conversation on Water; TREO's Economic Blueprint Plan; the American Institute of Architects Sustainable Design Assessment Team review; and others. Last November, the region reached the one million population mark. Growth pressures in our region will likely continue for decades. Since the 1950's, we developed very rapidly and in many ways, haphazardly. Our regional development pattern is becoming more financially difficult to serve in terms of public infrastructure demands, and is resulting in the continued loss of historic, cultural and ecosystem resources. We are also very much part of the Sun Corridor super-region stretching from Prescott to Sierra Vista. This "megapolitan" area is projected to double in population and will hold well over 12 million residents one day. In Pima County, we will continue to be faced with growing travel demand and congestion, a lack of private developable land, concerns about water supply, continued loss of historic and natural resources, and limited financial resources to maintain, upgrade and expand infrastructure. There is clearly a need to start moving towards creating a more sustainable region — more sustainable environmentally, economically, and fiscally. This is a proposal aimed at creating a broad, regional blueprint that will provide greater certainty by describing where and how we want to grow as a community and where we do not want to grow. We envision the results will have primary purposes: as a guide for local communities to update their general/comprehensive plans, and to achieve greater coordination between land use planning and infrastructure planning, prioritization and investment. This effort could begin in spring 2008 and conclude by the end of the calendar year. However, it is also possible this could evolve into an on-going planning effort with periodic updates and revisions. The geographic focus will be on Pima County; however, the effort will also involve consideration of the growth pressures occurring in adjacent counties and their communities that now form the new edges of our region. It is important to stress that each jurisdiction may choose to implement the regional blueprint and resulting policies in their own way and in a manner that respects and conforms to their community's identity. This planning effort will recognize the individual differences that make up the local jurisdictions in terms of community character, design and other features. It should also be clearly understood that all land use and general/comprehensive plan decisions will remain with the local agencies. This is not an attempt to change how those decisions are made, but rather it is simply an effort to better coordinate long-range planning efforts at a broad, regional scale. The results and products of this effort however would be used to inform general/comprehensive plan updates process the agencies will soon undertake. The timing for this initiative is very favorable given recent successes in the region. The formation of the RTA, through unprecedented regional cooperation that resulted in a successful ballot measure, has finally proved we can work together to begin solving big issues facing the community. Also, there is a current "window of opportunity" to undertake this initiative and complete the effort prior to the next wave of major general/comprehensive plan updates by the local agencies. Those planning efforts will be underway in 2009, and having a regional framework to operate within would provide more consistency in those plan updates with respect to agreed-upon growth areas and regional policies guiding infrastructure planning. Scope of Work `)everal key tasks will be involved in this effort, as described below. ,1. Develop a better understanding of past and present growth in the region. This initial task will involve identifying how, why and where are we growing as a region, historically and in more recent years. Important data include current zoning and land use entitlements and opportunities for reinvestment in existing developed areas. The task will also involve identifying the dynamics that drive population and economic growth in the region. The working group will also review our growth forecasts for the Tucson region, the Sun Corridor and the state. Finally, we will explore recent and available studies that address the carrying capacity for growth in the region, such as water and developable land. This initial task will establish a framework for understanding what to reasonably expect in terms of future population growth at a very broad regional level. • 2. Create a regional mosaic of the agencies' plans guiding growth in the region. Task 2 will involve assembling all the adopted plans that now guide guide land use and infrastructure decisions in the region. This will also include conceptual land use plans created by the Arizona State Land Department, as well as conservation and open space planning efforts undertaken by the local agencies. An analysis of the existing zoning capacity and land use entitlements will also occur, to better understand the population capacity of lands already committed to urban development. This overall task will allow the working group to look at the relationship between the land use plans, infrastructure ,,,plans, and conservation planning efforts within the context of a broader regional framework (evaluate the relationship between our `green' and `grey' infrastructure). 3. Identify activity centers, employment centers and growth areas across the region. Task 3 will refine some of the information collected in Task 1. It involves identifying where growth areas and activity/employment centers exist today, and where they will likely be in the future based on adopted plans, development trends, infrastructure plans and availability, and other influences. The working group will evaluate the existing and proposed activity centers in the context of a broader regional framework. This effort will also involve creating definitions for such areas (growth areas, activity centers, etc.) for greater consistency and understanding across the region. 4. Analyze our regional land use capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth. Given our anticipated future population increases identified in Task 1, as well as our land use plans, land consumption patterns, conservation needs, and land ownership, we will determine whether the region has enough planned urbanized land use at sufficient densities to accommodate our projected population and employment growth into the future. This will also allow us to examine and agree upon the role of state trust land in planning and accommodating our future growth in the region. 5. Identify opportunities for smart and sustainable growth. The working group will explore opportunities we have to facilitate smart growth in the region. For instance, the group would likely explore whether future land use patterns may be better configured to reduce the number or length of automobile trips as a way of reducing traffic congestion. Also, given the significant RTA investment being made to the regional transit system, the committee may evaluate where our land uses may be configured to better facilitate expanded transit ridership and travel by other modes. They may explore examples used here and elsewhere that might be promoted as ways of growing in a manner that is more sustainable from an environmental, economic and fiscal viewpoint. 6. Recommend policy guidance and implementation strategies. Finally, the group will explore what tools and implementation strategies would be necessary for moving forward in a more coordinated and sustainable approach to our planning. Such strategies may include recommendations the local agencies may use in updating general/comprehensive plans, and others that PAG may use in creating congestion or travel demand management solutions. Strategies may also involve issues such as annexation coordination (or developing agreed-upon planning areas), coordination of infrastructure planning and financing strategies, water and wastewater planning, coordination with the State Land Department, creating opportunities for affordable/workforce housing, and strategies to support infill and reinvestment in the existing urban area. Finally, the group may suggest changes in State law, and identify local and regional champions to help implement findings of the study. End Products and Results We anticipate significant products (described below) will result from this effort and will be presented to the PAG Regional Council for their endorsement or acceptance. The individual jurisdictions, as well as other agencies, may use this information and the recommendations as they update general/comprehensive plans, or as they prepare other plans that guide future growth. PAG would use this effort as a solid foundation for preparing the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan which will be underway in 2008. Final products: ■ A regional blueprint or framework for future growth, with mutually agreed-upon future growth areas and activity centers (basically an updated regional "bubble map" showing where growth should occur, and where it should not occur). It also likely include smart growth principles and policies to be endorsed at a regional level; recommendations for tools and implementation strategies that may be necessary to facilitate smart and sustainable growth in the region; and recommendations for linking and better coordinating land use and infrastructure planning and investment. • This framework may establish the groundwork for more proactive regional growth management strategies and policies to achieve greater coordination of planning activities within region and possibly with the adjoining counties along the Sun Corridor. Public Involvement, and Community and Stakeholder Input Given the significance of the issue and the recent elevated dialogue throughout the community for better coordination of growth issues, an extensive public involvement effort is absolutely required. This will help ensure the process unfolds in a manner consistent with public desires and that there is community buy-in with the final products and next steps. • We propose beginning the effort with several community conversations across the region designed to reach agreement on the vision and goals for the region in terms of land use and growth. It will be important to recognize and build upon all the recent planning efforts and community involvement exercises, such as town halls and forums, which have provided meaningful public feedback already on these issues. We are currently summarizing the common themes and goals expressed in these previous exercises to provide a starting point and a series of goals for the public to respond to. These previous efforts include the Regional Vision for Eastern Pima County, the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Vision and Goals, the SALC Town Hall, the jurisdictions' general plans, and many others. The intent of these initial interactive community conversations is to give the public the opportunity to review these themes and goals to make sure we defined them correctly, to make changes where necessary, and begin prioritizing them. The public will also be asked to begin identifying opportunities we should explore (and personal initiatives they would be willing to undertake) in order to start achieving those goals as a region. • This initial outreach effort will also be supplemented with community surveys (via phone, the web, etc.), all with the intent of beginning this process with extensive public feedback on what their desires are, determine what the goals will be, where we should head as a region, what we value and want to protect, and how should we grow. • We are also exploring the potential to partner with the Arizona Daily Star. They're preparing to hold a forum on regional growth in February, which again may help in defining the direction for the region in terms of growth coordination and planning. • Throughout the process, we will engage neighborhood associations, community organizations, planning commissioners and elected officials in interactive dialogue for on-going feedback and direction. • Community conversations will continue throughout the process, especially at key milestones, to solicit feedback on key issues and findings, and to ensure recommendations generated by the working group are thoroughly reviewed by the public and are consistent with their goals defined at the beginning. • A communications plan will be developed early on, and will result in a project website, a description of surveys to be conducted at the beginning of and throughout the process (by phone, web, and other means), and a description of other methods for staying informed and providing feedback throughout the process. • The effort will be wrapped up with a final community forum/dialogue to discuss the findings and recommendations prior to them going to Regional Council. Formation of a Working Group As the public expresses their desires regarding the vision, values, direction, etc. on where they would like to see the region go, we envision a working group will need to be established to begin focusing in detail on the list of tasks described above, and begin shaping those with respect to the public's opinions. This will require the commitment of community leaders, the jurisdictions, and others to provide the time and effort required to see this effort through. We are proposing to establish a working group comprised of the local planning experts from each of the jurisdictions, as well as practitioners and subject matter experts from agencies across the region that have been engaged in recent regional planning initiatives, to include: • Planning Directors from all the PAG member agencies (8 total) • State Land Department • Southern Arizona Leadership Council • Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities • Urban Land Institute— Southern Arizona chapter • American Institute of Architects — Southern Arizona chapter • Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection • Sonoran Institute • Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association • Metropolitan Pima Alliance • Tucson Association of Realtors ■ Expert on water issues ■ Expert on economics and public finance issues All meetings would be open to the public and with opportunities for input at each. Also, as needed, we expect coordination and input from others will be necessary at various times throughout this process from representatives from Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz counties. Regular monthly reports would be provided back to the PAG Management Committee and Regional Council to report progress. Schedule ■ January — present the concept to Regional Council for their consideration, concurrence to proceed, and to begin forming the working group ■ March - April — community dialogue on growth and land use; initial telephone and web surveys and other outreach to define the regional goals ■ April thru November—convene the working group and begin their work o Much of the background info from tasks 1 thru 4 (existing conditions and plans) will be ready for presentation to the working group when they convene in April o Continue also with public outreach, open houses, surveys, etc. to solicit feedback regarding products from working group ■ November— conduct final community dialogue on the recommendations ■ December— present final recommendations to Regional Council ■ 2009 —jurisdictions begin their general/comprehensive plan updates, using the project's results as appropriate. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: MAY 17, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Philip C. Saletta, P.E.,Water Utility Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 06- 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MARANA, THE FLOWING WELLS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, THE METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, TO COOPERATE IN PLANNING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY: Cooperation with other local water providers will facilitate the development of renewable water resources and specifically future delivery of Central Arizona Project (CAP) Water to the Town of Oro Valley. Oro Valley Water Utility, Flowing Wells Irrigation District, the Town of Marana and the Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District have been working together to develop a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) to develop future renewable water supplies,including CAP Water. This MOU will set forth the concepts of cooperative planning to treat and deliver CAP Water. This MOU is the first step toward this cooperative approach and will serve as the guiding document to plan and study various alternatives for CAP water delivery. These studies will include analyses of the technical, environmental, financial, institutional,political and administrative issues pertaining to the development of renewable water resources. The MOU is the first step and is not a final document for the development of an organization for developing a northwest regional water system. After planning studies are complete each organization can then evaluate their needs and level of participation in any future organization that is formed. This could be accomplished through a more formal Intergovernmental Agreement or other suitable document. The MOU also provides for cooperation with other water users that are not signatories to the MOU. In addition, there will be a public process developed that will involve our citizens and customers. Cost sharing of the planning studies will be agreed upon prior to entering into any specific study and subject to approval that may be required by the respective governing bodies. The amount may vary by entity depending upon the nature of the study and the benefits to each of the participants.A major benefit of this MOU is to show our individual interest and cooperative efforts to develop our CAP Water under our subcontracts with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.Planning for a future CAP Water delivery is complex and will require commitment of the NW Water Providers through the support of their respective councils, commissions and boards.Approval of this MOU is the first step toward making that commitment to assure a reliable water supply. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 FISCAL IMPACT: 06- will require funding of future planning studies under the The adoption of Resolution No. (R) 35 Budget Funds are requested in the FY 06-07 Bud t in the amount of $100,000 for these and other planning studies related to.Water Resource Planning. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: unanimously approved a motion to recommend to Town Council to approve this The Water Utility Commission unan � NW Water Providers MOU on April 10 2006. Staff also recommends approving this Resolution to execute the MOU. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (R) Understanding Between Flow-in Wells,The Town of Marana,Metro and Oro Valley 2. Memorandum of Unde g g SUGGESTED MOTION: • . . Resolution No. 06- 35 A Resolution of The Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, Authorizing I move to approve (R) of A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between The Town of Marana,The and Approving the Execution Flowing Wells Imgatz o n District, The Metropolitan . istric Molitan Domestic Water Improvement Distract and the Town of Oro Valley,to Cooperate in Planning for the Development of Renewable Water Resources. Or I move to /4,4) W. - i .ty Dir•• or Town Manager / i RESOLUTION (R) 06- 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ()IOU) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MARANA, THE FLOWING `'ELLS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, THE METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, TO COOPERATE IN PLANNING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES S The Town of Oro Valley is a municipal corporation within the State of Arizona WHEREAS, and is rights, privileges with all the and benefits and entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted to municipalities and political subdivisions under the Laws of the State of Arizona; and the Town of Marana, the Flowing Wells Irrigation District, the Metropolitan WHEREAS, Water Improvement District and the Town of Oro Valley desire to form the "NW Domestic p Water Providers"; and WHEREASonce formed, the NW Water Providers will formalize the structure of this , organization to developa mutually beneficial water system through a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"); and WHEREAS, the NW Water Providers shall work towards developing a formal proposal to implement the goals and objectives set forth in the MOU; and S it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into the Memorandum of WHEREAS, Understanding, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the Town of Oro Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Arizona, that the Memorandum of Understanding for the participation and administration Valley, of the organization called the NW Water Providers, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, the Water Utility't Director and other officials are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. PASSED AND ADOPTED bythe Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 1 7u day of NAy, 2006. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor F:\Watc U►ility\Projats\N\O'Watc Proridcrs\NW MOU RESOLUTION-PCS REV.doc Office of the Town Anorncy/ca/050106 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kat "Ti E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Melinda Garrar a , Town Attorney F:\Watc Uulny\Projects\NW Water Proridcrs\N,A'MOU RESOLUTION-PCS REV.doc Office of the Town Anorncy/ca/050106 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING F:\Watt Uu7ity\Projects\NW Watt Providas\NW MOU RESOLUTION-PCS REV.doc Office of the Town Anorney/ca/050I06 F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER LV<.A�1: ��•v •• RECORDED BY: C_D PAGE: 1179 DEPUTY RECORDER voF tijkl5 NO. OF PAGES: 0224 PE2 CV' 2- O SEQUENCE: 20061110315 SMARA W- i :; lil -Z 06/09/2006 TOWN OF MARANA `A. II ;I MEMO 15:35 ATTN: TOWN CLERK lip114' 11555 W CIVIC CENTER DR MAIL MARANA AZ 85653 AMOUNT PAID $ 8.00 • AONNIN p .. ... .. ._ 1-nr- 1 ; -..:.:.. -1,1 ,''' 7 F .-,, „.,; .-, ,, ,, A; k7)' ‘"/.../ -.-::, k-Z*. '\4izo /' . MEMORANDUM OF . UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FLOWING • MARANA METRO AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • r t..1 2 2 Cq i I 31 ti MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FLOWING WELLS, THE TOWN OF MARANA, METRO AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is made and entered into by and between the Town of Marana, an Arizona municipal corporation, Flowing Wells-Irrigation-District-Metropolitan-Domestic Water-Improvement District and the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona municipal corporation, all of which are collectively referred to as the "NW Water Providers". RECITALS A. The NW Water Providers desire to cooperate in the development of a northwest regional water system to treat and deliver renewable water resources, with focus on the Central Arizona Project water. B. The objective of this MOU is to investigate the financing of a system to reliably deliver high-quality water to NW Water Providers customers and meet the future needs of NW Water Providers' growing communities and to work towards constructing that system. Each of the NW Water Providers will determine their level of participation for treatment and delivery capacity. C. The NW Water Providers desire to formalize the structure of an organization or partnership to develop a mutually beneficial water system. D. The NW Water Providers desire to work toward forming an organization where political, institutional, legal, administrative and financial issues can be researched, investigated, discussed and recommendations developed. E. The NW Water Providers concur that there are numerous benefits to working together to develop a reliable water delivery system for their communities, and to protecting and preserving the regional aquifer. •n 2 a AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and the mutual covenants set forth in this MOU, the NW Water Providers hereby agree as follows: {00001887.DOC!) 1. A Management Group will consist of Managers and/or Directors from each of the NW Water Providers that will oversee the supporting Technical Groups consisting of staff, consultants and external entities for the purpose of providing technical support for planning for the design and construction of a water treatment and delivery system. This Management Group shall evaluate and determine the need for additional services primarily-focusing-on-financial,legal-and-public-relations-needs. 2. The NW Water Providers understand that. cooperation with external entities is an important and critical element. These entities may include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Southern Arizona Water Users Association, Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 3. The NW Water Providers will evaluate a water system to treat and deliver renewable water resources and will perform selected studies which will include system planning, design capacity, pipeline alignments, water treatment technologies, environmental studies, construction cost estimates, financial analyses and cost share studies. 4. The NW Water Providers shall work with each other to develop and implement a public involvement process. 5. The NW Water Providers shall work towards developing a formal proposal to implement the goals and objectives set forth in this MOU. The agreement could be an Intergovernmental Agreement or another type of establishing agreement, and would include the structure for governance of a cooperative venture, as well as administrative, technical, financial and operational procedures. • 2 6. The NW Water Providers agree that any costs for studies and other necessary work will r9 be shared among the Providers. The NW Water Providers agree to present a cost sharing and reimbursement recommendation to be approved by their respective governing bodies prior to authorizing and/or performing any studies and any other necessary work. G:\Central Arizona ProjeciW W Water Providers MOU-26Apr06.doc {000018 87.DOC/}2 • • 7. Any water provider may terminate its participation in this MOU upon forty five (45) days written notice to the other providers. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the NW Water Providers hereto have executed this MOU as of the last date set forth below their respective signatures. FLOWING WELLS TOWN OF MA' • NA IRRIGATION DISTRICT / /• i Manuel C. Valenzuela, resident Ed Ho ea, Mayor Board of Directors c /7/ ••0C-)C Date: S — co-2_.--© Date: METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1 Dan M. Offret, Chair Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Date: s G' Date: $-/05,7(04 ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION �-o Uecf c,UE i o“3,(= CL62. The undersigned attorneys for Flowing Wells Irrigation District, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, the Town of Marana and the Town of Oro Valley have determined, each as to their respective client only, that this MOU is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under Arizona law to Flowing Wells Irrigation District, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, the Town of Marana and the Town of Oro Valley. FLOWING WELLS TOWN OF • RANA IRRIGATION DISTRICT ,Apsopr/Ale ; r 4411111rinifir, .14er At./ :2 Spen r Smith, F ID Attorney 6'C/fry, To •no, ey Date: _ Date: 2 G:\cru�Arizona Pro eaww Wata Providers Mou•uAp�.aa {000018 87.DOC/}3 METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC TOWN OF ORO V•..LEY WATER IMPOVEMENT DISTRICT . r ��-- -! I ` •tI Name ,J Melinda Garr. an Town Attorney Date: 07 Date: ci/ 6 • 2 • 2 0 6 3 G:1Ccmtral Arizona Project1NW Water Providers MOU-2GApr06.doc {00001887.DOC 1)4 afP.h OOTT•ai CAti o ';:. TUCSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 10th Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85 701 Tucson,Arizona 85726-7210 DATE: April 1, 2008 TO: Mike Hein FROM: Nicole Ewing Gavin City Manager City Project Coordinat r C.H. Huckelberry Melaney Seacat' .di-- County Administrator County Project Coordinator SUBJECT: Updated Scope of Work: \Vater Infrastructure, Supply and. Planning Study For your review and concurrence; attached please find an update to the February 14: 2008 Water Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study joint memorandum incorporating the direction received by the Mayor and Council on February 20, 2008 and the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2008 and April 1, 2008. Concurrence: C 1/71tLYI IX____ - C.H. Huckelberry Mike Hein County Administrator City Manager 1 c, `PI CITY 01 s7 r- -' Yt, :�$IZor� TUtsON r.:... • COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 101h Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85701 Tucson,Arizona 85726-7210 Scope of Work Water Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study Study Oversight Phases I and II of the study process require independent review and oversight to ensure that they meets the stated desired end products identified in this scope of work. A joint City/County Regional Water Study Oversight Committee (RWSOC) will be formed to serve this role. The Committee will be made up of 12 members appointed from the following existing City and County committees as follows: r • 4 members from the City's Citizens Water Advisory Committee (CWAC) • 4 members from the County's Wastewater Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) • 2 members from the City's Planning Commission • 2 members from the County's Planning & Zoning Commission • The Chair appointed jointly by the City Manager and County Administrator from the 12 members on the Committee The committee will meet at least monthly and will meet more frequently as it deems necessary. The members of the committee will also report monthly to their respective advisory committee. The committee will receive briefings and regular updates from Tucson Water and Wastewater Management staffs working on data collection and analysis during Phases 1 and II. The committee will report to the City Manager and County Administrator assessing the joint staff work and may make recommendations to the City Manager and County Administrator on necessary changes. The committee will prepare a final report to the City Manager and County Administrator to accompany transmission of the final work product of the joint staff efforts. Public Outreach Based on direction provided by the Mayor and Council on February 20, 2008 and by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2008, City and County staff, working with Oversight Committee shall report back within 60 days on a plan for a broad-based and transparent public process for engaging the community in this study. The outreach plan should address the following: o Procedures for receiving input from all interested parties, including organizations that have expressed interest in the study to date, regarding the study process, public involvement options, and the documents that are produced in Phases I and II 2 f of Pltri tIll 01 rir21 .‘,...i tf.i.d. 71e. % mi:_i:_1:4 I fillip, . ' ; ir:Pl Mr Of 614.1- 4WD 44/1014-• • �DtSOH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 10th Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85 701 Tucson,Arizona 85726-7210 Reclamation management staff to provide a quick assessment of our water future and a common place to begin more substantiti-e policy discussions in a regional forum. During this phase, we expect Tucson Water and Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation staff to advance City and County cooperative efforts by taking four steps to significantly improve communication and coordination in implementing future regional water policy: 1. Improve communication and coordination between Tucson Water and Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation staff by establishing more direct communication•, including a periodic, executive, on-loan exchange program for management staff of each organization. 2. Cooperatively pursue and develop a joint constructed recharge project for City and County effluent being discharged to the Santa Cruz River. Such a constructed recharge program would accrue significant additional recharge credits for both the City and County that are presently being lost due to the discharge of effluent to the Santa Cruz River being classified as "managed recharge." 3. Finalize the Conservation Effluent Pool and Intergovernmental Agreement amendments to respect, foster and encourage the preservation as well as restoration of riparian-dependent ecosystems, and to establish the principle that water providers have access to effluent, subject to deduction for the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act and the Conservation Effluent Pool. The City and County should finalize the Conservation Effluent Pool and Interggovernrental Agreement amendments, which are near final approval by both the City and County. 4. Finalize the location of wastewater reclamation facilities in the Southeast Area.. A new upgradient, subregional wastewater reclamation facility has not been constructed in nearly 30 years, even though such a facility was contemplated in the 1979 Sewer Merger Agreement. The final siting of this facility needs to occur as part of the City's Southeast Area planning. Each of these action items can, with some effort, be accomplished by the City and County. Their accomplishment would move forward, to a large extent; the goals of cooperative water and water reclamation planning, water supply enhancement, and the provision of reclaimed water to conserve groundwater and promote environmental enhancement. More than anything else, accomplishment of this first phase of water action items would demonstrate what the City and County can do in working together. 4 1.1-11W,.,. CITY of ck: Vol `.,: '•it t.'+,;. moi" rUCSOH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 101' Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85701 Tucson,Arizona 85726-7210 Expected Outcomes (1) A completed inventory and analysis of the condition and capacity of water, wastewater and reclaimed water infrastructure, and the ability of the infrastructure to accommodate existing and future population. (2) An estimate of the current and future population that can be sustained with known municipal water supplies based on no significant change in conservation or additional supply. (3) Improved communication, coordination and cooperation between Tucson Water and the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department. Expected Time Line— December 2008 report to the Board and the Mayor and Council Phase II — Policy & Values The joint City and County water planning effort should establish a common set of water resource development and conservation goals. Among these goals should be: A. Agreement on Population Growth. Water. Urban Form. Land Use Planning and Infrastructure - The City and County ee to come to common agreement on the location of our future population g.row1h increment to 2050. Urban form, water an. inrastructure planning will directly influence where this future population growth increment will occur. Locating this future population should be done in a manner so as not to disavantage or adversely- imp ac exis Ing rest en s. : 'ew growth must be located where it is beneficial to the environment. economy, and conservation of our resources. Large-scale infrastructure systems will be necessary to support the growth centers and integrate with the existing urban infrastructure systems that are in place. Most importantly, long-term future water supply cannot occur at the expense of our existing residents or the environment. B. Land Use Planning must be Integrated with Water Resources and Infrastructure for each .Jurisdiction - A 2007 report by the University of Montana notes that land use decisions are made by local jurisdictions, while water is allocated by state agencies. The failure to connect land 1.-7 —a"--an water planning has contributed to the lack of infrastructure and other water problems we see today. C. Increase the Use of Reclaimed or Recycled Water on Turf I.rri pati on to Substitute for Groundwater Use - One of the constraints to increased use of reclaimed water is the lack of infrastructure to serve high-demand turf uses and replace reliance on groundwater. The 5 (ITT of 144Z , z C,Ait !# (.1--17,i 'Vita �2tio A _ MOH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 10'x'Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 financial and institutionalconstraints for building reclaimed water infrastructure must be explored and addressed to maximize the use of this renewable source of water. D. Develop Renewable Water Sources for the City/County Area— LJse regional collaboration efforts to acquire new, renewable water supplies, such as long-term CAP leases. E. Develop a Consolidated Drought Management Plan. F. Implement Consistent Water Conservation Standards- Adopt consistent water conservation ordinances. Water conservation must be viewed as protecting a future water supply, not simply making more population growth possible. G. Respect for the Environment - While water is the key for continued economic expansion, it is also the key for a vibrant and healthy environment. There must be an appropriate and proper balance between the reservation of water for consumption and growth, and the acknowledgment that our environment is also a consumer of water resources, and certain water reservations for the environment must be made and sustained. Acknowledgment of this goal must be stated in words and translated into action through common environmental standards and goals for reclaimed water use, along with the prohibition of groundwater wells in areas near groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Expected Outcome— City and County agreement on a number of policy issues related to water service for future urban growth, a uniform standard for assessing land use decisions on water supply and water infrastructure, consensus regarding improved and increased use of reclaimed or recycled water, determination of the role of conservation and its uniform application to help sustain long-tern water supplies, and a recognition that water not only serves community, but is needed for a healthy environment. Expected Time Line - July 2009 report 10 the Board and.the Mayor and Council Phase III — Assessing Infrastructure and Resources for the Metropolitan Area We would ro ose that Phase III engage the entire greater Metropolitan area in an expanded infrastructure and resource review, based on P ase I. and using the resources and staff of the res ect1�c re�lona entities. This Memorandum does not include the same level of detail for Phases IIl through V; because the progress of these phases are less dependent on joint City/Cooperation and will necessarily require more input from a broader range of stakeholders, including development of the process, oversight, and respective time lines. 6 �F PI CITY"D I ; C241 ^ tr TUCSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 10`h Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 Phase IV - Development of Regional Policies and Values Just as Phase I.11 mimics Phase I, so too will Phase IV mimic Phase II. It is this phase of the regional water analysis that will require extensive and diverse community support. Each jurisdiction, each water provider, and each interest `roup, whether it be neighborhood, environment, or business, must participate in setting and establishing regional water policy goals t iat will lead to a stable, sustaina sle water future for the Tucson region. water ture Zat places value not o y on meeting the water needs of existing and future populations, but also of our unique and water-related Sonoran Desert environment. Phase V — Defining and Developing a Sustainable Water Future and a Livable Region Following the concurrence on a number of regional water policies by the community in Phase IV, and a common understanding of the region's resources, it would then be appropriate to develop a strategy for creating a sustainable water future for the region. Such a future would consider scenarios including long range thinking on drought, disaster, and effluent. There has been some drought and disaster p arming p owned by the various entities and/or jurisdictions who provide water services, or who have public health and welfare obligations. Traditional drought plans have dealt with only modest and temporary shortages and the consequences of such in their planning processes. No extreme or catastrophic conditions have been introduced into regional water supply planning. As a result, the region has not been forced to think outside the box regarding water resources and/or water supplies. A number of scenarios require consideration, such as: A. If the Arizona Central Project canal aqueduct were out of service for one to three years, what would he the impact on the region's water supply capability? B. Experts from San Diego's Institute of Oceanography indicated that the lamest storage reservoir in the west. Lake Mead could run dry by 2021. If that were to happen, what would be the water supply options for this region, and what would be the impacts of same on the region? C. We Need to think differently about sewage. Wastewater treatment technology has evolved significantly in the last 30 years. Then we considered treated sewage a waste product to he disposed of by discharging into the Santa Cruz River. Today, a larger percentage of treated wastewater is becoming reclaimed water for turf irrigation as a groundwater substitute, but still only a small portion of the total available treated wastewater is used for this purpose. 7 XITY Of 02 0- I d (Fat TUCSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 130 West Congress, 10th Floor P.O. Box 27210 Tucson,Arizona 85701 Tucson,Arizona 85726-7210 The community must begin to think much differently about treated wastewater and its value as a recycled water source, and as a key component of our future supply. D. Can the longstanding legally constructed silos of water allocations for municipal, agricultural and industrial/mines withstand a water supply catastrophe? 8 t• Tucson Regional Water Planning Perspectives Study Sharon B. Megdal,Ph.D.,Director Aaron Lien,Research Assistant Water Resources Research Center(WRRC) The University of Arizona www.cals.arizona.edu/azwater/ May 16,2008 Funded by TRIF Water Sustainability Program through the WRRC Table of Contents Executive Summary I. Introduction 1 II. Methodology 1 III. Results of Interviews 2 1. Goals for a regional process 2 2. Topics for discussion: what's on the table and what's off 5 3. People in the process:who should be involved and who should lead 7 4. Roles for supra-regional entities: ADWR(Arizona Department of Water Resources)and CAWCD (Central Arizona Water Conservation District) 9 5. Region of focus: extent and boundaries 9 6. Basic assumptions for the process: where to start 10 7. Public involvement: incorporating stakeholder/public comment 12 8. Expected outcomes: a regional water authority or other outputs 14 9. Concerns about engaging in a regional process 16 10. Comments not captured elsewhere 18 IV. Concluding Observations 19 Figure 1: The Tucson Active Management Area 20 Appendix 1: Interview Questions 21 Executive Summary The intent of this report is to provide the Tucson region with an indication of the perspectives, including the hopes and concerns, of a representative sample of stakeholders about regional water planning. Forty-three interviews were conducted during March and early April 2008. While this study surely does not capture all of the opinions about regional water planning that exist in the diverse Tucson region, it does provide a starting point for understanding areas of agreement and differences among stakeholders. All participants in the study were asked a common set of questions. Participants were categorized into six groups: elected officials; local jurisdiction managers;water managers; business stakeholders; environmental stakeholders; and miscellaneous stakeholders. The questions were open ended and assumed that some sort of regional process would occur,but did not further define the process. Questions fell into four general categories: goals and outcomes; participation, public involvement, and structure; assumptions and the region of focus; and concerns about engaging in a regional process. The following themes were evident in responses across stakeholder groups: • Stakeholders from each category favored the creation of some sort of long-range regional plan based on a common set of facts. • Most stakeholders think everything should be on the table at the start of a regional process. • Everyone who has an interest in participating in the regional process should be given the opportunity to do so. • There was near unanimous agreement that the Tucson AMA (pictured in Figure 1 at the end of the report) should be the region of focus for regional planning. • The majority of respondents did not favor the formation of a regional authority at this time. Overall, the responses universally reveal a sincere desire to cooperate on regional water planning. For an area that has had historical difficulties in regional collaboration on water matters, this is an encouraging finding. All players are not yet on the same page regarding the approach to regional planning, but they appear to be interested in getting on the same page. While respondents may have been guarded in their responses, they seem open to a long-term undertaking. Water concerns have been heightened by the debate surrounding the November 2007 ballot proposition,the long-term drought, uncertainty associated with climate change, and our region's continued growth. Perhaps the stakes are finally high enough to warrant serious and broad efforts to collaborate on water resource planning. Planning Perspectives Study Page i I. Introduction Interest in regional water planning in Tucson and surrounding communities has been increasing. Nearly all segments of the Tucson community—from governments to citizens to private water companies—have begun to call for a more comprehensive approach to long-range water planning. Gaining understanding of similarities, as well as differences, in what different segments of the community would like to see emerge from a regional water resource planning process led the authors to undertake this study. The study is funded by The University of Arizona Technology Research Initiative Fund (TRS) through the Water Resources Research Center. The study concept was developed prior to the joint regional process initiated by the City of Tucson and Pima County in February 2008 and is independent of that effort. Through a series of 43 interviews, the perspectives of a wide array of stakeholders have been solicited. A synthesis of these perspectives is presented in this report. The report is largely organized by interview question. For each question, basic trends across stakeholder groups are identified and summary responses from each of six stakeholder categories are provided. While responses are synthesized to protect the identity of the participants, effort was made to fully report and preserve the integrity of each participant's opinions. The intent of this report is to provide the Tucson region with an indication of the perspectives, including the hopes and concerns, of a representative sample of stakeholders about regional water planning. Most responses, even those heard from only one or two, are represented in this synthesis report. While this study surely does not capture all of the opinions about regional water planning that exist in the diverse Tucson region, it does provide a starting point for understanding areas of agreement and differences among stakeholders. The final section of this report offers concluding observations. H. Methodology Interviews were conducted during March and early April 2008. Interview requests were sent to 49 individuals in their capacity as representatives of organizations or constituencies. In six cases, the request was declined, no response was received, or scheduling an interview was not possible. Two interviews were scheduled in response to a request or suggestion. Forty-three interviews were conducted with a total of 47 stakeholders. A limited number of interviews included more than one participant. In these cases, the responses to interview questions were recorded as if from a single respondent to ensure disproportionate weight was not given to a particular point of view. Participants are generally classified into six categories: • Elected Officials (14) • Local Jurisdiction Managers (6) • Water Managers (9) • Business Stakeholders (5) • Environmental Stakeholders (7) • Miscellaneous Stakeholders (6) All participants were provided with an identical project description and list of questions prior to the interview. The questions were designed to generate discussion. Interviewees were advised that the report would not attribute statements to particular individuals. Interviews were generally Planning Perspectives Study Page 1 conducted in the presence of both report authors. Most were conducted in person and lasted approximately 30 minutes. The interview questions are provided in Appendix 1. In an effort to ensure the candor of responses, interviewees were told their identities would remain confidential. In accord with the methodology shared at the outset with interviewees, every effort to report responses without identifying the respondent was made. A draft report was distributed to those interviewed. Interviewees were given the opportunity to review the draft and offer feedback. Comments clarifying perspectives or correcting omissions noted by the participants were addressed. Every effort was made to provide equal time and consideration to each interviewee's comments. III. Results of the Interviews This section provides the synthesis of interview responses. The results are reported under topical groupings and, as closely as possible, conform to the question numbers. In some cases, comments received from more than one question are combined. 1. Goals for a regional process To begin each interview, an open-ended, general question was asked of each participant: What should be the goals for a regional process? While the question assumes that there will be some kind of regional process, it does not define what the process will be or the primary subject of the process. By leaving the question open ended, participants were given the opportunity to define for themselves the topics and goals covered by a regional process. As a result, answers to this question ranged from developing a plan and institutional structure to acquire new water supplies for the region, to developing a long-term water allocation plan for the region, to simply improving regional cooperation. Stakeholders from each category favored the creation of some sort of long-range regional plan based on a common set of facts. Suggestions for the focus of such a plan ranged widely, however, and included: joint consideration of planned growth and water supplies available to the region; a determination of current and projected water supplies on a regional basis; an inventory of existing and planned infrastructure; and drought planning. A second goal focused on water supplies. Water managers were nearly unanimous that a regional augmentation organization should be formed to actively seek-out and bring more water to the region, whereas environmental stakeholders focused on the Active Management Area's safe- yield goal and achieving it through allocation of the region's "wet" supplies. A final, common goal to all stakeholder groups is education. Most stakeholders saw education, both of the participants in the process and of the general public, as critical to the success of a regional process. Water Managers Water managers are the only sector where there was general agreement on a specific goal for a regional process—augmentation of existing water supplies. Most of the water managers interviewed favored a goal of developing an institutional structure for the acquisition of new water supplies for the region. This proposed entity would function as a wholesale water supplier for the region, but would not have any authority to directly deliver water to customers. Individual water providers and their retail systems would remain explicitly independent of the regional water supply entity. Through the regional process the specific goals of the entity would be defined and the governance structure developed, including a system for allocating new Planning Perspectives Study Page 2 supplies to municipal water providers. Most felt that participation should be optional. The manner in which electrical cooperatives operate was suggested by one water manager as a possible model for a water supply cooperative. In addition to the formation of a regional augmentation authority or cooperative, water managers favored the following goals in priority order: • Management of the water supply to maximize sustainability, including the adoption of common conservation standards across the region; • The development of a regional water plan. Such a plan may include:joint consideration of planned growth and water supplies available to the region, a determination of current and projected water supplies on a regional basis, an inventory of existing and planned infrastructure, and drought planning; • Education of participants and the public as a whole; and • Communication, collaboration, and information sharing. Environmental Stakeholders Goals suggested by environmental stakeholder fall into three complementary theme areas: • Equitable distribution of water across sectors, including the environment and natural habitat; • Addressing growth and its relationship to water; and • Achieving the statutory water management goals for the Tucson Active Management Area(AMA). Each of these goals relates to how the region uses available water supplies as it continues to grow. The desire for equitable distribution of water reflects the interrelationships of uses and sources of water. Distribution of water is directly related to achieving the goal of the AMA in all parts of the AMA. The goal of the Tucson AMA is safe-yield by 2025. Legally, the goal is achieved when the basin as a whole is in safe-yield, regardless of what is happening in specific parts of the AMA. Environmental stakeholders believe equitable distribution of water is needed to ensure both the Tucson AMA as a whole and the individual sub-areas within the AMA reach safe-yield. Growth is also related to this concept. Several people thought the region first needs to decide how and where we want to grow, and then, based on this vision, deal with issues of water allocation to support future growth. During this process, more growth may be directed to some communities than others; interviewees felt communities' future water allocations should be balanced to meet projected growth rather than on historical allocations. Environmental stakeholders consider education an important step in achieving these goals. One environmental stakeholder thought before the goals of the process are defined, it must first be clear exactly what problem or problems a regional process is directed at solving. The need for a regional planning effort should not be assumed—stakeholders should first collaboratively evaluate the need for regional planning and then identify goals for the process. Planning Perspectives Study Page 3 Business Stakeholders Most responses from business stakeholders relate to the development of a long-term water strategy and ensuring long-term supplies for the region. Both of these issues are grounded in the need for certainty for continued economic development. A long-term water strategy is a broad goal focused on water planning for the region. A water strategy, much like water ers manag ' goal of a regional water plan, will address issues like the long-term sustainability of water supplies, current and projected water demands and supplies, existing and planned infrastructure, distribution of growth, and development of new water supplies across the region. Finally, business stakeholders believe a goal of any process should be transparency. An open process that includes education is needed to ensure community confidence in the result. Local Jurisdiction Managers Local jurisdiction managers responses fall into three categories: enhancing regional cooperation on water issues; ensuring there is enough water for the region and augmenting current supplies; and strengthening governance. Through enhanced regional cooperation, local jurisdiction managers would like to decrease competition between jurisdictions for common resources. Jurisdictions can more effectively plan for the region's future—both in terms of water and growth—by working together to develop consistent growth plans. Like other stakeholder categories, local jurisdiction managers felt the region needs to develop approaches to augment current supplies. This process is aided by cooperation. Finally, one manager thought local jurisdictions needed to have more control over the governance of private water companies. Elected Officials Elected officials are generally very consistent in what they thought the goals of a regional process should be. The goals they suggest are also consistent with those offered by the other stakeholder categories. The most commonly expressed goal is collaboration between and among jurisdictions, water utilities, and stakeholder and citizen groups and consensus on the results of the process. As a prerequisite to achieving this goal, several officials identified public education; establishment of a common fact base for ongoing cooperation; and maintaining a process that is open to all interested parties, including the public. Each of these prerequisites can be seen as a necessary step for achieving the second major goal put forward by elected officials: the development of a regional water plan. Such a plan—as was also suggested by water managers and business stakeholders—could incorporate the other goals commonly suggested by elected officials: achieving sustainability of water supplies and developing new water supplies for the region. Another important component of a regional plan is the development of infrastructure inventories and determination of future infrastructure needs. Miscellaneous Stakeholders This group, because of the lack of consistency in institutional perspective across the participants, yielded the greatest diversity in suggested goals for a regional process. Responses ranged from general to very specific: • Cooperation and agreement on a accepted set of facts; • Improved water management; Planning Perspectives Study Page 4 • Determination of an agreed upon population carrying capacity for the region; • Education of participants and the public; • A single, regional water rate; and • Development of new water supplies for the region. 2. Topics for discussion: what's on the table and what's off Participants were asked to comment on any issues that either specifically need to be addressed or specifically should be left off the table. Although some felt strongly that certain items must be kept off the table,the most common response to this question was that everything should be on the table. The majority of respondents in nearly all categories felt that in order to have a meaningful and successful process, everyone will need to come into it with an open mind. Starting out by placing things off limits will only make people defensive or suspicious of the process. The result of taking things off the table may be that some stakeholders are reluctant to participate, resulting in a loss of faith in the process by the larger community and/or an ineffective process because essential issues are off the table. Responses by category are summarized below. In most cases responses are listed in bullet form. However, additional explanation is provided on points respondents thought were especially important. Water Managers Not surprisingly, water managers provided a great deal of detail about what should beboth on and off the table. There were strong opinions from several water managers that anything interfering with the retail operations of water utilities should be off the table. For example, they feel a regional water authority that takes over retail water operations from all regional water utilities is unacceptable and that it should be understood from the beginning that this result is not aP ossible outcome of the process. The reason for taking retail operations off the table was not simply protectionism. Water managers felt that consolidating utilities would reduce accountability. Utilities that are based largely on current political boundaries and governed by city/town councils are clearly accountable to a specific constituency. A large regional authority ty may be less accessible. There was also concern that loss of control over water decision making could compromise the self-determination of cities and towns in the region. One water manager went as far as to say any form of regional governance should be off the table. The effort instead should focus on cooperation first and only consider a regional authority if it becomes clear that one is needed as a result of the cooperative process. A number of issues were called out by water managers as things that should be specifically addressed by the process: • Development of a regional process that ensures equitable participation for all; • Approaches to financing regional efforts resulting from the process; • Identification and acquisition of new water supplies; and • Voluntary sharing of water supplies between utilities in the region. Environmental Stakeholders The majority felt everything should be on the table. The following specific issues were called out for special attention: Planning Perspectives Study Page 5 • The population carrying capacity of existing water supplies; • Providing water to meet environmental and natural habitat needs as well as human needs; • The quality of potable water and treatment of water for contaminants of emerging concern; • Changes to state law to ensure the region can meet its goals; and • The potential of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to serve as a regional water supply augmentation authority. • One respondent thought a regional authority should be off the table. Business Stakeholders The majority felt everything should be on the table, but with caveats. • The use of water to restrict growth should be off the table. • Only supply side issues should be on the table, while retail operations should be left as they are. • Revisiting the Intergovernmental Agreement between Tucson and Pima County governing the allocation of treated wastewater(effluent) should be explicitly addressed. Local Jurisdiction Managers The majority felt everything should be on the table, provided the focus is on water planning. Several managers were not supportive of a process that would interfere with local authority over land use decision making. The following specific issues were called out for special attention: • Start by considering the growth plans of individual jurisdictions and use those plans to define what the region's needs are and what needs to be accomplished through the regional process; • Development of common conservation standards for the region; and • Identification of water to augment the regional supply. • One stakeholder felt retail water operations should be off the table. Elected Officials The majority felt everything should be on the table, although some thought change to oversight of retail water distribution systems should not be a priority consideration of the regional process. The following specific issues were called out for special attention: • Consideration of the use of rainwater and wastewater as a means of augmenting supplies. A few elected officials thought the process should be restricted by not considering the following: • The formation of a regional authority; and • The use of reclaimed water for potable supply. Planning Perspectives Study Page 6 Miscellaneous Stakeholders The majority felt everything should be on the table. The following specific issues were called out for special attention: • Education of participants in the process and the public-at-large. A minority thought that, at least initially, institutional structures and the formation of a regional authority should be off of the table. 3. People in the process: who should be involved and who should lead There was universal agreement from interviewed stakeholders that public comment will be critical to any regional process. Most participants acknowledged the complex and contentious nature of any discussion about water in the Tucson region and felt that success of a regional process was contingent on active involvement of all stakeholders. Opinions on the need for stakeholder and public comment were elicited in response to two survey questions, one asking who should be directly involved in the process and the other specifically addressing the incorporation of public comment. These questions yielded similar responses, though responses to the former were at a more general level, while responses to the latter were more specific. Nearly all of the respondents indicated that everyone who has an interest in participating in the regional process should be given the opportunity to do so. Many felt in order to ensure the legitimacy of the process, all opinions and interests must be engaged throughout the process. Stakeholder groups identified include water utilities, both public and private(though at least one respondent feltpublic utilities should be explicitly excluded from the process in favor of P p participation by citizens served by the public utility); municipal and county government; the business community; the environmental and conservation community; citizen groups; and neighborhood organizations. Many respondents emphasized the importance of inviting the participation of the Indian Nations located within the region. Virtually all participants acknowledged that providing the opportunity for public participation has to be part of the regional water planning process; however, opinions about scope and timing differed. Some felt that public participation should be limited through the initial stages of the process or, in some cases, throughout the entire process. Those adopting this view tend to focus on the technical aspects of regional water planning. For them, regional water planning should be focused at the utility level with participation by water managers from public and private water utilities and governments operating public utilities. Others felt that the technical process should proceed in parallel with a separate public participation process, with the two efforts being integrated after progress has been achieved by both working groups. Specific comments from each stakeholder group are provided below. Responses are reported in order of frequency_ Water Managers • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. Planning Perspectives Study Page 7 • The process should begin with water utilities and jurisdictions working together to establish trust and cooperation. A larger stakeholder process could function in parallel or be added after utilities and jurisdictions have made progress on cooperation and collaboration. Environmental Stakeholders • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. Business Stakeholders • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. • Elected officials should represent the public instead for trying to include all interest groups. Local Jurisdiction Managers • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. • The process should include water utilities and jurisdictions. The public will be represented through a separate process like public meetings,town halls, etc. • The approach of the current city/county infrastructure study is sound and a similar effort should be pursued by other jurisdictions as a first step. It will be important to have everyone at the table with an accurate base of facts from which to work. Elected Officials • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. • The process should include water utilities and jurisdictions. The public will be represented through a separate process like public meetings, town halls, etc. • All parties should be involved, but Tucson and Pima County must retain control of any regional process. Ultimately, decisions must be made by elected officials and the water utilities. • There is a need to ensure that "change agents" and people with technical expertise are involved. Miscellaneous Stakeholders • All interested stakeholders should be included in the process, including water managers, jurisdictional representatives, and representatives of stakeholder and interest groups from the community-at-large. Planning Perspectives Study Page 8 • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. Regarding leadership of the regional planning process, only a few specific suggestions were provided. Several mentioned the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) as an entity with a logical leadership role to play. Because the interviews were being conducted at the same time that communities were becoming familiar with the joint City of Tucson-Pima County study, some answered the leadership question in the context of the development of the Tucson-Pima County study. Many thought PAG has a leadership role to play, particularly with the smaller member jurisdictions but perhaps more broadly than that. However, in most cases, stakeholders suggesting PAG did not think it was the optimal organization to lead the overall process. Several commented explicitly that regional water planning differs considerably from regional transportation planning, which PAG,through the Regional Transportation Authority, leads. One noted difference is the involvement of the private sector in water provision. Other suggestions for sources of leadership include: the Arizona Department of Water Resources;the University of Arizona; allowing a leader to emerge for the process; seeking a leader from outside the state or region to avoid problems with bias; or rotating leadership among stakeholders at regular intervals. In general, there was a strong feeling from all stakeholder groups that an independent facilitator will be needed to guide the process. While this person may not be considered the"leader" per se, his/her primary role will be to ensure the process, whatever it may be, proceeds in an orderly fashion and makes regular, demonstrable progress. Most interviewees felt the facilitator should not be a water expert, but rather a neutral third party to avoid any perception of bias. 4. Roles for supra-regional entities: ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources) and CAWCD (Central Arizona Water Conservation District) Entities such as the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District operate both within and beyond the Tucson region. While the policies of these and other entities such as the State Land Department certainly have an impact on the region, they do not have the same role in the community as Tucson Water and other water providers, elected officials serving jurisdictions in the region, or citizens of the region. It is clear, because of their regulatory and policy influence, that they will play some role in regional planning in the Tucson region. Stakeholders from all categories strongly favored using entities such as ADWR and CAWCD as resources for information on existing policy, laws and water use and availability. The United States Geological Survey and the University of Arizona are also potential resources for scientific information. A minority of stakeholders felt ADWR should be an active participant in the process. However, the overall trend was support for a process guided by local regional players, with others providing information as needed. 5. Region of focus: extent and boundaries There was near unanimous agreement that the Tucson AMA (pictured in Figure J at the end of the report) should be the region of focus for regional planning. Participants in the process should be drawn from within this region. While the Tucson AMA provides a convenient regional basis for water planning because of the availability of water resource data for the AMA, it also may complicate the effort. The Tucson AMA includes the southern portion of Pinal County and rural Planning Perspectives Study Page 9 areas of Pima County that are not part of what is typically considered the Tucson metropolitan area. This issue was acknowledged by a number of participants, but they reiterated their support for the AMA, as the basis for regional planning. A small number of interviewees felt the area of focus should be somewhat smaller and focused only on the Tucson metropolitan region. This area excludes the Pinal County portion of the AMA and the rural western parts of the AMA. One participant favored a much larger planning area encompassing the entire three-county Central Arizona Water Conservation District service area. 6. Basic assumptions for the process: where to start Answers to the question about what assumptions should inform the process can be clustered into three groups. Clusters are listed in order of frequency of response: • Basic information on population, water use, infrastructure, growth plans and projections, etc. needs to be compiled and used to develop scenarios of future conditions and enable planning based on these scenarios. • Assumptions and decisions about what information is needed should be generated by participants in the project. • All utilities should develop infrastructure data and information consistent with the current city/county water planning process to provide a common baseline of data as the basis for ongoing cooperation. While these three clusters generally capture the tenor of responses, specific opinions and priorities varied across stakeholder category. Responses are summarized below by stakeholder category. They are organized according to frequency of response. Water Managers • Assumptions and decisions about what information is needed going into the process and what should be generated by participants. • All utilities should develop infrastructure data and information consistent with the current city/county water planning process to provide a common baseline of data as the basis for ongoing cooperation. • The Arizona Department of Water Resources should be used as a source of data on water use, groundwater supplies, etc. • Collected data should be used to formulate scenarios to help conceptualize future conditions and the impacts of different planning decisions. Environmental Stakeholders • Planning should proceed with the assumption that the environment and natural habitat are a water user and must be allocated a portion of the regional water supply. • Scenarios should be developed based on the limitation imposed by water supplies, not desired future growth. • State Land Department must be involved and forthright about what its plans are for the use of its Central Arizona Project allocation. Planning Perspectives Study Page 10 • The process should begin by defining the shared values of the participants. These values can then inform the process as it develops. • All data underlying assumptions should be subject to peer review by objective experts from outside the community. Business Stakeholders • Basic information-on population, Water use, infrastructure, growth plans and projections, etc. needs to be compiled and used to develop scenarios of future conditions and enable planning based on these scenarios. • The process should begin by developing an agreed-upon vision of what the region wants to be in the future. Planning can then focus on what is needed to achieve the regional vision. Local Jurisdiction Managers • Basic information on population, water use, infrastructure, growth plans and projections, etc. needs to be compiled and used to develop scenarios of future conditions and enable planning based on these scenarios. • Infrastructure plans and comprehensive plans for each jurisdiction should be the basis for the process. These plans contain information on which jurisdictions plan to grow and where they plan to grow, enabling discussions about water supplies. Elected Officials • Basic information on population, water use, infrastructure, growth plans and projections, etc. needs to be compiled and used to develop scenarios of future conditions and enable planning based on these scenarios. • Education of all participants and the general public will be required to inform the process. • Cost of service projections will be needed. • Scenarios should be developed based on the limitation imposed by water supplies, not desired future growth. • The overall goal of the process is sustainability. Miscellaneous Stakeholders • Basic information on population, water use, infrastructure, growth plans and projections, etc. needs to be compiled and used to develop scenarios of future conditions and enable planning based on these scenarios. • Assumptions and decisions about what information is needed should be generated by participants in the project. • Scenarios should be developed based on the limitation imposed by water supplies, not desired future growth. • Primary assumption is that the region needs to augment existing water supplies. Planning Perspectives Study Page 11 a ; 7. Public involvement: incorporating stakeholder/public comment Interviewees felt that effectively incorporating public comment into a regional water planning process is a significant challenge. Some participants were unsure of what approach to take but offered suggestions, while a few stated simply that public comment is critical to the process but did not offer specifics regarding how to incorporate comment into the process. When the comments are taken as a whole, however, three preferred models for public participation emerge: the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP): the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA); and traditional town halls, public meetings. and public comment periods. Many stakeholders suggested the SDCP and RTA processes without a strong preference for either approach, seeing benefits and drawbacks to each, while others preferred one to the other. There was no strong majority of opinion favoring one process over the other within any of the stakeholder groups. The SDCP process is admired for its inclusiveness; at the beginning of the development of the plan, all citizens were invited to participate. Ultimately, over 80 stakeholders participated in the process that led to the development of the plan. The RTA process limits the committee size to a fixed number of individuals representing different groups, while also providing other opportunities for public comment, thereby reducing potential problems with managing a very large steering committee. Several people suggested that the approach taken with regional water planning should ultimately be something in between the RTA and SDCP processes. Such a model would limit participation on a steering committee, but be informed by any number of technical committees and stakeholder committees with broader participation. This hybrid allows participation from all stakeholders while keeping the number of participants on the steering committee to a manageable size. Those suggesting a more traditional, town hall style public comment process typically saw it operating as an input to the regional planning effort, not as the structure of the effort itself as is the case with those favoring the RTA or SDCP models. About an equal number of interview participants preferred this approach as preferred the RTA or SDCP models. Those favoring this approach emphasized the importance of frequent opportunities for comment in forums that are accessible to the general public both in terms of location and time of day. Town halls and public meetings should not be held during regular working hours on week days. There should also be opportunities for written public comment. Potential forums for public comment range from neighborhood meetings to regional town halls. One interviewee offered the Grant Road visioning process as a model. Regardless of the public participation model preferred by a given interviewee, the one common thread through virtually all of the comments is the importance education will play in any regional planning effort. Water policy is complex; many participants saw this complexity as the primary impediment to effective public participation. Nearly all of the interviewees saw education of the public-at-large, as well as participants in the process, as critical to the success of a regional effort. Specific comments from each stakeholder group are provided below. Responses are reported in order of frequency. Planning Perspectives Study Page 12 Water Managers • A process must be developed that gives all members of the community the opportunity to contribute to the outcome. • The RTA should be used as a model. There should be a small group of stakeholders with membership representing the wider community. Members of the committee would report back to and receive comment from the segments of the public they represent on a regular basis. • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • The approach of the current city/county infrastructure study is sound and should be pursued by other jurisdictions as a first step. It will be important to have everyone at the table with an accurate base of facts to work from. Environmental Stakeholders • The SDCP should be considered as a model stakeholder process for this effort. • There must be ample opportunity throughout the process for comment from the public-at- large. Traditional methods such as town halls, neighborhood meetings, and council meetings should be used. Nontraditional, grassroots efforts will be needed to reach citizens who normally do not become involved. All meetings related to the regional process must be public, open, and held at accessible locations and times. • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • The approach of the current city/county infrastructure study is sound and should be pursued by other jurisdictions as a first step. It will be important to have everyone at the table with an accurate base of facts to work from. Business Stakeholders • The RTA and SDCP should be looked to as models for the stakeholder process. The eventual process used for regional water planning may be something between the RTA and SDCP. • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • There must be ample opportunity throughout the process for comment from the public-at- large. Traditional methods such as town halls, neighborhood meetings, and council meetings should be used. All meetings related to the regional process must be public, open, and held at accessible locations and times. • Separate technical groups working in parallel with the stakeholder process will be necessary because of the complex nature of water issues. • The results of all existing public outreach efforts related to water should be consolidated into a single report and made available to the public. Local Jurisdiction Managers • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • There must be ample opportunity throughout the process for comment from the public-at- large. Traditional methods such as town halls, neighborhood meetings, and council meetings should be used. All meetings related to theregional process must be public, open, and held at accessible locations and times. Planning Perspectives Study Page 13 • The SDCP should be considered as a model stakeholder process for this effort. • The RTA should be considered as a model stakeholder process for this effort. Elected Officials • The RTA and SDCP should be looked to as models for the stakeholder process. The eventual process used for regional water planning may be something between the RTA and SDCP. • There must be ample opportunity throughout the process for comment from theP ublic-at- large. Traditional methods such as town halls, neighborhood meetings, and council meetings should be used. Nontraditional, grassroots efforts will be needed to reach citizens who normally do not become involved. All meetings related to the regional process must be public, open, and held at accessible locations and times. • Stakeholders should be divided into working groups based on interests and expertise. This will create smaller working groups so more voices can be heard. • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • The SDCP should be considered as a model stakeholder process for this effort.* • The RTA should be considered as a model stakeholder process for this effort.* (*The SDCP and RTA are preferred by an equal number of respondents.) Miscellaneous Stakeholders • The RTA, SDCP, and other regional planning models should be considered to determine what stakeholder process is most effective. The eventual process used for regional water planning may be something between the RTA and SDCP. • Education will be important to enabling a meaningful process. • There must be ample opportunity throughout the process for comment from the public-at- large. Traditional methods such as town halls, neighborhood meetings, and council meetings should be used. Consider using the Grant Road stakeholder process as a model for public input. 8. Expected outcomes: a regional water authority or other outputs Stakeholders were asked two questions about the outcomes of the process, one general and one specific. The general question was open ended—what should be the outcomes of the process? The second question asked people specifically if they thought a regional water authority of some kind should be formed and, if so, what its structure and powers would be. The second question was asked for a number of reasons. First, both recently and in the past there has been discussion in the community about forming a regional water authority. The question sought to gauge whether there is support at this time for formation of a regional water authority and to learn people's thoughts regarding what the role, scope, governance, and powers of an authority would be. By asking people to define their vision of an authority, it becomes clear where there are differences and commonalities in viewpoints. The majority of respondents did not favor the formation of a regional authority at this time. However, most left the possibility of an authority on the table. Most stakeholders felt that the decision to form an authority is something that should result from the process. There should be no presumption that a regional authority is needed to achieve the goals developed by the Planning Perspectives Study Page 14 participatory process. However, if through the process the need for an authority becomes clear, most participants were comfortable with the exploring the concept. Water Managers The group that gave the strongest support for an authority was the water managers. Support for an authority may be a reflection of the goals they defined for the process—the development of new water supplies for the region. Such an effort would require an entity to serve as the acquisition agent; this entity could take the form of a regional authority. If formed, the authority would work only on the supply side,while participating municipal providers would retain control over their retail systems. Most water managers thought participation should be optional. A minority of the water managers interviewed felt it was premature to come out for or against a regional authority. Rather, they felt that the goals and priorities of the regional process need to be determined prior to deciding if a regional authority is needed. Environmental Stakeholders Responses from the environmental community were mixed, but generally did not support the formation of a regional authority. Opinions are clustered in four categories, each with roughly equal support from respondents: • The outcomes of the regional process should be decided by the participants in the process, there should not be a predetermined outcome, and the outcome should fit the needs of the community as determined by the process. • If a regional authority of some sort is required to accomplish regional goals as determined by a stakeholder process, it would be preferable that an existing entity play this role rather than creation of another layer of bureaucracy. Prior to the formation of an authority, efforts should be made to improve current institutions to meet the goals articulated by the regional process. • Concern that residents of the City of Tucson may lose out to the surrounding communities if a regional authority is formed and that the authority may be less accountable and accessible to the voters. • There is a need to plan regional growth patterns based on water allocations and availability, not the other way around. • If new water sources are proposed, before these sources are developed, they should be evaluated to determine the social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits associated with their development. Business Stakeholders Business stakeholders favored regional cooperation over a regional authority. They think cooperation between regional stakeholders in general and regional water providers specifically is needed to accomplish meaningful regional water planning. A regional authority was not rejected out of hand, however. Like other stakeholder categories, about half of the business stakeholders interviewed thought a regional authority should not be a predetermined outcome of a regional process, but would be acceptable if a need for one was determined as a result of the process. One stakeholder focused on the need for tangible results to maintain community confidence in its leaders,regardless of the outcome of the process. Planning Perspectives Study Page 15 Local Jurisdiction Managers Like other stakeholder groups, the majority of local jurisdiction managers felt a regional authority should not be a predetermined outcome of the process. A limited number thought a supply-side authority similar to what was proposed by water managers was an acceptable outcome, but most felt the process should be allowed to play out and determine its own outcomes. Other opinions expressed bya small number of participants about the outcomes P P p of the P process include: • An authorityis not needed because the same me results could be achieved through inter- governmental agreements • An authority should be formed only as a last resort. • A regional authority is a threat to local sovereignty and an unacceptable outcome. Elected Officials The elected officials interviewed were perhaps more divided than any other group. There were four clusters of responses, listed in order of most to least common: • The decision should emerge for the process. It is too early to determine if a regional authority is needed and currently unclear what problem an authority would solve. The community should be given the opportunity to decide what it wants. • A regional authority should not be formed. An authority raises questions about local sovereignty and accountability. Jurisdictions must be allowed to maintain control over their retail operations. Regional cooperation and priorities need to be established, but the method of implementation should be something other than a regional authority. • A regional authority should be established only as a last resort. The current trend seems to be moving in the direction of an authority, but more facts are needed before a decision can be made. A strategic plan for achieving the goals formulated by the regional process should be developed. The strategic plan will determine the method of implementation needed to achieve the stated goals. • An authority is needed on the supply side to take the lead for the region on augmentation of currently available potable supplies. One goal of such an authority would be to determine an equitable way to allocate new supplies. Miscellaneous Stakeholders Participants falling into the miscellaneous category followed the same trend as the other stakeholder groups: a regional authority should not be a predetermine outcome of the process. In addition, a minority of stakeholders felt that, if an authority is formed, it should only operate on the supply-side, as suggested by water managers. 9. Concerns about engaging in a regional process Stakeholders were asked if they had any concerns about engaging in a regional process. The question was left open ended; concerns could relate to the process itself, the outcomes or goals of the process, structure of the process, or anything else. Responses ranged widely, though there Planning Perspectives Study Page 16 were some general trends. There is concern from many about loss of autonomy at the jurisdictional level. This concern was expressed by at least one respondent in every category except business stakeholders. People were also concerned about political wrangling that could go along with the process, ranging from "backroom deals"to dominance of the process by particular interests or by big players such as Tucson Water. This concern was noted by stakeholders from every category. There were also a number of people (at least one from each category except business stakeholders)who had no concerns about the process. These people ' - feel regional planning is important and needs to be done regardless of the perceived risks. The final common concern was that the process will not result in much because stakeholders are not able to achieve real cooperation. If a meaningful outcome is not achieved, public trust may be lost. A summary of stakeholder concerns by category, listed in order of frequency is included below. Water Managers • The process will be dominated by political agendas. People will come into the process with inflexible pre-formulated outcomes in mind. • Decisions will be made by backroom deals instead of through the public process. Jurisdictions must be willing to come to the table and truly participate, even if it means giving something up. • Loss of autonomous control by local jurisdictions over existing water supplies and allocations. • No stated concerns • The public will not understand and become frustrated with the process. It is likely to take a very long time because of the complexity of water issues; the public needs to be made aware of this. Environmental Stakeholders • No stated concerns • Land use issues will not be incorporated into the process, allowing the region to continue to grow without reference to water supply concerns. • Lack of trust between stakeholders in the community will not be resolved and the process will be unsuccessful. • The process will be dominated by one jurisdiction or stakeholder group, specifically the City of Tucson and/or the growth industry. • Tucson residents will lose self-determination as a result of ceding control to a regional authority. Business Stakeholders • Politics will make cooperation difficult. Smaller entities will be marginalized and squeezed out of the process by the biggest players. Too many stakeholders will be focused on protecting their own turf at the expense of collaboration. • Public support for the process will wane because of its complexity and the amount of time required to achieve results. Education will be important. • Inability to control or influence the outcomes of the process. Planning Perspectives Study Page 17 Local Jurisdiction Managers • No stated concerns. • Lack of trust between stakeholders in the community will not be resolved and the process will be unsuccessful. • The process will require a large commitment of resources and yield little in the way of results. Participants need to be committed to implementing the outcomes. • • Loss of autonomous control over water supplies. s Elected Officials • No stated concerns • The process will be dominated by political agendas. People will come into the process with inflexible pre-formulated outcomes in mind. • The process will require a large commitment of resources and yield little in the way of results. Participants need to be committed to implementing the outcomes. • Jurisdictions will not be forthright in sharing information, compromising cooperation and collaboration. • It will be important to ensure the accountability of a regional authority to the voters, if one is created. A regional authority must be elected. • Loss of autonomous control by local jurisdictions over existing water supplies and allocations and growth. Miscellaneous Stakeholders • Public support for the process will wane because of its complexity and the amount of time required to achieve results. Need to ensure an open and accessible process that produces results at regular intervals. Education will be important. • The process will require a large commitment of resources and yield little in the way of results. Participants must make a commitment to devote the necessary resources to the process and implement the outcomes. • Loss of autonomous control by local jurisdictions over existing water supplies and allocations and growth. 10. Comments not captured elsewhere There were also a number of comments that do not fit into the clustered categories above. Interestingly, most of these outliers are actually statements of things that should be off the table. While most of these opinions were previously expressed when the question of what is on and off the table was specifically asked,they were reiterated by some as basic assumptions of the process. This serves to emphasize the strongly held opinions of some that certain issues should absolutely not be considered during a regional process. Responses include: • One local jurisdiction manager stated privatization of water in the hands of new, non- governmental entities should not be considered, though this opinion was not expressed in reference to issues on and off the table; and • Several elected officials stated that reallocation of existing water allocations and redistribution of infrastructure between jurisdictions or providers is off the table. Planning Perspectives Study Page 18 W. Concluding Observations This interview study was undertaken to gain insight into the perspectives of numerous Tucson area stakeholders regarding regional water planning. When conceptualizing the study, we did not know that our research would coincide with the beginning of an important joint study process by the City of Tucson and Pima County. It is only natural, however, that our interview results reflect perspectives shaped in part by the current Tucson-Pima County effort, as well as the Upper Santa Cruz Water Providers and Users Group water planning effort in the Sahuarita-Green Valley area. The responses universally reveal a sincere desire to cooperate in regional water planning. For an area that has had historical difficulties in regional collaboration on water matters, this is an encouraging finding. All players are not yet on the same page regarding the approach to regional planning, but they appear to be interested in getting on the same page. While respondents may have been guarded in their responses,they seem open to a long-term undertaking. Water concerns have been heightened by the debate surrounding the November 2007 ballot proposition, the long-term drought, uncertainty associated with climate change, and our region's continued growth. Perhaps the stakes are finally high enough to warrant serious and broad efforts to collaborate on water resource planning. It is clear from the responses that the region wants to go through a process that we will call "water self-determination." Like other areas in Arizona, the region is not depending on others to figure out its water future. Agencies, such as ADWR and CAWCD, are seen as providers of information and expertise regarding the framework for water management and water resources data, but they are not seen by most of the respondents as playing a significant role in regional decision making. People appear to be leaving the door open regarding options to pursue, and they also appear to recognize the long-term nature of this effort. Yet, the answers to the questions posed also suggest that the optimism associated with cooperation and collaboration could easily disappear should the good faith efforts underway fail to provide—to use the words of many of those interviewed —a transparent, regional and inclusive process. Planning Perspectives Study Page 19 1 • 9',N , M aA n• a g em e n t Area r e:EEEaActive Tucson 1:Figunagm ent Area \/ P1e7fsi : '' ;': at rt 21'W � v{n ��om�0{�a � {r �l �"` i_a�� ,SJE,sY ,, l -P, ' � xtE> ., � �-� �. o4a: x - m:ili-•';iiil!' ii,ii,'� .z Y1T�>syti ' s._.„-,.,,,,4,.,,,:,,,t_,,„:„,,,„..,, � . ✓ dS zi.'. y 7S , te._ . E`� oomeammilili„. �! p�a rte..YKN y( :yfr.4 ^ ;EEE --�.�> o4y: Mi :•litf'.1rtinottowittifs," � g ot�� EiE . ... : . .... h,„i..,„,..fi„,„„,i„,..:,:::,;_:. `�EEEEE E€ i:::.... ix - z• EEr� : -ri' .7N9 rs w' �3ii^ sEEEEE:'EsEEE;Yir'O fieC - .. . .. . ' E:'pr,;',:`A:Arli6.A.":"'",A11101,,N a. ff<. - limptilii!ii!Fil, > E. . ... ...... ili: : !!!!!!!!!-::!'1!"'"'!:::::.;;.,iiiiiiiiiIIIINilek: ii�.....:. sL _+ .,4,60:44-4w. 67yE = d 'iEEYi =ip<t o �.sii ....!D�L` s :Mt�• G"rrd , t . mTl €`E`:1t ,, ' +.•-7° t•,‘;k:': t' ws • i1E":EEEE _.. + � / f, r Eiii ik PY vz :':4, ..... i� O� .. . .f .4 `x , 4,'IY wrs . ......... .. .. ..7.w ar(. aM >41� - .� �..53 .. _ i:3::::::::. •>R''',:::,„41;,,,,,:.',4;',.:,..'";04.,k,.: . a< w i 441' •k : ^ . Ys emS Yi ,ea ..~ ...._..: .... ^.s 5 0 � 1.:%:-:3 7'..i :• ii ::. ii •i .i. i6 EE E�Ei ..Y :(::Y. :iiiiiii::: :: :::: :ii i ii i:: .:,'e-,' :G= 01K4^ S,< # r .. :ri i .•c'�'ii_ ':E_:r:•k-i`' YY rr 'a : F ax7 . .. : :::i.. . •EE ::•is: EE:�3" y� : yA • > l:: iiii:ii::3« i .. .. . ' ii _� f - ... ... ... E . .. x,,,,,,,,,,j... 1< .. t . ii: z........ ...... :s.iiiii44wL- .,Lr . . : r :. ..iE . .ittin*Pt40114.111181•1•1111ilbeitilitki 4r -" ar- •vk ii• iii:: ii• ih . : iiic :iiw •:i - Ei•- ' ry�raos .. i llir qiiatiiii 14%i .. • • ..„,-"::::-: .„,:illifiliinhi„,iiiiilti,,,,. .:."",„:. .„„:...,; . ........:"":"".,...„„.,;„ ., „.„,i„.,„,::::„,4„,,,„„:„,..,:,,„.a,„:. rR •iiisrgr Ei -,.,,,,,,.:,_,.-„,%1„;.:::,,;::,,..,.,....,:„.HTv.) r�' fa.. in�y 'w. Y.w•nCOlfE � R� 0 iT1Z,H.Ka41yip % 7M �:� � uih7 nQAM(C�r:N@ JJA i_ & � Y: 1I. . f. e v t' tY N iv' lFt s4 4401, 'iRif tYy .y ,404.L.1:: , A .„i,„„,,,„,„„,,„:,„.„,„,...,„,:„„,„,„„:„.„ ........ R y ,,,„..,,,--:-,:;:al . ,,,....:,,,,,t....,,,,,,.., ,,%!,,,,,,:,..-,,, F42, Page 20 Planning Perspectives Study Appendix 1: Interview Questions 1. What should be the goals of a regional process? a. What issues/topics should be on the table? Off the table? 2. Who should be involved in the process—the public, water managers, other stakeholders, etc? Who should lead the process? Be specific. a. What should be role of agencies like ADWR, CAWCD, etc? 3. What should be the region of focus? The entire Tucson Active Management Area? The Tucson Metro Area? Only eastern Pima County (east of the Tohono O'odham Nation)? 4. What assumptions should be used to inform the process, e.g. growth projections, infrastructure capacities, carrying capacity, etc? 5. What should be the outcomes of the process? a. How would the process incorporate stakeholder/public comment? 6. Would you favor the creation of a regional water authority/water district with the power to establish regional water priorities and set policy (e.g. a body similar to the proposed Upper San Pedro Water District)? If so, what should be the powers of the water authority and how should it be governed? Should it have taxing authority? a. If you do not support the creation of a governing body, what would you propose instead? Should implementation of the results of an alternative process be mandatory or voluntary? If mandatory, what governance structure should be used for the implementation of the results? 7. What are your concerns about engaging in a regional process? 8. Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Planning Perspectives Study Page 21 I A i ! • JUN 0 4 2008 SOUTHERN• AR ! ZONA LEADERSHIP COUNCIL simmummommommomi 4400 E.Broadway Suite 307 Tucson,AZ 85711 June 3, 2008 Ph. 520.327.7619 Fax 520.327.7613 David Andrews WWW.SALC.ORG Town of Oro Valley 11000 N LaCanada Dr Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Mr. Andrews: The Tucson Regional Town Hall strongly emphasized the need to make land-use planning more regional while respecting local land-use planning considerations. To begin implementing this community consensus, we are inviting you to join with us, under the Tucson Regional Town Hall banner, to participate in a forum on regional land use planning this fall. Our goals for the project include educating our community about the importance of land use planning and sharing information on current planning efforts across our region. Additionally we believe there is great value in examining some best practices from other similar regions. As is the custom of Town Hall, we will seek input on the public's values and concerns on the subject. Most important is that this event helps prepare all of us, regardless of our role, to make and support good decisions that will enhance our region for years to come. In the year since the Tucson Regional Town Hall, several events have kept the land-use discussion alive. • The American Institute of Architects, Southern Arizona chapter, completed a "Sustainable Design Assessment Team" report. They are committed to co-hosting this Tucson Regional Town Hall follow-up meeting on land use this fall. • The Urban Land Institute, Arizona District Council/Southern Arizona Committee sponsored a program entitled "Creating a Regional Community"in October 2007. They have also committed to co-hosting the event. • The Arizona Daily Star sponsored the Growth forum and survey earlier this year. In addition, the Star is a Tucson Regional Town Hall sponsor and is looking forward to their role in this conversation as well. The groups below have also committed to this event and many more have expressed an interest in joining with us. • The Tucson Association of Realtors • The Southern Arizona Leadership Council • The Sonoran Institute • The Metropolitan Pima Alliance. As part of the process, the Tucson Regional Town Hall will conduct a Community Voices survey on land-use planning that can be added to the Arizona Daily Star Growth Survey results. Through its unique consensus-building process, Town Hall offers the opportunity to raise public awareness and to provide input to public officials and the private sector. The land-use conversation this fall will be a meaningful step forward for our region and it will support other activities being considered. • Gov. Janet Napolitano's Growth Cabinet has called for regional and statewide planning and is supporting efforts designed to create a vision for the future of land use in the State of Arizona. Last month the Urban Land Institute conducted a "Reality Check" in Central Arizona and we should consider how we can respond to this call in a way most effective in Southern Arizona. Our Community Conversation on Land Use will help us chart a course for future action. • The Pima Association of Governments desires to hold regional land-use discussions with all local municipalities. We applaud the initiative and offer that this forum is the perfect opportunity to begin these discussions. The fall 2008 "Community Conversation on Land-Use Planning"will be similar to the highly successful "Community Conversation on Water"held in October of 2007. With the Tucson Regional Town Hall as a neutral convener, the event is open region wide and it will be inclusive. Participants will include a diversity of groups, businesses, conservationists, environmentalists and elected officials, as well as planners. There are others in our region that desire a voice and the Town Hall process makes inclusion possible, but with enough structure that real progress can result from the discussions A Tucson Regional Town Hall Planning Committee will guide the planning for the forum. The committee is envisioned as a public/private partnership working to facilitate an event that will be good for the entire region. The"Community Conversation on Land-Use Planning" will link the various planning efforts together, create a new level of information-sharing and dialog, and provide information that can be used by all jurisdictions to inform their planning efforts and to ensure, as the Tucson Regional Town Hall participants desired, that the region more effectively manage its land use and development. The private sector is strongly committed to making this unique opportunity for the Tucson region a great success. We hope you will join in the effort. Please call Ron Shoopman at 520-327-7619 if you have any questions and sign up to take part in what promises to be a unique and productive event. Sincere , ( 1?"C," :\c* NNCA, Pete Likins ,.. „:„... 7] ,,,,......:. ,..... ,...,... .,,,:: ,... ,...... ,, is p. :'s:' CD ,,....... n s:. O ■ yo: is ,,, lib5 = litk,• ,f0„,$0, -."'''- 'f'4'::,,,,s,s.; ,40 v.; x :,.,,,....!f!:''.'..'........... C cal) ''''':14,'V.:':::,:,''' .,...,.'.:•''''''C',.:.4.itil'iliii:'''.'''..lii:::';:..,:i..::::::.':',:::':.‘......'::::;,:,0i':','''.:1,::',.:.<,'",':',.;::"..,6i.:..,'4.0,:::,.:::?';':.::: ''''.w ,,d,:::i!e:',.:',' 1,.....4.,...:.,........!:.....;::;!:111:;1i:1110'.::!lale...;!...:'''::."''''..:‘,;:.:,..-.4°::''.... „...,..„ . .... ., .............. ,1� aiiiiiiiiiiiiii ... 44.w< ,,,,o...,!,,,,,' .9 p\t .„...:,. ..:. .....,:,... ,:. ..... ,, , .::::,:„.„.. . . ...,....... ..,„„,...,. K C j q .....„.„,,,„:,, :.<„,... .,.., . w (IC) 0 uby gRen. �\\ �Ij ) d kfr< ^ytn< .a..,......n;...ro-y. i) j 'j(lnr Ffi• SSf:vY)F v'l•}`•• f$)Yr'.f';:5?:i'N,•;.'�yS?::.,. kAS:,rk'i'yl" :;ti<.:;::4.t l�'� 1\1) 0 ill',...',..'''''... 4Y Ni'?,., ii'SC�r?� fx YA�r ...'!:',111111,:::';:!,::::.6.?;,' S 4?S S< '.�\y•f��,�, ilkg....::::..7'...� i t. yv t..».;.:.rij•:.y. S: Ztrs� u V)s2' ', ti:,. � kiy��.. tya r,�37�y�Y.� 3��9?\e�s�\, �. ry,. W i»r) .r ro `rL 0 '...?.:,...': ......1,, C:) ftf r?eft v < xV %? \i .. , .. ........./,. C) • •• ••••••., ..:.::::••••.....\:,. •.\,".....„ - F (X) Imo -..,e,,,.. ...i -....,5.,,,,,,,,....k", :•.,,..-:.........•„•••••••-.. n y}h 'I',.5," V''. v -,.;!...`.• 0 CD .. .......- : ...-:::::... . ... ..,..1 ..... 0,,,) .. .......... . . • „,...f. ...........•• . . . . . :,........:„.. . . . ■ 0 .......... . = . .. ......... .: ... . .,�.\<a\.':c.\�+C :,,,,,.,1,,,,„:„,„,,,,,,,,,,,„,„,„,.,„„„„,,,,.,„,...,,,,,„,,„„,,,:::„:„„,...........:„,„,„,„,..„„:„,,....„,„„„,„:„....„,„:.:!,...,,,......,:„.....,....,..:::„....„:„.„..,.....„::.:.....,...........:::.....,,„:„:„,,,,„...............................:„.....::::::...............E.;„......:::.„,,,„:,.:....,.....:;...H.......................................:.::.,.... . . ...... . .��Y"`1+'\�'A>S:R:+:�\;�+'?'air%Q��a.�...:v: \'SOhU\a,\. , ..,,,,, ....,....,..,,,x.„...:....,::.,.:„::„...:::...„:„,..„„„,„„.„.,,,:„,„„,.,„:„.,...:,,.,.,„:„.,:,::::„..,.,.„:,,,.„,:,..:„::::,,,:....„,.,,,:,„:,,„.„..„.,,,,,,:,„„,„:„.,....:,,:„.„.:,,,,.,,,...„..:....,..::::,:....„,..,„;:„.„:„.....,;::„..::„.„.,::::„,„.:::.„.:,:.„...„.:..::........„.....„.„„.:.......„„„„,.:„.:..............:,,..„..,;.;.,;,::::„....„,.:„..„,..„..„,:::..:..:„:...,:„.:::„.„.,„.:::::::„.........„.....•..:::::........-::„............ . .... :„:::„....„:„.;...........„:„............„............„:„:::::::„::::::,........:::::........„....................,„......•:•......,............,........ .:...... .... . \�<C\q.;'n?c:,,+l±\,;..,.,.c)+r�±.A)\:c:�o'.+iC\\.,yz';::S,a::^z..\v Q .:„.:,:....::„..::„.::„.......,..:„.„....:,........,......,:::.:...„:„.....................„..:,..............:..,..„..„... :........,.. :........:: . .? ..„,.:,....„...„...„...,.....„,„...,.......,...................,..,...... .. . R.� .....;......'„,,.......:.:•..............................:.....,......:........:..............,....:......:.....•............-„.-...:-,.....„..-:..•:,.....•..•...........•........:::::...........;......................,:•....::.................;.;....:•.....:::::...........i........•...,..i.......•.•...,.....................•.......•...............•...................-.•..............•...•........................................•....•......,•.............................,.......,............................................:.................. .: . .... . vv.lo av;\:,.)\jai.,::.?;±•4,v�\ \�v��\,, + ..,..„.„.......„.„,„„,„„:„:„.:.„:..,„.„..::::,..„...........„.....,,..,.„.::.:.:.„:„...,......,..„........,„,...,.......... ..,.. ........ . „:„.:.„,..:,..,...:„.„.,,....‘.:.:::.,.........,..,....:.,....................:.......„......,...........„..........................„..............._..,............... ..... . . ...„,...„..„.,....,,,....,,.....,....,,.„...„..,....„.„..„...„..„..„:„.„.„........:.....,:,........,...„:„,:::.......„,......„:„.....„...:::.::,.„:................................„,,............„.......„.•„........•............,.:.•............„..•............,•..... . v \\\ \\\�1 \\ ....,............,...,„,„,...„,„.,.....„:,.x„....„..„....,..„..„:„.,.......„,„•.„..,•.:,,,..,....:.......:„..„.„.,..,......:,:::,....„,..,„...........„......,„.„....,,..„,.„...„,......,:,...,„....,:,:„.....:...:„.„..„.„..::,........:::::.,...,,.,....„.......:.,.....,„...............,::.:.:.,....•........... . ll llz Aad\\;�a „....„.,„,„...,....„..„,,,.......,,,..,..............„...........„...,............................................ . , .. . \,�.\„ \ tl`\\.\\„„,..„.,,,..,„,..:„:„.„:,..:...:„,:::,..„,,...,....,,,,...,...:::....,,:,:...„..:.„ ......„..:...............:......:„.......,.......... ....................... .... .. ...v .day., ,,\+•�;:�{�.,;,\.\„.�..� �\\\\z,aia�0�;\\l „.,,,,,„.„.,:..,:..,,,,,,:,:,..,..,„.„:„:„...„..„........„..,.„„,...„......,„.,.,,,E.:.„:„..,....,..„........,...,......:...,.....„....„..,,.....:,..„.:......:......„.....,.:.„,,,,......,...,:,„..,„.....„:.......„........„.....:„.:.„..,.....,:......,:i................„.......,...................................,.....„......................:.:.:......:...........,...„7,....... .... .. .,,,,„„„,,,,,,,.,„„,,,,,„„i„,,,„,,,,,.,„.„,:„:,,,,.,„,,..„......„,,:„..,,,,,,,x,„,„,,,,,i,,,„,!„,,,,„,,,,,..,„,,„,,.,,,,„„:,„:„,„,,..,„,,„,,„:„.„„:„,..,,,,,...:„,„„,,..,,,,,,,„:„..,,,..........::.............:::::,„....,........,,,„,,,.........,,,,.........„,,,..,.......„.....„,,:„......,,,,,:..„.„.„:„..........:..„,......,,::....:...,..,...„,,„.„...,....:...,....,...,,.„„:„..,.......„.„.:........„,......„:„.......„..,..„„,...:,.... :................. ................„:„:„..:::::,...:.... .. ... . . . .••,..,:..,„..„•••.•.••.„...,...„..........••••••,...„:.......,••.••••,...,..,,„.....„....•••..„.,„..„....,.,___,..........,.„.„...........„.,...................„..,......... .... ......... ..„......„..„„.......,„.....,.:„.„„,„.....„„.„...„.„..,..,..,,„.......,.,....................,......... ....... .... ......„... . .... .. ......,......,,.....,...............,...,..,...„.........,.........,..............,,„,„..„, .....................,..........., ........,......... ...... .. . ..... . ............, .............. .,....\,,.........,.„.,„......,,..,....,„........................„........ ..........„. ......... . .... ...........,..,..,..........................,...,.........„......,.....„...,........,,,.....s.:..,.........,.,..:,.:„.,.....„,.....„....„....„:„....„...........................,.............„..........:...........„..........„.... ....... ............... . .. ,.................. ,.,.„., .,.......„,....,....,..,„......,........... ........... .... ...... .. ... ..... .. ... ..............„.............::.......‘,...............:::::...:................,......,:,,...,:i.....,..............,•...,...„...........„.,,:......„:„........,............,:,...............:,......„...,..,.•........„.....,.........,...........„.„.„....„...s.:•.:::„..................,......:,.......,...„.•.\\„........,..„...s.„,...„...,.....,...:..,•,..:,,,,:„..,...,....:„............„.„,....„..„..,.......,.....,...s..:•,...„..„.„-..„.„.„.„,„..„..„.,::„.......„,„,:,:::„,•„,,......,.„,:::„.......„.„..••:..,....„.::„,:,.•,.:„......„„,,...„,........,.,..,,,,.•:,.„..„..,.......,..:::‘,..,..,,.•:.":„..„.....,.:,:,.......:.,......,...::.,:,,.....,•::„....:•......„.......:::•:„.•..•:.„.•:..„....:..........:•:,...•.........•..............:....„......„...,-•.:•.....•:•.,.•:.....•.:.•:.„..•:•..•::......:.:..............,....•:.:.•...............:.........:........„.:..„......•:.•,...•...•.........••„............::......................................................,........::............................-... •••• • .....,..:.:.:....................,................,:....„„:„„:.:....:„:„:...,„....,.:.:.:.:.,„:„.„.„,......„......,..„,,.„,..:.„...„„„:„...,.„...,....,.,..,..,,.....„,.:,....„..................„..:.:„....................: ...........................................„............................. . . . .••.•••.,••••••.•.,•••...,••••,...•...„.„.,,.,,•••,..,..,..,,,....,..„,,,,,,,.,..„.,,............,...„,...,„,..,.........._..... •......„.•..,...:::,,,,....,..,..,...,.:.,,,......:.:.:„.:::.„.....::......:„...:„....„,.........„.....„,,:.,„„,...,,..,..„,„,„.„,„..„„......,....,......,.,,...................,.................,„....,............... ...,.........„,.,..,......,,.„,,.,........,.„,...,..,.........,.„..,,...„:„..:.,,:„,,._,.,.,,.„„,....,.„,...,.,....,.,...,..„,..„:.,...:....„,„.,....:.:...„.,..:.............„......,...,...................................:...:„...„..................................„........,.....:„.................,..... ... .. •••,.........••••..„•••••.••..•••,••...,„,,...••,.,,,......,.......,•,....„,,..,..„.„....,.....,..„.,„.„,„.....,.......„..,..............................,.......,.....,..,...,............ .:a\` :„.:.,�\y�\`\\:,,.1,\\\\\�:„::.,,,l`\�:\?„\l\\\ '�ab�af,1,v.•w\lv'bl\��J>•\\,\\,++l�,lall\l�\l\v\\: .+:. :,. • •.•'..... .-..:.,...::.::.,......:::........:....:„.......:.::::::::„..,::::::.::,..:.,...:L::::::,..,.......,,:„:,,...„t.....:;.:.,:.,:::,,:,,,,:.....:.:,..::::::::::.,..,::::::;.::.,,:::,.1.::::,::,,,!!,::::,1:,..:,,.,,,,,.:.,..!:5„...:::...ilitomiiici,,::::t1:;1,,1111,:.::,:iii.ii.,,:11,..,.1.i.,),:,.,:;,,t,,,,e,i,1110:1,0,011:iitilimitilittiteli,,,,,,,,...,i..:::...:.:...011.111.,,,i:,„,...:,:::,::1„,1,:i,,:,!,1,1,1,1,...,.,;:;:i::::::.„:::y...:...:......: .. ... a a S ...., otr5 ° =.11 ENE.1 0 = co 0 0 a) 0 ....1.1 0:7. 0 * .1:-..il 0 0 1.., .....‘ -c3 c 7....; -1 ...,, ,I., — cp 3 ,::,,:,::i:,!:::.5.,:::.:,..-::;:: IllEi ci. 1L4 z- a) cl) a)CDU) c .....41. — — m-,'...::::,li':'.',1',',_::::::.•::'',.... www w w —a allniall fit+ 0 a) 0 01.% = = * 0 = 0 (111)* a) = C CD 0 \\\\ llitigeo.:.:..::::::i!",..;,.,...::,::......:,... .. .: ......t., (C) ...„,,„, , 1,....... ,.„,,,piiiiipili,,,,:,:„!„,„1,,i,,,,.:!„,,,„,„..,,„,,.:,..:.,.,.,....:..:.. . . CI) -.4-* .....,..,•,.."....•.•••,................................•••...... .• ,-.4., 0 (/) l'Z's .•••••„•.,..........„,„,,.......................„.:..:.::.:.:..................... .. „.„,,„,",,,,„„,,,,,,,,,„,„„„:,,,-„:,:,,,..„,„:„..„,,,:.....„:„.„.,,..:,...„...•.„... . . 0 = "''''''"'":'''''''''''""'":.•:.::•.•••::'''' . • ...„...„.,..„„„,..„„,„:,.„:„:::.:::::::..:::::::::„............:„:„:„,......... . ........,............,.....,:„.,..,„„,,,...„.......,...,.......„.„..,:.....:„.. . . ri-iiii. a) -iis -Zimi cn ...in e..., •.••••••••..„.•••........................•..................... . .:.,::...„,:,.„„,,,,,,,,.,,:„,„,,,,,,,,..,„,„,,,,,.....„„,„:,„„,„„,„,„,„:„„:„.,,,:,:.,„,,,.,.....:..::::...... .: ....1 ,,...4. , u) ‘,.., ir.-11., % is 1,1,„,"1:11,11.,:,„„„„„„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,„,„:,,:„.,,..,„:„,,.,:...:.,.. .. (f) — 11.11,11:111,,,.,,,:,,:,:i,,,:c,1:,,,'....!..!..1,:!....::::..:::.... . . CI) C CD 0 •••......,„ ...,.................... . ...•••„.,...•.•,...,...•................•••.....•..... ....„. , .....,...............„......... ......,..,,,,,,...„,,,,,„„.„............„.„............„... ....„,..„••••„,....„..„......„,...................................... ••••••...•••••••.•••..„...................••••••••••••. . ......,...„...,.,..........„,..... ...,•„...„........„_.„.................................... .........,........„.......,............. . ..,...,......:,.....................•.. ......,..„..„„„..„........ ...... . s., ...„„...... ...... . ... ,................... . . ,•,•,„,....•••,.,.•••••.••••• .• ,................................................ . ......,....,.......,.....,.....„,.....:.......................„.... = (0) . iiiiz "'mi....it% iii!iiipi,..11,,,,,,,,I,.,..!,,,,,i,i,,:,,,,,,!:,,„:,.,,...,,,:,,:,.,„.....,,,-,..,..:.:„.,:.„,...,:„..„..,..:........ .... . CI 7:3 CI. C) .. .........„.„.„:„.:,...„............., ::„:„„:„:„:„,.::::...::::::„.:„...,„„.::.:............ . a) 1:3 �`\\ ,...,....„:„...,,....„.„.:.:.:........... ...: \\�iii\\\, ,c,:,,,,,:i:,,,,.!,:i..,:::,,,,,,,::.. :::. ..:....:. ,:,..::::,:,:„•::,,,...,,:„...,,:,,,,.,,..„:„,.•„,„:„„,„„.!.„„„„,:,::„:.„..,.,•:,.::..::.. . * 0 -1 0- „,...L.,:,,,,,,g,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,H:..:,.. .. ... \�\\.` ..,• cii) ...4.11 o ...-1 w , `\\ „\.\\,. ill!,,,„tii,..2,,,,i,,,,.„...,........,:„i.„„:;::::::„.......i.,.:::::::•,:.::..,. . ,.,....,...„„,:::::::.......:„.,„,:::..„...::::...::.::.:.:::::::...:,.,::.::::::,::.:.,....,...,:... . . „,„,.,,,..„...........,..,................................................ . 0 . :-----:':'-':.'-:-.:..:..:. . . .. c,n om".” ° a) Z\„,:,„,„„„:„,,,„:,,,,.:,.:,„:,:::::,..„,:„..„.............................:.: .,„..,.......,..,..„:„:•„:,.,,..,:•::::::::::::•:.:.:.:.:::.:.:::.:,:„..:..:.:..:...... .• „...,....,.........„..,,,,.„„:„.:,.:„.:.:..:.:...:.:...::.:....:.:.::::..:::...::...:..:.:..:...:.... .... iv,,,,-t- cii) CD C) ,„....„.,....„......,,,.....,...„............„................„....:„....... .. = .: „silliiiiiii.,:iliiii,:-:..,......::,..::,...:„..•....-.. : .. „.„4. 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:„:::.;„:„.,....„:„.:,,.:....,: .. aii::: . (11) w ,\ \,,.. pQ\�`1\` * %.< a 0 6:::.„,:„.„:„„„,„:„,,,,:,..,,:,;,,,„:„:„,:::.„,:...:,„,.„:„,:„,:,:„,:,,::::,,,.,.......... ..11„,...,,..,.,,":„....:„......„....:„........:.....„....„.:..:..:...:........:...•..•... ..........,...............,•••.:,...,..................................... . •.,....„:„.,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::.,:.::::::::::„.....::::::,:::.......:........ . .,,,,,,,.:.,.,„•,,,...................................... = 0 ,1,,,,.:-..::-......---.................................... tp..t. *, * _it co ..:. t!gloillisio:131,..,:::..:,......,.......... . 0011.4".3,:..,11.15,2.,.„:,:::.::.„....... . CD .. .... .,... .. .:. t,,„,„,„,,,„,„„„„„„„„„„„„...„,„,.,,,,,,..„,,,.....„:„.:::... ..,..... :.:..: ,.....4i, s--4-, w 0 1\\\\\ --5 = =111 (0 ....., ,,,,„....,..,,..„1„,•,,,:„:,.,...„1 ,. .illipilii;,,,,!,:1,:,,:i!":11!.:::,1,,.:',1,1::...i'...!...•... .....1 „„,„„,:„...„„,,,„,„:„:„..,.....„...:,...:. vii.i.11.115..,,,x,..,..,!...,,,„.,.:.i,„,„„i„:„:::::::.::.. ... ...., ...s cii) ..... .„„„,,,„.,,,,,,,,,„„:,„,,:„...,,,....„.:;,,,,..,......::.....: ... cit).,,,',,,.:„,,,.....,..,, .:....:...„..... 1,,:zillissio:.:::„.„,..,i„:„„:,„.„,;„i„,„„,,„„,!:„,,:::..:::„.::::,...... . wi\`b\l w n cl.......„,„:„...„:„...,.........,„:„...,..:.:.......:„..:...„.„„:„:.:„.„,„::,:::„:„.„::,:„:::,..„...„...........,....,.......:._...........,...,......:„..„...,..........,.....„......„..,„,,,„:„.„...••••,..... ,„.:..„„...,..... ...... .• a) (ID --4's ... .. . .....,.. ...:..,..,.......„..,...„,....„.,........,,,...:„....„.....„..„..........,..,,,,„,,.:...,11to,..,,,,„„,„,„„,:„„„,,,„,„„:,„:„,„,„:„........,.:.......„.........._......,........: rw w�riw oh a a \ 0,,,,,,,..4,„ , ciD K . .z.- "V sP3 > z 0 3 m miz ta) a. 0 az cl.. --ci 3 -A3 rii) CI) ■■■■■■ 0 ,�■.■a(in = 7:3 a) > 7.5 (i) , _a cst) o 0 0 rr..r.■ a < ".5 r\) a), 0 (/) ,..... ■...■■ .� 0,) 0 ci) 0 1 0 — r t.,. """"""'" ti) _a ...< m... o a) (i) = ct) , , ,i 0 -z cli) ei. „di- Dium ei.f. iiiin °us° = "Ci ---.1 7)% umt) CD 0 cn 0 ....�.. rte" o ...4N CI) V) (0 o .„. I'M IN) .. n < o o ....., Q a o , ct) ....,..., ...,,,,,a — - .....1.. = m I0,,,) ,.,, ci) <— c3- cl)......a _ (1) C ■■■.■ ---i , co --iv = = ■ —4 –sa.) > 3 ■..rrrs c 0 = cD,....c 17) —1 = .01Clradii, "Z• (n rte/ o'0 "0 = = al,(I) 4,000..,„,: ci) = ..• 0 (/) , \ .......,....., 0 ••••••• CD r.. .. 6.0 4.< iiiin Q. '''.". > CD 0 7\MT1 X ° Cr) rwwwww■ east* (CD i .i ".aii.:°# , (C) 0 CO CD > ci.) ,3 j —■ ■.Irlr ■...rt■ = s . / 1 0 0 .a N ' (11 = > = i Cli) C CD tr-f. .. .4'A'4 1 "Z" 0 .":',P e'''"'"'"',,,„ i:, s0 0 = •ts.,, l.;'. . . ai...:.,..... < a ........ .• , c.,- .. (/) -n...... ;.--.+Lis C:2- � a (D -� 0.,,,,, (iD CD (/) CD CC) L-_, ,. .. 0 a .....5f A ‘......, ,..-.1 r-t: CD CD --‘1.-4' am (,) = M ‘.,- ........... ,— "z c:1) a 0 cp 0 0 0 a3 CI) '..0W 'Z1) (/) N C. -C3 = ,. ,. . . 0 C aZ ,s0 i) ......--..%, a MIMI 3 , mane all aMila 5:13arum+L Ki '="1": CI) C) CD me ,..i 0 0 .....1 c1) CD„‘ CI Ci) CD K 0 a = Lu a) CD ., ,�- ,.-Z 2) C CI) < iiii, ,..,. www CCIkl ) .1 a , ° rn -0 0. C) a �• CL °:3 0 � wwwNwR w 0■■ Cl. 0 cp --I "CY f‘'...(")' www wr W (I)w 0 a3a r-+r-4.- = cn, _ <- 'mi.+. 3 (D CI) C/) (D = 05 C)) 0 Cl. = 0 C "Z„,. 1\,) .............." = 3 0 3)1' ,._. w.....w a .is or-1r- c) (/) __. 0 rtw, CI < c (C) cyl aZ 0 a -C3 cp (D = a) rwww.w� < 1-C3 -.."5 a Q., ,,..,= (D -0 tD3 (D =hi. -........ ,.., - = a = 0 -' ° = 4.< ci) viii4,... —5 0— CI' (C) —4N CD .• r.÷, 0 C,,r210 = wwern-I-ern-I- a . i (D 0 a -'"141% 3 = cl) w■,+1 ama t lanaa CD ..� ' �wiwrr,■ir \ CO - e.... D ri.-4.- 'a �� iiiii i CD = = (i) 3 a (1),...4., -Ci a) 0 wrw■w w .15 r-4 C ....h.s ,......- ..: iiiiiittlit:5::-.,.!....ii::::::::::::-.---- 0 —I ° -----n -1 ,,...) .' :11:11.111110!:;:e.;:::.,., . — CD (D iiiiig':::iiiiiion;'.,;::::::-........... Ce... c ii-c) (/) r-4.. cl) . 111111,riic'lliiii.,,:.iii.i„,.,.,.:,..::.„:,,,„...::„.,...:,;.:,....„.......,..,....„....„...„..., C 0 ''''' '..< r-iiii a) 1,11:::::110i0E111:11..,.. 0 (i) 0...............„.„ CD ri% illig!"\‘' t1111111111111111111101,1111. l r.4- .....411:111i —mis ),44.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,iiiiiik\\s —a 0 al..""1111'-':"§::'. ifyik; s. 111111:11,4-::::,-,--::::::::,.....---,,,,,-,:::,-,::::,,,,,,,.....--.. rl •-+L 11.11111,!:. cw-lb, .111:::* v..,\.,...;‘,„.,......,..,..;,..'::3:!....:::::::".„......... Nfte = \ ..„,...„„. s:s,, ,,,,,,s,,.„...,, ...s.,_.,,_.„,.,,.,,.,.,.....,.._,„_.,..,.„..,;:iNaill a ,c , .................. ... ..... .:..::::n•::•::..................................:::....n....vn..`\i...........F> ..,...k... •,.•::..•.•.\,vn 7Q.\\ \,�v1�'' .. ..�::.. ........ .............,,.............................:;..::.:•:•�:..::••:•:::,n,ta:,...:.:::aJ;:ii:�r,h......,nQW.Z.......�\�,\ \p.\ , � '''\..''' ,.`,\ ........... . .... ..... ..:vn.:;.......v:::r::::w:::::r.::::::.::::::'::::.h....:...:...:n.......... '. .,\\ vv\\ v x:`:\ .....,. .... .. ........ ........;••:::::.:.,io:,'•::•}::{a )111111..*, ri•� »a .......... ......... .......... :.:.:..••:..•::.:..r':Kao:::•::a:•:;...:.::...,....................R;;S:...::.:?,;•:»:...::»,�\�..b.,E,�E•.,.if\ �.l,�.o��\�. , \ \\. \, t..\.,.. ......................................n..,.n..: ..,.:..:.,..»,gin::�•::.`x\,,.+•:,•... \\\, :rri:':...'`.� 4 ,3,...,.!!(.:.::...:::::'':;.....:N!i..,:;::::,:,l':!.::!'.:.11ggl::N'..'.;ZAIBie:gllBitlililii .... ..... :>: ....... ........... ..............:........................ ............ ......... ... ................: .. n.xlv.....:. .1.rrrTi::•Y,•:aa..;,},, \.\.+, \\ , . .. — ' :.,:., '',. ..........::::::,,:'..::'.:.::.:.::.:.,..I..,..:.:::::..j.:a.!;',':.:.:..::.::!i!':...,:!!,;,.4,,.':',......:,,..:'-'s:....i::;:E:R.::'.!::i'::;!.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1Cltkr'''''.''-''''''"'Ill.lkAitl.: .... ''.:''.?..7i.k..:14.::,........'...::'.—'..i..'' ,:. ,. .......:......... ... \,.. (.:.,,�„ p � .,\�l ,..11:.1M,!4:,:::::::..: .... ... ... ......., .�..... ....... .. .............:..........................:..:......... ... ( :....,........:..n,, .\\\ \v.. 1:41iiiiie.4:i.:',:-:KiS.:::,,,,.....-i' ...,...,,,,,,,i4.,. :� ::::.... ...... ........ ........... vl\K��\, ,\"r,',\.'+�\\.\ <,t: Y+..x..h. . ... ................................. ::... ,v•:??+•+'`i"pp'�»i••.•n \.,a.naa\,r.•\, �r:Y;•:fr..•..,v ,\ ,,,.... '''''''k.,..:7'''':. it...._.......... .... ..................................................... ..:•:.... .....:.......::::.v.:.v vv..h...,........ ....vii\\1 � ,:J \.• .;ryv.;........p:...:>::::n•::T:r:•:u.,o,.�:'+.•`.�;r.::�::......L. .}\r"\vv`i \\�v \\ .�:Yiiii�.. .,T?<:?n.'4:Crn::Tv::::.•.•••.v4.4.v:f:•.: xx.•:�viiRa♦\1.., n�,v\• ;; ;k\,.7...-,,,.,„,:„,,,„:„.„,,t ,\\ n ... ... ............. �........ ..., ......... .... .17 nv.:h'6Y.4::nv:T.v^,...:.., ir,;\\ �,��A,\\. v ....... ......................... ... a a 0 l ''' 44.< n .1 ..a. a) .1.,..::::. 1.1111111111111.111 a) 6 az- (c....) -.1 -z-........:.. ...:.,. . 0 3 cl) c CD W C.,(:*.) Cai:::) Cr) . . . < ' -,,,, ain = '...4 a) .... - ....'.::....:::.::.:.',..... . N) r...t. alimml in 0 W ° Cs 4'< 0 . 0 ■iir■i■■.....1. r......, * unt) < CI:) c N.) 0 = 13 4.4< = r° rtitit'• (1) = CI) 111:3 k< = c*.i) = C Cl.) (i) 0 CI) C/.. -rumm. ......s 0 (I) CD cn ..raiNti, = (1:) fl)c 0- 0 "."3 10 'Nig+. rimam ala"; a) C kg< a) mow• c_....000 amili Om '141***4' , memom mu" rim' imiont is ali) CT limmli moo r ri illt CD C3 .■ iiimmis .....i. C3.1 '16°....■14.we c4.1) riti.dli.‘ an aaavi c _.0,.."'S <I) ED i ......1 ei)...,a „„..........,:...H.,. . ......% '"Icai.k ;0,-.4- ,..., Gi.) I.< .......... 0 'c) o > o w c1:) a .....„.„ .:2) (i) * ki< rixitik I...... (Af) * I '= (11) riaggta =1.. a) ■rNrNrrr r rill C"alum 11 = -11--) 3 aii� � C ... ■rririr■■t ... "Z-1 Cal) C) (1) a) : ,....,.,., ,,,'..,.,..� V. . ...... ....f..,::,,..1.„.,:...... i,,,„ 1 ' . ...,,,,‘„. .. . ..... , . a (/) 7] . ■ n CD 0 cl) ci) -1-.) (1)cp (1) < -1-h t. J (1) c —1,.r„, 0 > %Li r-4- (0 a) n """1 -z ci) El) ■ Simp < ininii a u".1 ..... 0 r-f- 0 (i) u) CD .N1 (t) cin."""4"` .0.0 ,,,,,i, k< t:45 n- 3 2 Cii a.) 0 Liii ., a) oi) (D o= rt.+,CC 0 0 0 0 CD 73 0/) cip ....._ _... ....,,, (1) rt..* C -...s %..) "Z 0 ,,,,_, ...3 CD 0 0 CP ir-+' CD .....41 co a CD fn aC).. 'Noir.-in ridt.-c3 0 3 . Bo- CD ) 0_ 0//) i-ii. rn �V cn , . ..., -(-.3 0 CD ", CD NZCI) (/) ="1 = 0 -...or: a -"'S = —Sow, CI = __■ � C w.wrrl %v = �w. ilm '' a) ....) w ,‘„,,\,,,s,‘ C ca...73 --■ a (c-.) -c) an -I a) 3 .a.... wr..... ■...■ p n cap 0- = c000 -1 (/). = = i..< = V),a =a cy. e-- "Ci ....■■ �` �■r.}a ■� a)• -is et+, cc) .. 0 73 .... cs- 0 _... * ....s. = r-iii. c= tr-f. ci.) ci)73 a .1110111111 MI liaall+1% 0 (1) 013 C C N 0 = CD (D -"C:3 ra4, ci CD "'I - (,) ex+ = al".I.I■M■ mom a "1"..1 =I- r--10. = aZ 0 CD CIE) a) r-ii. . . aCD -= az tki< aiii, il.I; 110.4' IIIZ C 'al CI.. C ,a‘j# =1.1 CI 0 CD c -C:i ri i% CI) (C) alai fr.+ -.I = (/) fa o- 3 o.. a) %,:,:�\?,cli.) ci, Iii.cp ,,, .. \ . ,v ED ........ CD riri oo„: U) 0... = twig"' cg 0 , Q. = 0 ■...■■ ,...,,,,,h C 0 N , COCD * 111111MMIMIll a „,..4.1,...!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;:i:, . OWNS...■a■ 5'-' u) f'''''tt, -' - \ri•ilsk 4 ,3 a v*.�y� ■r aa cli) -1:3 --4 ... 0 --I 0 (1) (i) -7-1-t".:3 alt) 0- ew C,i) El) .4 3 3 a) (f) cc.) = (ra amt) az -- a) cr:,...)._ (1) a Ia■■rwa■ awCD ■�w■ ■ aa—■ a ra ■r a commno a ,:CDr - . 1\a CD (I), *. mit, ,. cr) (I) if. --) . . , c cl)3 5 0 -;# f. a) . ci) ,.„ii:iii‘:$4:i,:::,..::„...... . .4., cl) -I] ci,f) ,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,.:..... . = ip.•"1" ra- )hati arnais 51) aZ . ,...+. -z- a.-- = c ci) a) (1) 0 (c) ci) Ilivisit.:.....:......,... .(1::,0- \ \ ,,.., ,,,.. ....,...,.,.,...„ • cl) kiik.,i,:1,',.r.s.,.:'.. • (i) ct.„ r-i- litu;;,,p,.:, . . ...z \,o\\\ aam .,,, \\ 0 CI) .„0 * 7:3 CE) M� CD0 im ........s. .„.„.„...„,,.... . \\\\, cp CI) ci) —I 4k< aZ "7:3 C1) iikoot...:,.:::.:.:....... . *. 3 (i) \\„\%ii;.,.:::.:.:::..... 1.0"iiii01;':...:.......::: .. 0 —4, < az. MM� WV ItiliIATkill....' CD —s opolit::::,..:::-..... > CI) < titaip11.2..:. - okilpt,,I......... n c)- o Illif!iiti........,..,. ,,.,,,,,„,„,:,„::..::........ 6#,)# a (..c) (f) CD -0 ct) lit,:,::::,\....Nif,4,,g...:.. -. =-1 Et) (c) 0 = — (I) r. I\i.) (0 C 17 1 ca) 3 ci) ,.... .....s. , * 0 �; \:o\\tin cr) (D i .<;„;:::.........„., „.„....„..... . ci,) .‘..‹. 0) as., ,:..,.,,.,,ii:::,,,,:rei:1„,t.1,:tiiii..:,::.,..,.....,.:::::',.,::.,:::,.:,:i:...t.:..::,:::.;,::.;::::4-::'""""'":''''''''''''''''' . .-4- fob 0 0 a) .„,11,1„,i„,,,,,,„0:,.„,::::„:,...,,..„......... 3 api, :11,10.-ti„\*Iiiimilomi:,:.,.:::.:... aiii 0 0,) --c). CD > (i) CD —. = 0 .., ,, c --is 9 4` \��y�\\1,...., imillixiN11111,,,,,,,,,,,,....---- ..:.,,,„,,„„,„,,;„,.:„,,,,,,,,,,,„„si,\�: :..:,..,,........„:„.:,,,.:,.:„..,;::,::,,:.:::::::::::::;:..:::.........:.......::::,.....:,...::......:.........:.:..... CD = ,....p. = iCI., C> =” rmilf.'I) \ ��\�\iii\� \ \ \” y, =-I ,,,,,,:-.. �I�� \\:\\� ,\hv:•Z:?";*iris>..:i::: tig,,:::,,,,,,,,,,::,:..,::.:.:...:,.,.:.... .s..:.:::,,:,. •,:.,...,...... .,„,...„,:s,, ...:....:.:...„..,:„,,„„. is ailill ;:illkillill111111111111111.1::::....:. ....z 2a) cl) a) \ \. \ (D = -izi a) (f) (/) 11,1110,11•11,:.:,i,....:.:.!::-..i.:. ..::.. CI). (1) > "lj aiiiiii*Ilk,,,,,1011!!:!:...„..;.i.,:„,,,,,,I,::::... alT:i 0D ,„,,„,:„,,,,,„,„:„,,,,N,'''',''''''',, ,; ,,\ ,\\\\�`\\ ko< .i:1‘ a) 3 0 �. \\\ (C:441 = o.- 0 > lov as (1) mow■■ \.. .,....: ,\4' = CD ,..;.,s.,.. ..,,i,t4:::„vAt a- CD aa a...........„..,:,„:„,....... 0 ma,...4,. 0.:•.'..',::,.':'..........,......,::',•.:•:.:.:'s. .. 51) ri.,* : ci.....i.‘,........7 3 i...,,,i, ..,,,,,:..,:: . . 0 (01) c ......, ..., a) = (i) cl) = (....).. c .., ,.,..,..* "IIC:3 1:::..) CC) tl.) ....... ■ N 0 rm... iiio< 0 'N''"" a) illii,oii,„,,,.„.......,„,..,....„„.....,,„........:„.,.......,,...,...„.:.........,.....,.....„„....,.,....„.„..,......:......:. . . . = cl) .1 liili:li,!tiii:•pi..:iI.::::„.:::...,::,::i:::::.1:IJI...::,..:I.,,::„..i-,.i,.I.....I.1,.::!.....,:...:.!:..1::...::.....i..:..,.:::::.::.:..:......... . ... (1) 3 „ ............ ....... \l\\\\ -13 a) 11111111111,1„..11:,,,,::::,,iipi..rilrliiopil.............,:...,.„.„.........,...-..:.......:... . -4;ml, ca.. illis:0:tilliii.::::::::::::::.,4iltid,,i,,:i.....„...........................:...........:,...........,. .. Imill.,111....11:11.1....1‘,..1:...111,1,?„:1..i.i::,,.......i................... i,,_______1/4,„) ,,,,,.....,,,,,,,.....,.:....„...,..„...............:....:.:.:............:.:.:...:.... ,.„,,„,..........„....,..,..............:„.„...„......„...::..:... . ■ 1;\\\\\t\i.,:;.„......i„.......„„,,..i....:„.ii.:.:„...,..,,.,..:,..,.,..:i.,.:..„.„....,..,......:......,,.....:.:::.::......... .....,.. . CD i ,\iiii...,,,,,,,,,,...,....i1„....,,,,......,:[„:„..,,,iiiiiii„...!,,,,„11...,..,,....,..-„,,..„,........................... .. 0 \..,:.:„..:.,:.:„,„„,...,,,:::::.,„:„.„.....„,:,..:::....„..:.::......,...:.:.....:.::::::.:::............. . \\,iiiiiiiiii,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,„::,,,:,,,.....,.....,,:,........,........ .... . iii,..41!1;11...::::::,,,11:,..pir.:..:1.::,:il...:.........::::::„....1;...,::::,...::::................... 0 , > ..... I\Blit —7.7 –. - - . -..:.:.::,.,:::...„....:.::...... ,„:,,„„,,„„,„,„,,,,„,......:,„„,..-..........„,,,:„.....„.„.„,....:–.. ..... Ito .......:,,.:1.,.......::::::,i1,,......;:ci::::::::::,.1::::::::::::::....;::::...:::::::!...i.,......!:::.,:iiii:...',11,ii,.011:::i....[:::::::::::::;..::::::i.j::::::::;,:iii..11::.iii!iiiiiiiiiil!liiiiiiiiiiiiii',iiiiiiii......,..;:::.....1:::;:,...,:',.........,....,..illitil'ili!iliiiii1:....1,,......i.k.,:::,...,..1.....,.!...11;......,1,:...............:,........::....,....:.... .. . ,. , . ....„,...........................,..,.......::.:,..„,„.:„......::: ,ollos,,...........ii.,..,..,:::„,..,..i.,1,,,ii.................1,i..........:,..i.:,,,E........,.....:::::ii.............:,::::::,,................ .: ........0.. '.......:'::......'..:. oplPilluilii.-1..--..;',"1.1:11.,.11.1:::::t1r..!.....:::!....!.c:::........::.' ................. ..... ","","","t.:.:::::,:.:.:i.,...,.i.::...::..i:.:i:..:..,::.i.,:,.i:,..,:.::,,,,I,......:,,.::.:,:,.:...............:,...:...:.............. .. ............1::!..,..........::....\,,:101111,1..,..li,iii,:::::::,..i.,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,g::::.::igi::::::!1:::::::,.,;:::-.....................:....... -" ,.,,,.,,,..,',.,...,.,::;.,.,......,..........:::,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,....,.....................i... . . ..::::::,.....i..........kloill,..i.,..1111.,..,i,..,...,..11,1:::::::11111:!....,..,......,.............................:......... . .:.:::.,..:.:',...L.. 1;:!l:ir,lp.J.III,Jil.l.::i,.i,..,..::..::...::;.........t..........-........i........::...:.. .................,...:;:::::,....::::::.............ww:E.i!iiiiiillil.....g.,:l::::::::::.'::-........:-.....'"':............'.. .....:.... _........,,.......••••••••......................... . ..:::,.:,,...:..‘,,,o,,,,,:,.,*:,..:„.,,.....„„,:,...:,::::..,,....„„,:..,::::„„.„.„.„.„.......,„,..„.„.:,..:.........,........ ... ........ . . .: ........:.................:...................,.......,.:.„...........:....:..............:..........:.:„.......:::,..::::::.::::,:::,:::::.::::::.,.,::::::.::::.:„...:.:.....,.....,..........„,,,.....„..,::::„.....„:„:„...:.::::„..,,,„:„:„.„,::::„.„,:.::„„:„,:::„.,....,::.....„.„..„„„:::::,,,,,,•,.,„.„•„.2,.,...:.„....,......„::::„,„•„,,,,,„„,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,„.„,,,,,\,,..,,,4,,,,,,,,:!,,',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,„,,,,:,,,,„.„,,,...1,,,,,..,.......,.,....., 1,...„,,,.,,,,,.4,,,,..,....\:.,\,,T...,,,,,,,,,...,•,,,,,,,,•.,•:::,,.....„..,:,.....„.....,...::::„...„,...,..„:„.•,...„:„..•.::...:,......,...:::.:„....:......„.............,:...:•...... . .. . .. ....-:..........................................:-.............::::::.......i:::::::::.::::.:,.........::::............,,............,..,....g:::,....1....,..:::::.........,......,....-,:-....;::;.:.....i.,;,.......,;:::::.!::i.',......,'.:11,::::::::::NE.E0::::::::il.:::::„.1.;.,..,..11,1,:i...i.:::::,.,..,,.::::::::,:i::::::::::.::::::,,pp.::::::,,,,,0:15.......1141.1.6,i.01,1:::::::,,,,I.,:iii,i,..!,.i.,;:ii.„!,.--...f...illir.:.,.....,".1::stosii;,:l..,&,, ::,ti:,.,,,,,,,,,...,:,,,...... ,,\.,.A1,,,,,,,:,.,.,,,,.::,,,,:,;:..„,,,,,,,,,,,,:.,...,..:..„,,,,,,,,,,,..,....,,,,,:..:.:.:.,:.......... . ............. .......:..:.:....,..:.:........ ...... ,.......:...:..:.................:.:.......:.....:. ............„:„...::.:„....:.................,..„,.......,,,...,,,....,...,..„.,..:.„......„:„,:........„,,,........,....„.„.,,..:::............ ,,„,,:.......„,..,,,,,„...,..,.,.......,..........:........... . . „,t..,,,,:!..::„,,::!;,:,...:.!:,,,,,,,,!,.,,, ''‘'.i.,',.:';'''. s',.,.''''''''''',,,,7 t.. .,,, 'N,.....'...:..;',1fi ,.!'..,)).4.,. 1 ,,,,p .....,,,,:,,,,,,,.,,„.,i1/4.w. .. * i ,,,,:-.....,....,,,,,4,,,,,,,....,,,,,,..,,,, ,......„. i a\ • a a a a rri _...... 3:-.1 ..,.......41 H -123 = 711.1.) ....,,,, 0 C CD —.1 CD a) * 0 —.% 0 0CD tla) = = ="ta (C) Ci) 0) o 3 3 "-C3 cn CD CD a)‘..< CD CD CI- CLCE)(I) r-4,' = 0 .Got). a) 3 * * ti)cA) (;1.,) a) a) ci)C) a) = ,....,, .....al a) 0 „ al ci. 0,-.4. 51) ..., is ,,, - 3 ', .,. CD 7:3 (c) ...—.. U) Ci) . CD > 0...< :s.'' ' Cl. II< .,, . . ., ...., cl) „,,,,,,,,,, Craii?.3. .,. ,,,,,* 0 CDCDCD —isCD , ,, \, ,„. ,...,3 CD �, —.�, , ,. ,,: ,,a), ,0 ,,,"-E1,3 i. ' ""'iCD -11:3 = ''., 0 = „..,..4. m".. 0) . CI) ,, cn : . 0 *.. cn C1) ',...... .....4, .. r--f- f—.11-• CD = . . :. ,\CD0 , . \.... . ,. CD . .......1, II\„,) iiiii,ikt.,:„...... moo,:.,,,,N:...........: CD %...< 0- 0 01 01 CD CD .....4,..,„ CD CD .....+, H CI) CI) ...1,1r.!!;!.........) a—it, •C C . --ti, a < a .......... .., ,,,,:,„:„::;:„. 1 ' :.rrf}\},.3v k7:•"%•}':'r.:r� :a4ctsf}r��}}x��r .} +v Y,r �� r \ \\�\ ., \\..,\v\,\::„, %., 1 CD 0 t> ' �}• yaA : \K N1 " \ \na :n �"d.�- ,.,,,., = 0 �,,„,,, �� r.).r„: Sx:ayf.1T }Y»;\114i Y)kfi'r��11,,1�\:�\� ia�i ,,\------;i"'''''''''.- \ i\,\�;C:. „\ \ \ C i@.r”.Y1r\6 11<� 3i3fiaaan»1;a;fi»;utA��E�1A%\",y�q�� \` Y�\ \\\\\\\\�'tr i\\ \ 1fYv ! dwf�\ 4 \Y,, ai\.„ '\iki \\ y \ \ ��\ k} v \\ p,r}� .e:};. •;}r°,:4::•,K :)}} v\ \. \ :'\ 0 ,\,„,,;,,, ,,,,,,, ' s''',\,,,,v, ‘ ,'" \'' \ ., :,,,, ,'•;;Iiii.i'\''‘',,\1\•s:;\:','\,'.4`\'. '''\\''':, s\•"'''s ''•• s ,,,,,,s'',, ,s,s,-,s,,hZ ':ft'',': \','s,,.s. , ,, ,„,, ,, , ,„.„. , 0 —1 0- 0 .-i-i z K \s„„ a) a) —.% cl) o 0 cp simt) = 7,7: o , ,,,,„,,s,,,,,s, ,.....t. 5 1f...P. co . ... a) < cr) -.7........ -z... 7.,-, *ci) , (NI --.3 = < N...., ..„.,rip t1.1)......., ....■ aiaiir..„.,. mime milisons C) n CIITI) CD fritii+ #.1.% al7)) CI) ".6.1 a * (i) (1) k I) 14'‹ ir."1."‘ Mllertititi, CI. 1,,,,,,,,,::,,,,,,,s,s,,,,,,, CY- 0 (E) Z./. (C) * C 0 aummu. 1,,,,,,,,,,, ‘< > X if,,,* (1) C:1) 3 s„,„,,,,,,,,,\,,s.,,,,, ....,,„ ,,,,„,,,,,,, ‘,%,?1, N) 7] -tp E.t.a..' 0 4 ,%,s,,, CD cl) . cr) 0 , ,,,,,,,,,„, C:) * 0 = —I —11.1, ',„'fl',\!,\'‘I',''' ,,,,„‘„,, \\\,,,,,,,„:, --is :,,,,,,,,\,,,,,,,,,,,, ....„„, ,,,..„,„\,,,, ,,‘4s,,,\,,,,-,,,,‘ss:\,,,,:::,:‘,,,,\;,,,,,:,,,, ,s,„,,,,,,,,,, Cli)- 0. —1..) C. ,„,,,,,,,,, ..4 . tl) rithfa „.....„„s,„ ,---iiii, ,....11. 0) ......., = . . \ \ \\ (i) „,,,,,,,,,,,,s,,i,...f. =in ....mt., ,,,„,, ,,„..,,,s . 0 cl. ,„ is,,,,,,,„,,,s,, , ,,,„,, ,,,,s‘i,,:,,,,,,\‘‘‘,\ —5 0 ,..... ,,,,„ .„....,..,„ ,,,,, ..,...s. ..‘„,,‘,,„ ‘,.„,,,,,, CD 0 ‹. %,Li i;:r''k''''‘`'. witiNlidilli ...M5 C:31111 ...."I a. ei*% 0 cp 0 (..-.—.) (I) .,„ ,,,..\\„,.. 3 ,....,,,,, * .. 1,171 cl) ,\,,,,,,,,,, .,. ,,, ...s . cE) = (if) — enz . \\\' \\\ I ...., �\\�,,,,,,\\: w\�\\\�,\\\ „,,, , k' \\ \\\\ nom& a) 0 .....a "Z \1.••,,tp (.(:) 0 ..,,,is k''' '',;,, \\\ 0 . l'IZ ,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1.""h a ciiiiD ciar: t\''',,,',,,k',.:‘,,,,,\,,s,;ss, ', \k = CI) 5 '''''''''''a.' K ......, , \:„,,,\\ c)..... cl) o cr) r„,,,,......., .---- ,,,,,,,„,, , ,, „:::,,, "�' \\\� .......-• .)..iir =a ,,i,i!,f,,s,,i, ci. , —ii • '*\s �, CI) 0 eill.4.L !Iii‘i'; ■■■■www■ CE) CD ‘i< 0,`,,,,,,'"'"'"'''',,,,, .(u1 U } ,,, 1,Q • s''''''''‘,';`.:;,'4-4 ' ++''':."' '''.:-'..::::''''''''.....'.........'+'Appii,'''''''':::.!:-:....1..4.:..!!:.:,:!:::::::1'.1:::i121.11111:Ei.e.:it:::::!;i;.::1111111;:!:ililg'.i'..111:11:111:1111111111111:111ki441.,k2:::ii.l'i::',.,::::*..:.'.'::::'s'.:.... :: 7:111101 ,..,...::::::::::.:„.„..„:„..........„.„:„..,..,....„,,,...,:::::„...„.,.,:...„:„..,.:::::::,,.„,......::,.,:!:!..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:r.,.,..,„,:::.:,..:.,:,,,,::.:,:;,.„;,,,.::..!..,,,,,,,,,.„,.:,:::,,,,..,,,Iry.,:,,,,,, Np::"Ro,..k„.,,.,,,..,..,,,.!:1,!..,.:'..;....,:.....,..:.:,',..,.....,!.::.:.....,.. . r a Ciami.i.;::...,.':,....::,,::::.:.:..., CD 7) = 1/4." az .......h 0 . 0 a) CD c ,.■.,,� -. ■.■..■ Cii) CI, CD = :... ri..+. 0 CD C %.< Ci) .� fli) ..., ... cr rCD = ■■■w.rll�ll cw) < k< IA — ID- a) 0 ‘4‹ „,„„in 0) C 00) 0 —■ (13amulir 0 risiliii., a) 4.< tn C CD i'M ....., ....; ..--f- 0 0 cn EZ ::,......„,„:„.. ,.......(1) —1+1 = C 4.< > 73 :,,'.'..,,.:',,.,:'..,....., ' . ,... .. . 0,1)73 (I).., Ki.• a) C,) N ci CD Cs, a-, a-- %..< C ..,.,.. ,....4., o n cli, :.........”- (i) az CL. tr.1.) s< l',',,:::,'::',':''',...,:'.....:..':''.':',.,..'.".. .. ,,,,.„.„,:.;,.. ...:. . .0) a) w az o .......+1 ...,,,.....,.........,:,::„......,...,.,. rwittak CD.. li..:::.!.'.....:::',..::.. CD...5 * aZ . . CI. 1:3 .,........:....,:*i.:::.,..::: , \, la) f--+A rt.+, > = a) 4 1\\ rr 1 ,........„;.........:..::. •,‘,,''.., a) ci) = .,.....,.,.:...:.......... -is.:,......„.....,....,..,::,..„.:::41111,11:.,1:1,..:,.:,.:::.....:...... . . s..),„)„,,,, .,.,;.i..,:.1.\!::',,.,,,:.:...,,4i,*1\:,,:.,„,,4:11111,1:..•:..... : = ...1 ...in miliNv--...-:.***,:\(\411111,i,,....:::........ : 7] o ....,.....:...„.....\,... .. ... ...... .,...„.„......7.!.,..,...1..,..!.,..r..!......,1,.,„,..„,.....,......... ,az ..:,,............., ... ......,........ .. ......,........... .............. ‘„, (c).......„....„,,,...:,,,,:,'"""„.„,.:„:„,..:',:„...""",„,‘,,,,,....,",2,,,,„:1,11,11„1„...:,„,.,. .1...15 Al 1 n''''''''',..'''''''''::::::'.......;e4',4,,,,sA':',i,'''i4,:•••fi'K..•••6g,!:''''.,i';0',"4::':\\ \ 1V)'sZi\.\AS 111:. i:. 1 U) r17110,010.,:i:ii,.:. ,,vn:::...:,,,,,.`,, \'N;:,..,.. 1 0 .a,,:...11.iiiiiII:111111111:16:''llit'ittl*ItOs \N\..:i.,•,....,.....,..,,,A,:...s...***,',8*-,011111111.:,.''' '',\ t\\\,,,:,.!''''' LY.11111111111111114111111titti%1%t.:1.. .....:;i1:11111 �• \ \:og lv ♦` =::.401.v,4 '` \\ \ \l., 11i0111111:11 \'�A•tY ,:,,,,..„,.,:s ..,,,..,.,..,,,,,,...,,,,,110:4.%,„ lif.1,...1:gia...]::2,.....::::::z....,:,....-- Cm)cp 0 ..$ 111 ) ., ...:.:...,....,..„...:..„,„,„„...„„.......„....„.......,„„.....:„.„..,„.„.:„.„..„...........:„.....,...... 11111iiiiiiiiiiii1111111110111111111111.111.11111111:11,1110!.!,!!!!!!.:.::::..:::................................................,...................................................„............................................._.......................................... 1$!411141111111itomplii!!!!!!5111!!!!!!!!!::::::,...,::::,:...„.............,,,.....,....,...„..„...........:...................................................................................................................................................................................,..................................................................,......„...... .....,...,.....,..., •'i,,,,,,,,,,...,,...„,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,..,„;.,.,.,,,..,.„_,•..,,,,,,,,,,,,........„.. .....,...„..:.... ..„.„......... :11E1ttgoillIgitliksfellii!iiikkiitItiiiiiii,ig,,,Neti'iiiiii,s1.,,,,iii..4,,...,,,,..,..,.!....,!::::,....,:t7.....:::...,..........,...‘,.....„.................................................,................................................ ,1111:1lPIIIIIIIINIIIIII!::!!:!!!!;.!.;,.z::,..:::......:,.....,................v.....,..,...........,.............v...........................,..,....,.,....................................................................................................,,,,........,,...,,,,,,,, V..•:,.k.,,,,::,:,,,,,,,,:,.:,::::,:•::.:,NSSN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,z;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............ ...m.'..•,..,......,....,,,,,x,...;.,„.,:,:s..,,,,,,,,,,...— ,••••••••,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......'.... •....,.,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,.,,..„...,•,..,,s,..,,,..,,,.,,,,,,,,,,:.;.,,,,,,s,,..;,,..•,,,,,,,,,,,,s.,..—,.• •,,:.:.:•:',,,,,,,,,,,,,...,.,,.,.......,,,,...,...—•,,,,,,.....,„........,.....„,,,..„,,.....„ •,,—.....,,,,,,,,,a,..,...,,.....,•,,,,,,,,,.....•,,,,,,,....,,,,,..s.s„...,,,,•.,,„.,.„..,,... s„,„,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...:,,,,,,,,„,.......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,........•". 0 111.14...„,,,,,,,,,'•.:.:...::-...... , 1.,....,..p::.':.----•••••:•••••• =R11 (r) v..... ,..... ,„,..............:„.... 1.1.•(.. .............,,,„,..,,,„,.,........„.„ .,.,.,::.................„....„.....,.:.:.......... '\s''' :''..0''':':':':'b"'"':""':"':'"'"'"'""'M7'': •••••••••••••'::::::::''''''A"'"''''''' -....... iiikii'""'"''''.-- , .,,,iiIiii,,,1„..,:,...„„...,„,„„,,illoppomm,,,,:,„„„„,„,,,,...„„„'..-, o".' "1\!,,. ii,i,11.::..,,,, ,,,,,,k...:$g.":'.,::,:,,..1:p,,,,,i.,,,,„,::. iIlliIllitillIllill11111111111111111' r7t4:.!',',1.riiiiiiiiii,igiiiii' ',17:.,:':,;\\',s:,.::,:.,;;!'!'':'''''.':'. ,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„„,„,„„„„„„„„„,,,,,,,,,,.......,...,..............„:„.""::::".::.::::"""","",",„,„„„„.„„.„„,„:„,„„„„,„,.....„,„:„,,,,,,,,,,, .,.........„:.....•.,...::„......„,,,..,.,.,,:,,,,,,,„,„„„,,,,„,„„„,„:„:„.,,.........:.::-......... ,„,,„„„„,.„„„„,,,,,,,,,111k„.....:,.....„,„:„:„.„,„„„ ,, j,iii; iiiliifilliiiiillIlIllittiroiiiitihol000apioiprdigg::,..,'::,.,„.„,„„„.„,,,,„,,,,,:,.,:-:-.'.......................::::::,:,:,„:.,::,,:::."":._i„..„:„:..,,,„"„:,".",,,J.u,IE,:ao:,,,,,,,,,,,:,t,.,;,,J,.,,,:....',,:,„,„,:-:,,..:,,:,,:,::,..","""."",„„„„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::.,,::,":,i..,1:,..,„.*,,.,' „,o\ A ...k\ ,.',,...:...\s,s:::;,..,....:.,„„k•-•......:.. isiiiitiliiiilloillitillititillutlioritillitilliouto„„„„....„„„„„„„„„...::::::,..,....:,..",",""""""""":„.",,,,,,,...... ..,,,..11,11Big,„„„„„„„„,„„„„,„'„'...--............. , ....„..,.......::...":„.",.""........."..:".""..".........,"".„......,".".,..:,..„.„,„.„.,,,,,;,:11111018.4,.:,„,..!!:iiip) •.:1...,.....:::,,,,,,;,;::....;ii:ii.,•.:;,.....1!.,..,.:...1,:::.',,,,f,,,,,!!;;,,,,..p,,,.,?...::,:;,8. -1,..,.„, '-.4,• ... :ari....... ,.1,.......:::::::...,::,.!!!!!'..25:. N ...„•.-.-.....„."„,it :,:....,%,.,,,,,,„:„„„:,„,::::::,,,,,,...::..::•...:::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,k,;).,..,,,,,:,...,:".,,,,,,.... ..„,.. .„--. . ....„:„..,,,,,,,," .,,,...$,....,......,,,,...4,,, i ,.,\N„..,,,, ,,..-.....-::-..,.:,.,...,„:,.,...,.:::•...: k!ioNe'iti:iiii::iot'ill;loqiittINioilt:lmo:"iI.otr:!!:!,",""""",,,,.....,,,,,•:....:::,:,..:.:,i:.,:.,,..,mik.,. ........:...........,..!!!...:::":.:.....,:,:"".„"".""""".",,,,s.,.R.,:,..R,Irki.':',..,,,,,.:',.1.-,F,..,j.l1F,:l.r....--;;I:ii::.1.....,...:,',:-.-g."..,,::...:".•.":,,,,,,,,"."".....,,,i,,,,,::::;:::;",".k,,,,..,...,!L•:..::mi":.:':ii'.....', ..":'...,...:::H,':.1.::...:.:.-.!..!!!....,...........,...".... .1,.....,:il.,,,,,,':::'' -".........,,,,. ."' ..:.:...,:........ ilek.,... :.:,....,.........,....,:,,,,,,.. ,,,gioi ,i,t;11.1.11.,..?;:ameg,,,NR,410.....,,,,,:,,a;.....e..,....,....1,,,,.....,........„1.,,,o,..vt.,,ki.,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-....-....- ., ''' , s ...............:.":„:„...„..",,:,„."„„,",..,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,..,,......,:,,,,i::,,,,„,,„„.... .,..„„„..•, ,„,:"...,,....:....,..:,..:..........„„..,4,.,::.„:,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,..,..:, : „...,.,, :,..„„.„„ ,..,:::..,..„ ....,.... •,.....,...,:,,,,,,.„,„:11:,..;011:4,11iiiii,ii„... toli,,,,,:,,,„15.1,:„i,..,...„........., .... . ...,,,,:. '- ,III'tiontilittelloolltiornsi.lovitlguii,..,11,1,,,,,„„„„„„„„„„..............::::':::•....................- .s's ' ..............."":",.:•,„...",,,,,,iia:,.v....1.,-'::::-...:.:........:-......"...,,,...,..,. i ....,.....„.::....",":,,,,,...,,,...0...,,,,F1.1....,..1itiot,,,,,,,. .,:lv,.,:g).,.:?::z,,::,:,.,,,:,:sg,....,..,:,,,„,.,,...:.::...,._.:..,.,:-.•::-s:-s.•-,..,s ."""""..„:„:"..„.............„..,,„„..,,,,,,,,..„.....,,..:..,...„.:::..,...-,,,,,,,.....-.. ............:......."":„:„..„.,„„,„„,,,,I,,,..,",t.,•.H.......-..,......„„„„,, , .,,,,...... ....,............... ,,.., ................:.H......:.„.r.,,,-.....,....t,,,,:\,,,,4*4 .......,-....„....:::::. t.,b::,,,.:.,..,..,.:,,.,.::::.,.:,,A..,.,„,,,::.,,:,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,:,„,„,...,:,:,.,.,.,,...:..,?,,::.,,,,,,,,,,,„.„„,„,„„„,„,-.----.'. ' ..........................:":„.....,:::,.......„,,,,,,,,,..,.....,:,,,::.-........::-.....„,,,, •.. ss ,, ... ..........:......",...........:,...,,...H.H.:....::::,01k,u%,.,„....„., ... ,kt,..,,,,wilimillillotilitilloilitilikellatiiiiiiiiiiiiiimit''''„„„:„.„„„„„„...':„':.:.:.:........... ..............,....."""„,",",iiiii,\''‘‘1,,,,,..:::,..m.,.....:::!..--:-:::::::.,,,,,,,,,,,""...."""",,,,,,,,,a,\\ ,....,14:...-...:.........-:---:.I.,".!",,,, : .:::::„.ii.:1!....i..,::,'7-:.......,,i,::::..,,,Ni.•::::.,..,:.,,i,,,,•,,,.,,,,,H,.„,"..,:,:-..,:..--",":",.":4:,:....3,..,....i.:::.:g. v.:•--,,L,.',...-.........,...,iiko:111§p16:,........,.:.•,.,„,.. ttilililimIlhil!allitlilimillipx.11,101:!!!!!!.,"".,,,,,,,,,""":„.","!,,,,,,,,,,,iliii...,,,,laii...,:!;„!.,.„,."!.......g.t.;14 luir.:::.,',,„„„.L...„„„„'„„„„!D.,.,:or,o1111""il,,.s.: ..,:•...::.:..'-:(.11:;,,,.,,,..... .......P1:1:,,.,-1.11.,:i..v-:',;L:.,4 .---;.,:-.w--t,::::::::.41.1i$ ..,NliAii '. .ials ,,4.RI110.'.•':...,:.::.-...i,.•,',,,,,,.......,. 41111iipitiii;iitluillogillitlillilidokillioi..„,....,,iii,„,,,,,,,,„„'„'„„„--:'...... ..,,...„","..,............""""""""""""",,,,,,,,,..,..,::::::::11.::::.!::::1,......,)'.- „,.:.....----...„.:,:„.,,...,""",""",,,,,..........,:a.E.,..piongo.1,......4..,..11:c..' 1.1,...,!.(1,....--i-1::.',,,,-,-.,....,,I.:7‘.4.,..\..k.1.,,,:,.,‘,,\ AiN) ,•iimilliii!itilf.,.!-.,:... \\\.... .,,„;:-...i,,„...:••-,,,,,,,•.,:. , l.s.:. rnon.,,l.sfg,,sto.,:....,....,.,:.,i:!:...:,,ft...t...,..:,..:.:,::.i.,:o,.,:.]:,:,:,......,r;..„,,,,i,,,,„,:„,„,„:,,„„,:,.:....:.:.„...f.......:.„"""",","""",",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,i,,a,..,..:,,„:...,:,,::.„,,„,,„,„:,„„,„.,,,..,.::".:.::.:""""",,,""""",,,,,,,,,,,,::,,,,,,.,:.::,:,,r7:1',,,,,:•.:.,.-::..::.:.,:.•,'.::.,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,:..........:......:„.::.:„.,","","","""",::,,,,,,,,,N,.im.A:'•:',:.:.•.,:,„•' ...,,,...,..,,,"......,...,,. ........,,,c4.,•-.::,,,,,,,,,';',.:;,,E,,,,E„•:-,,,,,,:....r.-..:.--,--.,:-.::.:,,:..:,--,"."",:.-.!,:::,i1N„..'\,','::,,,,i,i.:iii,,,...,"AmmilivIllt4I,,:,,,:. ,•g:',....:::,,,,,,,::::::,...• 111:1:II:iximAilignisbili:,....:,...E,..,,,,,,,,...,:::,,,,,,o,,,i,,,:.",...",.:,:,:i.i...,.:,,),,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„..„,„-:-...-... .. ........ ....................„....„..:.:„:„:",",„""",,,,,,g,„Api,‘:......,::::::::::,::::k...::.... ....:::::....,..4:.q,o,::,i:...,....r,s.•---....::,.-r-:::-.,:.;::"...":,..,.,,,,:,,,:,,,,:ti,%..,g......t....•.,i.:...,,,,iotm:Nmo...i,,,:..,,,.s,„.,i,,,:....„-„..-.:-:•.-::,.... . 11111.11tit11.1111.1111111111111.'411gmigli;,,,ip.plir,„!,..„.„„,„,..,,:,„,„„:„„„,„,:.:-':::.'-:....-.:......-- .......„,,,.„,,„,,,„,„,„„,..,,,„,,,„,.;I.III,s,,7!*i....:..!t.,t,,,o:,"-::..i:.,t:I!!!!!iuloli.ipi:;t:o..IIit:....,!i!"T.,I,::..,.:!:;;;i-,i :;;„.,..7::•• ,i,:,,,1:,:ii!.11,111.1.1:11.1111.11%.5,..,,..,..,......i.,„.„..:„..„,.....,................ .,„......„...,.......,- Ip.....-..:*.• ... ...........:.:...,„:"...„.......:........":„.„,„.":.,-„: 1114.r...,: .::.......,.....ii.,•J::::,.„........:::::::.........:„,„,,,,.....,..„.„,.„..,,.....;,..,.i..,!#,,,....„..!..,!:;:„.,..,...0*.........,„„::.........,....,..„„,„„:„0...„.„.„„:,:,,,.:.....:„..•.-..•••••- • • HH .. .........:•:....,,........:.:.,..:....,,,""",.!".„:..:,..:.:.,:....:,;,.:,,,„,....,...„: if.!...!:..:,:„..„......,..v.iiff: ""'",,P• i....,:::,. ....."."... ..................... ..... .„., •..,„ :.ii..,..t. „......• ..... ....... 9....•.,,•.,;.,:...,.,:::...,.:,..-''..,...i....':.:....-E',....-.:.,::......:•.:::.:,.-''.•-:',......,.•''....':_..:-':,..:...---.:-::.....,........l...............;':..........•.....:.....,.......•...........,•...,•.•,•.•.•.......\\•....,,•..•.,.:.•...:,..:...::..,..:,..„..:.......,..:',..',...........:.:.,......,.::•..,..',..,..''.:...,.........................,.........,•:........:...........:..........:•....;,...:.:::...:..:•....:...:.:........„.•:„...•..•.•.••..• ::"....:::".......,"",""",".""......,.,"."',..."..:,":""::::::.?,.,.:,.........,:...,:...........,..:•:.:.,:i:...,....:,,.::,,, -----..............................:-.:.,.:..-.....-....-... c ''''''.... '.. .....' ':'':':''''''''''':'':':''':' :''''':'''':''' ,.:,:..„.•::.••••„:••••••:•.•••:••••,••• • • f.:.„:,...:.... ... ..... *,...„. . grim"Sli" .......... ..:.........:,:,....„.„................„... .........,............„.......,....:„....:„.„.:.„......„....„....„...:,.....................:......,..,.....•....,.:,,,...„.„,,.:,.:..„.„......„....:..„...............„..................... .......................„.........................,.........,...................... ...... ......................:::.:.:::...:...................mw,,,,,,,,. ....•...,....,..„...„,.........,„....:„...„.„:„..„,...,...::„,:::::„...„,:..........„.„..............:.:.•::•.:.::........„,...\ ii:,..,k...•....,.........,,...:,!",:"."111toillit!!!!!litliiitiltillitoill1111.111111"....,"",","","","1,1•1111,!!!.rii,i„..........-..",,,,,,,,!""I".1.,0.!orm,•.....i...:1,.....0,,,.....:L.i,„....,„„„„„„::::::„...„......:•-:•:'-'-::.•••••••-•-•••••••••• ••••................:.:::::::..„.....„ ..................... .... ... ,,., 1„,,,.,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,.„..„„,,,,„,,,.„„„„„.„,,„,..,„„,,,,,,,........:..............- .. ilip,„1",.,,,.11,,,,„11,11,.„,111,1,11,11,11,1„„„„,„:„,,,....,,,„,:,,,,,,,,„•,,,..,,,.,,.....,....„............,..„.....:.........„:„............... 4,;,140:111,11A4livalloulitilio,,,I",,...:,,,,,,:...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,..„„:,,,....!!!........i....."...........••••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••:.........,...................•••••••••••.................•••••.,.....••••••••..... . kills.0111.pt,i,*:Ateit ,,tatkhl,11.,.,,,,,,,,,,..,..,..,..,.::,,.„..,,,,„:„,,„,„„„„„:.,,,„,,„:„..„....,,,......,..•..:..: ....... . ......,........ :. .................. ......... ,,,,.....,......„7„....s.....,.......... ,.,,$IsA,tilli,tix:..;ttltitootitllil?i,iuorii.I.tit.,:•.:1:.!,..,..s.::,..,s!!!,.!::.•!.!•:!.!!.!!.,•••:..!!!..•::::..::..:..:..•••••..•.....•••••••.••••••.•:.••••••..•••••••....•.:.:..:.•..::.•".::.::.:..""".:"""""""".,",."""".""",„„,.„,.„„„.„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t,,,,,:.o.!,,,......,....,,,,,„„,.....„,,,,,,,„,,,,,„„„,„,,..,:„!::::::,,,-.. ty.so;4K!iipb.4iit,Aliisilit$1isttm:o...,.III..si.t.1:!!!!!!....!!,::!!.,.!!.•:!.:.•!:..:.,•:.!:.,•:.:i.:.•::...:..:..•....:..•.„.••"•.••••••.••••••••.••••••.••••••••.•:.:..•.:::....:::::.,•.:...::"""""""",•""",,,„„„,„„„„,.,„„„.;.•,,,.„,,,,,,,,!..•,,,klk.,k .,.........:,!!.,::::::::::::....... ....,:liQN;1111:st*4At•Nitspo:,kii.0.111,11,111.1!!!!.1.!!!.....:!!!!!::...,...:,..,....,::;:;::::::.:,,,.::::::::::::::....::::::,.......„:::,.....,.:,::,...„..".„.1111.110.„..11.,..„.„:„..„,.„..,..„,„„„„„„.,,„„...„.,„.„.„„,„......,,,s , •"•....„..........„:„........:,........„........:.........:,......,...,....,,,....... ........,,,,,,,,,,s,imigsi..;,1411,,o111,0111.tievileilliffii!„,.....!...:!:,.:::::-.:::'....................-...-...................................... ....................._....,."•,....7..,........:,,:. ....71. :::::i::::::::::"'''J'.'"'Jj';''':••• . . •''ir.'L:\i',Fiill110ERSIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIIPIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!:!!!:::::::::::::::,:...,.:‘.:...,:.,,.:....,........=:........:.:.>.:.:<....:.:....:.:.:..:.„:.,:.:.:.,.....:.,..:<.:„.:.:.:..„..:....:.:....:.:.:.......:„...„...................:.:.:....<.:....:.:.::.........:.„....:.::.:.:.........:....„....:.:,:...........:.:.......:...„...:,,.:.,..:,:.,...r...<......<. .•':'I':a1,Cql'Otillit :'tslill111!11!1111!N1111,11:!!!:,..:!!:::::::::::::::::::::::;:::.:;::;:::,.:::,,,,,::::::..:„.:...,,,,:..„,,,..:„.....,::;:......:::::,:.:„,,,,,..::„:::„„„„.:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,.::„:.:„„:„...„„;,,,,„„,.......„.....„:„:„::::.:„,r„....:.::„:„„:.:„.:.:„.::,..„,::„,„::,H.„„:„:„:„H:„:„...„,„„::„,:„. rgsksQ1114111111iikki:111111111)1011.111111111:il!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:::::::::::„......„...:•.....................„.....„.........„•••••••_:.••„•...••••,••••,.......„...............„....„.......„.....„•••••,..,..„.•.„....••,,.•••„.„......,.....................,..................................................„.........................„..:.„.„:.,,..„.,.•„ 1111111111:11.:11.11:11:11:1.11,1,...,'.;:',.:.:'::':•:.:,::.:::,......::::::.!..:::........:.........!..:::.'......'". • •• ..,4d'4i1;t)..1::NP;tt''..ASit:$1tN,Mg01,61.,0::::••::g.g.,:::::::::A„,„„.,„i„„„'„.:::'::::'''''''''''... • •• . • 4',, &t.ettitt:tt"..M..kZklAINtA.AtIM,g'.g,t.,',:::',..........::::::.::,::::'.:„..','„„'''''''„'„':''''''''''''''''''''''..... 4tN%tk'..tkli:tkitUkg?,t4:,ii4V!',..,•'.0..•,:ttigW,,, M.:.‘,':',..§:::::::•!::::.'..::,::„:-.'„'„::::''''„:::''''''''''."...' gl'VnD%iXVtkill:,4fg:4Ne§...ti).:'i.§bt.i41t'::.'.:g::..:!:.:::!'g'•ii:i„.„„„„„„g„„„::'s:::'''''.'''""...... .. ,&t',. ..4'...Ni.,i'g,•f%P:...,.',,,i',•:NN.V.::::.::',.,':::::..':':t;l'L'.:,';:.:.,•):'':•'4ti.:::','•:.',.*t:1'..:',..;:::'::'.:',..O.:!::..i:':'g„'..:„.„:,:„'.„:.'''''''''.'„'''''''.......''' k4tili5tat55s llfglial$,INN:;:iii:4::::1..,.,3:0Mtft:::1:::,:::g.,.::::1:::',„„„„„„„„'„„„:'''''''.......-... ••••••......... ,,,kViMMIN:1(MINAtt:Mtlii:;';',.tii;:.::.i!.;1..':a.it.':::!:i.egkalit'.....i:.:iiii:;...'?i:::,!ii.!!•;,!..,::"Iii'iiii.ig„„„„„„'„„„:::''''''''''''''''.. . •••••..•......••••••••••••••••••••••• t,,s4I'a'x'"""44Iti4ONNOR,ifi%:•.',..N:i..',.1,.§..',...:1';:i:.....:0:1:,..',,,..44%..1.....;:i„::,.„,„„,,,,,:""'.',:""*"... ,•;ii::•ttii.;::ge.:01::',1;k::g,;i';Ii:14„'„'„„„„„„„.''''''''''''''''..... 4.,q*MMit.leta .,,,Mett%O.,•',.,..,k;'Ne'.,!•:'4W.0:•,.,.,;i',,R,:it..t.::::?,.,:::,.,„„„.:„....::';':::':„:.:..........''''''''. . OIN't7.,:a.,,.t';'!'.,.',',.•-',.,::::::::,.:':::::''''''''''';'•..„!:':.!....... ,,,,,,,,,,...........