Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packets - Council Packets (788)
AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION APRIL 23, 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. PRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT BY YVONNE DAWSON OF TISCHLERBISE INC. 2. PRESENTATION OF REPORTS ON POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 3. NARANJA TOWN SITE EDUCATION CAMPAIGN UPDATE 4. INFORMATION ON BUFFELGRASS ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 04-16-08 4:45 p.m. kc The Town of Oro Valleycomplies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person with a disabilityany type needs t e of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at (520)229-4700. a,. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 04/23/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: DAVID ANDREWS,TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT BY YVONNE DAWSON OF TISCHLERBISE INC. SUMMARY: with TischlerBise Inc. for Phase I of a development On August 1, 2007 the Town Council voted to contract g whether the Town could support the creation of impact fee feasibility/cost of service study to determine p Specific areas of interest were: police facilities, street and transportation additional development impact fees. improvements, operational needs recreation facilities, library facilities, open parks andspace and riparian areas, mana gement. Based on land use and population data, interviews with staff, and established and storm water g demand factors, Paul Tischler of TischlerBise erBise completeda comprehensive rehensive cost of service study and provided a p 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. Taschler development in the areas of police, parks and recreation, transportation, recommended that the Town pursue fee p estimated ui (now referred to as general government). TischlerBiselibrar and municipal facilities and eqment equipment range anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000, which would be used to the cost of these new development fees could y fund capital costs associated with maintaining current service levels as growth occurs. proceed with Phase II and asked TischlerBise to create a sound On November 7, 2007 the Council chose to the impact fees in the five areas recommended to Council. Through methodology for formulating developmentp of the fee development process, TischlerBise has been able to provide data collection and analysis portionp calculate legally inin the current levels of service for the areas selected and g y accurate data on the cost of maintaining share of capital costs. • Town that will requirep defensible impact fees for the new growth to pay its proportionate ThisTischlerBise is here to present the final report on Phase II of the project. evening Yvonne Dawson of you may also recall, we were recently informed As bythe League of Arizona Cities and Towns (League) of g Billsignificant changes to the current development impact fee legislation. Senate 1406 that proposes some developers and to modifythe manner in which credits are determined for p Among them would be a requirement l more importantly, a requirement to include a twenty-four month waiting period for all newly platted • fees. This twenty-four month waiting period would be applied to developments to begin the collection of impact y - • January1, 2009. The twenty-four month waiting period has the anynew fees that become effective after potential to cause both administrative and budgetary consequences. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 04/23/08 With respect to the fees that Ms. Dawson will present this evening, the Town Council would need to consider the adoption of any new potential fees proposed in the report within the timeframe listed below in order to avoid the delayed application of these impact fees that would result from the passage of Senate Bill 1406. Study Session on proposed development impact fees April 23, 2008 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 August 20, 2008 (90 day waiting period) Effective date of newly adopted fees November 18, 2008 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of draft final report from TischlerBise Inc. OetAilAA' ali/Less)-- David Andrews, Town Manager i; „,„ . „„iii,„ , . . E Development Fee Study and ''1 ' Infrastructure Improvements Plan 1 1 I ' Prepared for: I 1 Town of Oro Valley, Arizona I 1 1 . I I I . , I1 Prepared by: .,. I 1 TischlerBise I ! 111 April 7, 2008 1 II I 1 • Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements p is Plan ii di ip TABLE OF CONTENTS al 2,,,, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY7 1 IIN DEVELOPMENT FEE OVERVIEW INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2 DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IIP CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES 2 Figure 1.Infrastructure Improvement Plan(IIP)and Development Fee Formula 4 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATIONS BY FACILITY CATEGORY 4 SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS 6 Figure 2:Schedule of Maximum Supportable Development Fees 6 PARKS AND RECREATION 8 METHODOLOGY Figure 3:Parks and Recreation Develo ment Fee Methodology8 p Chart 8 1111 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 9 Figure 4: Parkland Level of Service and Cost Standards 10 Figure 5: Parkland Acquisition and Development Infrastructure Improvements Plan 11 PARK AMENITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 11 Figure 6:Park Amenities Level of Service and Cost Standards 12 Figure 7: Park Amenities Infrastructure Improvements Plan 12 PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 13es Figure 8:Park Recreational Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards ,. 13 Figure 9: Park Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan 14 PARK VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 14 Figure 10:Park Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards 15 N hf Figure 11: Park Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan 16 PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 1III6 PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES 16 Figure 12:Parks and Recreation Development Fee Input Variables 17 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR PARKS AND REC. 17 Figure 13:Parks and Recreation Development Fee Schedule 17 LIBRARY 18 METHODOLOGY 18 Figure 14:Library Development Fee Methodology Chart 18 LIBRARY FACILITY—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 18 Figure 15:Library Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards 19 Figure 16: Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 20 LAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITY—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 20 Figure 17:Land for Library Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards 20 Figure 18: Land for Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 21Not LIBRARY COLLECTION MATERIALS—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 21 10 Figure 19:Library Collection Materials Level of Service and Cost Standards 22 Figure 20: Library Collection Materials Infrastructure Improvements Plan 23 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 23c LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES /3 iii Figure 21:Library Development Fee Input Variables 24 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR LIBRARY 24 mkt Figure 22:Library Development Fee Schedule 24 POLICE1111 25 METHODOLOGY 25 Figure 23:Police Development Fee Methodology Chart 25 PROPORTIONA`1'E SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL 26 1.0 11 TischlerBise all P A IP Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan iill '' - - ‘ ._,,,, ,„, „ , ,. ., Figure 24:Oro Valley Calls for Service by Land Use Type,Dec.2006-Nov.2007 26 POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY—PLANNED 26 Y w_ Figure 25:Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards 27 Figure 26: Police Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 28 LAND FOR POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY—COST RECOVERY 28 To Figure 27:Land for Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards 29 Figure 28: Land for Police Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 30 1111 POLICE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 30 Figure 29:Police Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards 31 Figure 30: Police Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan 32 ii F� POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 32 POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES 32 Figure 31:Police Development Fee Input Variables 33 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR POLICE 33 Figure 32:Police Development Fee Schedule 34 di GENERAL GOVERNMENT 35 METHODOLOGY 35 Figure 33:General Government Development Fee Methodology Chart 35 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL 36 Figure 34:Proportionate Share Factors—Functional Population 37 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 37 Figure 35:General Government Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards 38 Figure 36: General Government Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan 39 GENERAL GOVT.VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 39 Figure 37:General Government Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards 40 Figure 38: General Government Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan 41 TRANSIT VEHICLES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 41 Figure 39:Transit Vehicles Level of Service and Cost Standards 42 IP Figure 40: Transit Vehicles Infrastructure Improvements Plan 42 x GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 42 GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES 43 Figure 41:General Government Development Fee Input Variables 43 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR GENERAL GOVT 43 iii Figure 42:General Government Development Fee Schedule 44 TRANSPORTATION 45 so METHODOLOGY 45 di Figure 43:Transportation Development Fee Methodology ..46 VEHICLE TRIPS 46 Figure 44:Trip Adjustment for Journey to Work Commuting 47 Figure 45:Commercial/Shopping Center Trip Rates and Pass-By Adjustments 48 il GROWTH-RELATED DEMAND FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 48 Figure 46:Planned Arterial Capacity Improvements in Oro Valley 49 Figure 47:Planned Collector Capacity Improvements in Oro Valley 49 VEHICLE TRIPS FROM DEVELOPMENT IN ORO VALLEY 50 Figure 48:Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Arterial Roads 51 Figure 49:Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Collector Roads 51 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY—PLAN-BASED 52 Figure 50: Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards 52 di Figure 51: Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 53 LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY—COST-RECOVERY 53 Figure 52: Land for Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards ..54 Figure 53: Land for Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan 55 TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION 55 Figure 54: Transportation Vehicles and Equipment and Level of Service and Cost Standards 56 IP Figure 55: Transportation Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan 57 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 57 TRANSPORTATION INPUT VARIABLES 57 Figure 56:Transportation Input Variables 59 IP iii ..,.7T ,.... TischlerBise a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR TRANSPORTATION 59 Figure 57:Maximum Supportable Transportation Development Fee Schedule 60 APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 61 PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT 61 Figure A l:Persons Per Housing Unit in Oro Valley 62 2007 HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATE 62 Figure A2:Oro Valley Residential Building Permits,2000-2007 63 Figure A3:2007 Housing Unit Estimate 63 Figure A4:Oro Valley Housing Unit Projections Through 2020 63 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS 64 Figure A5:Population Estimates and Projections 64 JOB&NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATES 65 Figure A6:Job and Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates 65 NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS 66 Figure A7:2008 Planned Nonresidential Development—Oro Valley,AZ 66 Figure A8:Nonresidential Development Trends 2004-2007,Oro Valley,AZ 66 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 67 Figure A9: Floor Area Per Employee and Nonresidential Trip Rates 68 Figure A10: Nonresidential Square Footage and Job Projections 69 AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ESTIMATES 69 Figure A 11: Average Daily Trips 70 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2007-2020 71 Figure Al2:Development Projections 2007-2020 71 APPENDIX 2: ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE LEGISLATION 72 Mil • a TischlerBise iv 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816 TischlerBise T: 800.424.4318 I F: 301.320.4860 Fiscal,Economic & Planning Consultants 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91105-1404 111 T: 818.790.6170 I F: 818.790.6235 W W W.TUSCHLER BI SE.COM Executive Summary The Town of Oro Valley,Arizona has contracted with TischlerBise to calculate development fees for the following infrastructure categories: • Parks &Recreation; • Library; • Police; • General Government; and • Transportation. »a 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 facility needs. By law, development fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Development fees are subject to rigorous legal standards, which require the fulfillment of three key elements: demand, benefit and a proportionality. First, to justify a 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. Another general requirement common to development fee methodologies is the evaluation dill 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 a 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 a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal payments on existing � ►_r i ri isS��t Ari 1 ►',.") .R009211102 rate .���,, t�:x;t',�.:trl'�:�� rr�;yc_.Aria i .iia • Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan7 a debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments if interest costs are Ilm 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 may be eligible develo ers for site-specific pp credits or reimbursements only f 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. .00 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REQUIREMENTS II Arizona's current development fee legislation requires that municipalities adopt an infrastructure improvements plan prior to assessing new or modified development fees. wt Development fees for municipalities in Arizona are authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes ft (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: I 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 withow 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 iNi 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. Ili 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 reportIN documents the appropriate methodology and demand indicators by type of development for or each IIP. The report documents the relationship between the IIP and the development fees. ilk 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 lb 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. Ilii 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 touide capital g plb improvements. Under the plan-based methodology, there are two approaches considered. lb , . „ . . , isc e Tise 2 A ITown of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan The average approach is used for projects that are the result of both new and existing I 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 of public 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 vil revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new a 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 a development would buy-in to the excess capacity of the facility. The rationale for the cost op recovery approach is that new development will pay for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of recently constructed facilities. di The generic formula used to calculate the IIP and development fee is diagrammed in Figure o 1. The diagram starts in the upper left corner and progresses left-to-right and down through the lower right corner. aot a o a o a of a op di o di op a a iseii ,'. iSe 3 , - . .; ',tri. ,Wiz=.,. ,x s,• a ii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan 11111 Figure 1. Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and Development Fee Formula INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN iii INFRASTRUCTURE FORECAST FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.11 Level-of- New Infrastructure Service to be Provided x Development = Demanded by II to New Development Projections New Development (e.g.acres per person, (e.g.new persons (e.g.total number of 2, IIsquare 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. DEVELOPMENT FEE V 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) II no SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATIONS BY FACILITY CATEGORY As noted above, TischlerBise, Inc. calculated the IIP and development fees for fivetYp es of ii 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 wis for capital facilities. This analysis determines those capital needs — and the related costs — brought about by new development. The resulting IIP and maximum supportable ii development fee amount represents each type of land uses' fair share of the capital cost for to- 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 Ili 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 ft itti 111 TischlerBise a. Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan resulting development 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. IP iii Parks and Recreation The parks and recreation development 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 parkland acquisition and development, park amenities, park recreational facilities, park vehicles/equipment and the parks 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. ILibrary The library development 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 The police development fee calculates new growth's contribution for the planned police facility at the Municipal Operations Center, the land acquisition for the police facility, police vehicles/equipment and the police component of the development fee study. As demand for police facilities is driven by residents and businesses, the development fee is allocated to dii 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 ff other housing types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of is the development. General Government 111 TheP government general develo ment fee uses the incremental-expansion method to calculate new growth's contribution for future general government facilities, general govt. vehicles/equipment, transit vehicles and the general government facilities component of the development fee study. As demand for general government 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 general 111government facilities are: $389 for single family housing units and $232 for all other housing di types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. Transportation The plan-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 the Regional Transportation Authority Regional Transportation Plan. The development fee provides the per development unit cost for the 5 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan S 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 MunicipalOperations O erations Center7 Other fee components are calculated using cost recoverymethod (public works ortion of . . p 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 3 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 2 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 develiiopment pp e opment fee amounts for residential and non-residential development in Oro Valley. The development fees shown are forarks and recreation, library, police, general g al Ili 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/shopping center from 100,001-200,000 sq. ft. is $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 Residential-Per Housing Unit 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 Non-Residential-Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area iii Parks and General Recreation Library Police Govt. Transportation Total Com/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less N/A N/A $199 $209 $5,462 $5,870 Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF N/A N/A $172 $179 $4,745 $5,097 MI Corn/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 Com/ Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF N/A N/A $105 $125 $2,883 $3,113 illi 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 MI 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 al Manufacturing N/A N/A $12 $112 $373 $497 Non-Residential-Per Room Lodging N/A l N/A $18 $28 $549 $595 lb lbh6"~ ',' IW di ITown of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed I inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and update of development fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index specific to construction as opposed 7 to the consumerp rice index (CPI), which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends usingthe Marshall Swift Valuation Service, which provides comparative cost . multipliers for various geographies and types of construction. The multipliers can be applied I p g g against the calculated development fee. If cost estimates 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), whichrepresent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the ItiP equal analysis maynot the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the ii (due ortfactors shown in the rep to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis). iii v. iii9 v. 1111 Ivo ill At a I I 0 A I di If it ill 1 T 7 NM Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ill Parks and Recreation a METHODOLOGY .911 ait The components of this development fee include parkland mens acquisition and development, p park amenities, recreational facilities, vehicles/equipment and the parks and recreation 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. I Figure 3: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Methodology Chart I Parks and RecreationI Development Fee 1 —____,-7,_.---,..—..d.. Multiplied byTotal Capital t I Persons per Housing Unit P p By Housing Type 1 Cost Per Person 1 Parkland Acquistion and Development Cost Per Person 1 Park Amenities ' Cost Per Person 1 3 Recreational Facilities Cost Per Person Vehicles and Equipment Cost Per Person Development Fee Study Cost Per Person PO IS TischlerBise a a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The parkland acquisition and development component of the parks and recreation development fee is calculated using the incremental expansion methodology. Figure 4 provides an inventory of the Town of Oro Valley's developed (active) parkland. The current acquisition cost for parkland is estimated at $49,000 per acre based on recent parkland acquisition by Pima County. The cost per acre of development (grading and slope treatment) is estimated at $68,769/acre based on the Town's plans for the Naranja Town Site, bringing the total cost per acre to $117,769. This results in a total parkland value of approximately $8,479,350. To calculate the level of service (LOS) for parkland, 72 acres is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (72 acres / 42,551 persons = .0017 acres per person, or 1.69 acres per 1,000 persons). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The parkland acquisition cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total parkland value of$8,479,350. This results in a parkland acquisition cost of$199.27 per person ($8,479,350 / 42,551 = $199.27). a a a a a loP a • a a r TischlerBise 9 S Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan S Figure 4: Parkland Level of Service and Cost Standards Parks Developed Acres* Canada Del Oro Riverfront Park 20 James D. Kreigh Park 12 4 W.Lambert Lane Park 40 Total Developed Park Acres 72 Land Acquisition Cost/Acre** $49,000 id Development Cost/Acre** $68,769 Total Cost/Acre $117,769 Acres x Price S Total Cost $8,479,350 Population in 2007 42,551 Acres per 1,000 residents 1.69 Land Cost Per Acre $49,000 Land Cost Per Person $199.27 40:1, *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ. Passive parkland(Naranja Town Site, W Lambert Lane Park,5 acres at Jame D.Kriegh Park, 10 acres at Canada del Oro Riverfront Park)is not included. **Source:Land acquisition cost based on recent parkland acquistion by Pima County. The Town of Oro Valley expects that future land acquistion costs will be comparable to those of the County. Development(grading and slope treatment)cost based on Naranja Town Site Plans ($5,501,500/80 acres= -44 $68,769/acre). S -11 law a - Tischiermsen II a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 5 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for parkland acquisition and development. 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 LOS standard of.0017 acres per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately 5.65 acres of parkland. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $665,212 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $199.27 per person ($665,212 /3,338 persons = $199.27). a Figure 5: Parkland Acquisition and Development 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 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Acres per Person 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 5-Year Total Acres Demanded by New Development 1.07 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 5.65 Parkland Acquisition and Dev.Cost per Acre $117,769 $117,769 $117,769 $117,769 $117,769 5* 5-Year Total Parkland Acquisition and Dev.Cost For New Res.Development $125,764 $134,862 $134,862 $134,862 $134,862 $665,212 Parkland Acquisition and Development Cost Per Person $199.27 dB PARK AMENITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the park amenity component of the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 6 lists the park amenities by Town park, including lighted baseball and softball fields, lighted soccer fields, lighted racquetball court, walking paths, lighted tennis court, horseshoe pits, lighted armadas, playgrounds, restrooms and a dog park. Also shown is the estimated cost per amenity unit. Unit costs are from the Town's plans for the Naranja Town Site. To calculate the LOS for park amenities, 33.75 amenities is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (33.75 amenities / 42,551 persons = .001 amenities per person). Appendix See the A endix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The park amenity cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion,using the total amenity value of$4,350,400. This results in a park amenity cost of$102.24 per person ($4,350,400 /42,551 = $102.24). a 111 11 „.,,„, Bch e ise 1111 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan II Figure 6: Park Amenities Level of Service and Cost Standards I Lighted Lighted Lighted Lighted Lighted Baseball, Soccer Racquetball Basketball Walking Tennis Horse- Lighted Play- Rest- Parks Softball Field Field Court Court Path(ML) Court shoe Pit Ramada ground room Dog Park TOTAL Canada Del Oro Riverfront Park 2 2 1 0.75 1 2 3 1 2 14.75 James D.Kriegh Park 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 15 West Lambert Lane Park 1.00 1 Naranja Town Site 3.00 3 Total 3 4 4 1 4.75 1 2 5 4 4 1 33.75 Unit Cost* $250,000 $210,000 $50,000 $100,000 $54,400 $140,000 $1,000 $90,000 $150,000 $215,000 $150,000 Units x Cost $750,000 $840,000 $200,000 $100,000 $258,400 $140,000 $2,000 $450,000 $600,000 $860,000 $150,000 $4,350,400 Population in 2007 42,551 Amenities Per Capita 0.001 Cost Per Capita $102.24 *Source:Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department.Costs from plans for Naranjo Town Site. 3 Figure 7 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) forp ark amenities. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and mil the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the LOS standard of.001 amenities per capita, this amount of residential development will require approximately 2.65 amenities. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $341,292 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of j, $102.24 per person ($341,292/3,338 persons = $102.24). Figure 7: Park Amenities Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,5203 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 PARK AMENITIES id 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Amenities per Person 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 5-Year Total Amenities Demanded by New Development 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 2.65 Cost per Amenity $128,901 $128,901 $128,901 $128,901 $128,901 5-Year Total Park Amenity Cost For New Res.Development $64,524 $69,192 $69,192 $69,192 $69,192 $341,292 Park Amenity Cost Per Person $102.24 r .,.312 .,, TischlerBise vo r: II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan RECREATIONAL FACILITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION II The incremental expansion methodologyis used to derive the recreational facilities component of the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 8 provides an inventory of l park recreational facilities. Current replacement cost is provided by the Town based on plans II.r for the Naranja Town Site. iv To calculate the LOS for recreational facilities, 3 facilities is divided by the Town's in 2007 of 42 551 persons (3 facilities / 42,551 persons = .0001 facilities per ill �� population person). pp See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The recreational facilities cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of 4 $37,517,900. This results in a recreational facilities cost of $881.72 per person ii ($37,517,900/42,551 = $881.72). m Figure 8: Recreational Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards t { Facility Park Facilities Replace. Cost/Facility* Replacement Cost Outdoor Amphitheater Canada Del Oro 1 $34,795,900 $34,795,900 fie Swimming Pools(2) James.D.Kriegh 2 $1,361,000 $2,722,000 TOTAL/AVERAGE 3 $12,505,967 $37,517,900 di Population in 2007 42,551 Facilities Per Capita 0.0001 ICost Per Capita $881.72 *Source:Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department. Costs from plans for Naranja Town Site. ilii Figure 9 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for recreational facilities. The di 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 I projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0001 facilities per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately .24 facilities. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $2,943,309 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of$881.72 per person ($2,943,309/3,338 persons = $881.72). I I 1 � . �:�. 13 -_;„..-. - , ,, - ,, .-------_- , ,- -- , - - - -- a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a Figure 9: Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS id 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 PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Facilities per Person 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 5-Year Total Facilities Demanded by New Development 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.24 Cost per Facility $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967 5-Year Total Park Recreational Facilities Cost For New Res.Development $556,457 $596,713 $596,713 $596,713 $596,713 $2,943,309 Me Park Recreational Facilities Cost Per Person $881.72 id PARK VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the vehicle/equipment cost di component of the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 10 provides an inventory of current park vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost for Town park vehicles/equipment is provided by the Town of Oro Valley. a To calculate the LOS for park vehicles/equipment, 14 units is divided by the Town's population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (14 units /42,551 persons = .0003 units per person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The park vehicle/equipment cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $272,144. This results in a park vehicles/equipment cost of $6.40 per person (($272,144 /42,551 = $6.40). 3 I I II Ns TischlerBise14 a ill Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 10: Park Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards s. iii Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost 1 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 3 $26,000 $78,000 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 1 $28,050 $28,050 1 Ton Pickup Truck 1 $31,050 $31,050 Utility Tractor with Backhoe,Loader,and Mower 1 $30,166 $30,166 II Backhoe with 12"Bucket 1 $7,417 $7,417 Tractor 1 $18,419 $18,419 Bunker Rake 2 $18,706 $37,412 11111 4wd utility vehicle 2 $14,210 $28,420 Aerifier 1 $6,221 $6,221 Fertilizer and sand spreader 1 $6,989 $6,989 A TOTAL/AVERAGE 14 $19,439 $272,144 I Population in 2007 42,551 Vehicles/Equipment Per Capita 0.0003 Cost Per Capita $6.40 Iv *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ ill Figure 11 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for park vehicles and equipment. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the 1111 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 .0003 IP vehicles/equipment per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately 1.10 vehicle/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure iii totals $21,350 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $6.40 per person ($21,350/3,338 persons = $6.40). I I I I I Tisch1eise 15 .044 a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan el Figure 11: Park Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Ili 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 PARK VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Person 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Development 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 1.10 Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $19,439 $19,439 $19,439 $19,439 $19,439 5-Year Total Park Vehicle/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $4,036 $4,328 $4,328 $4,328 $4,328 $21,350, Park Vehicle and Equipment Cost Per Person $6.40 I PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY The Town plans on updating its development fees studythreeyears to ensure the every 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 parks and recreation development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to Mili conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($13,600) is allocated to the projected increase in population over the next three years (2008-2011). This results in a development fee study cost per demand unit of$6.85 per person ($13,600/1,985 people). iii PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES x Figure 12 shows level of service standards and cost factors for the Oro Valley parks and ii recreation development fees. Development fees for parks and recreation are based on household size (i.e., persons per housing unit) and are charged to residential development. ,Ye Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for parkland acquisition and iii development, park amenities, recreational facilities, park vehicles/equipment and the parks and recreation component of the development fee study. • 11 111 a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan dli Figure 12: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family 2.26 All Other Housing 1.34 Level Of Service Park Land Acquisition and Development(Incremental-Expansion) di Park Land Cost per Person $199.27 Park Amenities(Incremental-Expansion) Park Amenities Cost per Person $102.24 Recreational Facilities(Incremental-Expansion) Recreational Facilities Cost Per Person $881.72 Park Vehicles and Equipment(Incremental-Expansion) di Park Vehicles and Equipment Cost Per Person $6.40 Development Fee Study Development Fee Study Cost Per Person $6.85 Total Capital Cost per Person $1,196.48 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Figure 13 contains a schedule of maximum supportable parks and recreation development fees for Oro Valley. The amounts 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 family unit, the persons per housing unit figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total capital cost per person of$1,196.48 for a parks and recreation development fee amount of$2,669 per single family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing category. Figure 13: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Schedule MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Residential Development Fee per Housing Unit Single Family $2,699 All Other Housing $1,607 m di m Ise " a. isc e „A 17 II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan MI Library 3 ii METHODOLOGY The components of this development fee include library facilities, land for library facilities, 1i library collection materials and the library component of the development fee study. The incremental expansion methodology is used for all development fee components. I 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 410 type of housing unit (see Appendix 1 for demographic information). All components in this development fee have a Town wide service area. II Figure 14: Library Development Fee Methodology Chart Library Development Fee Persons per Housing Unit Multiplied by Total Capital By Housing Type j Cost Per Person Library Facility i il Cost Per Person wog li Land for Library Facility ty Cost Per Person Collection Materials a Cost Per Person Development Fee Study ill Cost Per Person LIBRARY FACILITY—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION a 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 it ' - -- ' - isc e Ise T 18 a a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan F _ ;...}'•a',:,-: :v.,...r.,..nt.'<.;..i.._ .:. ..:+.M++...a.._ ..s .. .• ..::., 1,.o-... ......'l..'ta%-•u> i41`-.''..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 42,551 persons (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 library facility cost of$196.89 per person ($8,377,982 /42,551 = $196.89). a Figure 15: Library Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards Facility Sq. Ft. Replace. Cost/Sq.Ft.* Replacement Cost di Town Library 25,000 $335 $8,377,982 TOTAL 25,000 $8,377,982 dii 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) I Figure 16 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for library 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. Based on the existing LOS standard of.59 sq. ft. per person, this amount .41 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 -.p .,.a..4T54.:e+'+iF',. Ls.,... z,°.-*.:..yg...Y•,... ,s...... ... - Ili Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan IN Figure 16: Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan a« NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS II 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 I III 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 II 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 MI acquisition cost is from the Town's 2005 acquisition of land for the Municipal Operations Center. 0.011 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 ii Site Area Acres Acquisition Cost/Acre* Acquisition Cost 4, 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. I 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 1 person, this amount of residential development will require approximately .55 acres The 111 --- --,- ---..x_ ,5 TchIeise 20 1111 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan 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). rn Figure 18: Land for Library Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan m 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 dii 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 m 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). 1 Tischle ��� 21 :r 0 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan iii:;. 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 $30,422 Adult Uncat(pbk&vertical file 12 $8.12 $97 Youth Uncataloged pbk 1 $5.95 $6 7-day Express 1 $20.00 $20 AdultCatFictionPaperback 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 3 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 sow 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 II Share Demand Units Person Person Residential 100%_ 42,551 population 2.32 $48.86 *Source:Oro Valley Public Library 111 OM Figure 20 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for library collection materials. 11 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 LOS standard of 2.32 collection material items per capita, this amount of residential development will require approximately 7,735 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 ($163,110/3,338111 persons = $48.86). 3 zFTischlerl3ise22 vo di lot Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a 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 IP COLLECTION MATERIALS a 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Materials per Person 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 • 5-Year Total MI 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 is 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 go LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY IP The Town plans on updating its development fees study every three years to ensure the ii 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 is regular update. The cost of this component ($6,500) is allocated to the projected increase 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). +e LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES so 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 a 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. di A a mo a di ... :.1�• a ..r :.:a4.✓-a,x..r.„ r ?,. ;srwy',i' c :R.... i.. -.r, r,. 23 a a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ilil Figure 21: Library Development Fee Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential ` Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family 2.26 iii All Other Housing 1.34 Level Of Service Library Facility(Incremental-Expansion) NI 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 MI Development Fee Study Cost Per Person $3.28 Total Capital Cost per Person $307.79 sa MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR LIBRARY Figure 22 contains a schedule of maximum supportable library development fees for Oro Valley. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each iidi type of unit 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 $307.79 for a library development fee amount of$694 per single family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing category. Figure 22: Library Development Fee Schedule MAXIMUM ' ill SUPPQRTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Residential Development Fee per Housing Unit I Single Family $694 All Other Housing $413 r t i 1 1 1 1 i I24 e. .- .t.-- _ .'r'K t;., wr.F..�, 'C°:.. ."+s•'".'S._ -.p;•�-,x K v k ;'�c. TchIei t Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Police dill METHODOLOGY Thep lan-based method is used to calculate the training and property ID facility component of the police development fee. The cost-recovery method is used for the land portion of the fee. The other components of the police development fee are calculated using the incremental expansion method, including police vehicles/equipment and the police portion of the development fee study. The Oro Valley Police Department serves both residential and non-residential development, providing protection to residents and businesses. As shown in Figure 23, this development fee is allocated on a per capita basis for residential development. For nonresidential development, the methodology allocates the capital cost on a per nonresidential vehicle trip basis. TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand nonresidential demand indicator for police facilities and vehicles. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand forolice facilities. If employees per thousand square feet were used as p the demand indicator, development fees would be too high for office/institutional development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, development fees would be too high for industrial development. gii Figure 23: Police Development Fee Methodology Chart Residential Development Nonresidential Development Persons Per Housing Unit Vehicle Trips Per 1,000 IN By Housing Type Square Feet of Floor Area 44. Training and Property ID Facility Training and Property ID Facility Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip Land for Police Facility Land for Police Facility 4 Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip Police Vehicles/Equipment Police Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip Development Fee Study Development Fee Study Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip 25 r.- Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL The Oro Valley Police Department distinguished calls by residential and nonresidential land uses. These results (shown in Figure 24), are used to determine residential and nonresidential proportionate share factors. Of the 18,918 Oro Valley calls received during the sample period that can be assigned to a land use, 17,916 calls (95%) were to residential land uses and nonresidential uses accounted for 1,002 calls (5%). Figure 24: Oro Valley Calls for Service by Land Use Type, Dec. 2006-Nov. 2007 Land Use Type Calls* 0/0 Residential 17,916 95% Nonresidential 1,002 5% Total 18,918 100% *Source: Oro Valley Police Department POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY—PLANNED The plan-based methodology is used to derive the police training and property ID facility portion of the police development fee. Figure 25 provides the planned square footage and the construction cost for the facility,which will be built at the planned Municipal Operations Center at Rancho Vistoso. As the facility will provide a level of service improvement, the demand for this facility is generated both by existing and new development. The facility is expected to serve the Town through 2025,which corresponds with the end of the Town's debt service for the facility. To calculate the residential level of service, the square footage of the planned police facility (22,026 sq. ft.) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (see Figure 24) and then divided by the total population in 2025 of 54,641, resulting in .38 sq. ft. per person. See the Appendix for detail on population projections. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5% (see Figure 24) and dividing by the total nonresidential average daily vehicle trips in 2025 (180,444),providing for.01 sq. ft. per trip. See the Appendix for detail on trip projections. The police facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $6,995,095. This results in a police facility cost of $121.24 per person 6 995 095 x ° = $2.055%)/180,444 — ($ 95/o)/54,641 $121.24) and per trip x = $2.05). TchIei 26 vo di 00 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan II tie Figure 25: Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards Facility Year Sq.Ft. Replace.Cost/Sq.Ft.* Replacement Cost Training and Property ID 2010 22,026 $318 $6,995,095 TOTAL 22,026 $6,995,095 Proportionate 2025 Sq.Ft.per Cost per 111 Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 95% 54,641 population 0.38 $121.24 a Nonresidential 5% 180,444 nonres trips 0.01 $2.05 IA 'Source:Town of Oro Valley Rancho Vistoso Master Planning report,January 2008. tiA IP Figure 26 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for the planned police facility. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the di report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the existing .40 LOS standards of.38 sq. ft. per person and .01 sq. ft. per nonresidential trip, this amount of iii residential development will require approximately 1,274 sq. ft. and non-residential development will require 150 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals itte $452,328 over the next five years. Of this, $404,711 is attributable to new residential di development. This equates to $121.24 per person ($404,711/3,338 persons = $121.24). The remainder, $47,618, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This equates to $2.05 per nonresidential trip ($47,618/23,191 trips = $2.05). dil The Town's costs for the new police facility totals $5.1 million. The IIP illustrates new growth's demand for the capital facility and associated costs through FY 2013. The police k facility is expected to serve existing and new growth through 2025, so the remainder of the di cost is attributable to existing growth and new growth during the FY 2014-2025 period. I I I I I I I , , ,, ,„.-, - ,. ; „ . ,, - , .,-,,:„,. , - ---, ..,- - -,,,, ,, ., - isc e : ise 27 ill Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ii Figure 26: Police 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 Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 Net Change in Nonresidential Trips 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191 POLICE FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Person 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Nonres Trip 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 5-Year Total Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Res.Development 241 258 258 258 258 1,274 Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Nonres.Development 30 32 29 29 29 150 Cost per Sq.Ft. $318 $318 $318 $318 $318 5-Year Total Police Facility Cost For New Res.Development $76,514 $82,049 $82,049 $82,049 $82,049 $404,711 Police Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $9,473 $10,306 $9,280 $9,280 $9,280 $47,618 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $85,987 $92,355 $91,329 $91,329 $91,329 $452,328 .141 POLICE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST II 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 5-Year Total Police FacilityConstruction Cost I $6,995,095 $6,995,095 Less Income from Development Fees $85,987 $92,355 $91,329 $91,329 $91,329 $452,328 NET DEFICIT $6,542,767 ii LAND FOR POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY-COST RECOVERY The cost recovery methodology is used to derive the land for police training and property ID a facility portion of the police development fee. Figure 27 provides the acquired acreage and original land acquisition cost for the police portion of the Municipal Operations Center site. 4. The Town acquired the site in 2005, and the Figure reflects the cost to acquire the police portion of the site at that time. The police portion of the site corresponds with the share of the debt issuance assigned to the general fund. i As the police facility will provide a level of service improvement, demand for this site is generated both by existing and new development. The site is expected to serve the Town through 2025, which corresponds with the end of the Town's debt service for the land ii acquisition. NI : 1 To calculate the residential level of service, the acreage of the site for the planned police • , facility (2.2 acres) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (see II Figure 24) and then divided by the total population in 2025 of 54,641, resulting in .00004 acres per person. See the Appendix for detail on population projections. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5% (see Figure 24) and dividing by the total nonresidential average daily vehicle trips in 2025 (180,444), providing for .000001 acres per trip. See the Appendix for detail on trip projections. iii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a £. ,: ..,_..,.,.4...,:.rr,.....,ra.:., ..__... ..:,+:,. ., ,. :.i .x1. ..`,.-. ,.1 i ...l: - ';w .>. ... �*,4'+ .=.`tn.x ,rx>' .... .'.r.s :�.u,..r.3.s,.•:yh."',. ... The land for police facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the police IP share of the original land acquisition cost of$787,405. This results in a land for police facility cost of$13.65 per person ($787,405 x 95% /54,641 = and $.23 (($787,405 x ) $13.65) pertrip 5%)/180,444 = $.23). Figure 27: Land for Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards is Acquisition Cost Police Share of I Site Area Year Acquired Acres Police Share Per Acre* Acquisition Cost Future Police Facility at Municipal Operations Center 2005 2.2 17% $357,197 $787,405 TOTAL 2.2 $787,405 ir R,# ii Proportionate 2025 Acres per Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 95% 54,641 population 0.00004 $13.65 INonresidential 5% 180,444 nonres trips 0.000001 $0.23 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ.Public Works share corresponds with current allocation of debt service associated with land acquisition bonds. di Figure 28 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for the site of the planned police facility. 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, aii there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the existing LOS standards of.00004 acres per person and .000001 acres per nonresidential trip, this amount of residential development will require approximately .13 acres and non- residential development will require .02 acres. The projected cost of this demanded A infrastructure totals $50,916 over the next five years. Of this, $45,556 is attributable to new residential development. This equates to $13.65 per person ($45,556/3,338 persons = $13.65). The remainder, $5,360, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This a equates to$.23 per nonresidential trip ($5,360/23,191 trips = $.23). a la 110 a IiiA 111 . fil A V di .....---- •, t o ..:. _ - -------- ---. .• :�� L TischlerBise 29 mo A ow II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan I Figure 28: Land for Police 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 Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 Net Change in Nonresidential Trips 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191 LAND FOR POLICY FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Person 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Nonres Trip 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 141 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.13II Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Cost per Acre $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 5-Year Total II Land for Police Facility Cost For New Res.Development $8,613 $9,236 $9,236 $9,236 $9,236 $45,556 Land for Police Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $1,066 $1,160 $1,045 $1,045 $1,045 $5,360 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $9,679 $10,396 $10,280 $10,280 $10,280 $50,916 ii Land for Police Facility Cost Per Person $13.65 Land for Police Facility Cost Per Nonres Trip $0.23 POLICE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the P u vehicles/eqi ment Ili component of the police development fee. Figure 29 provides an inventory of current police vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost for vehicles/equipment is provided by the .10 Oro Valley Police Department. Ili To calculate the residential level of service, the 120 vehicles/equipment are multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor 95% (see Figure 24) and then divided by the 2007 f population of 42,551, resulting in .0027 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 24) and divided by the number of nonresidential vehicle trips in the Town in 2007Il 1 (63,428 trips), providing for .0001 vehicles/equipment per nonresidential average daily Y vehicle trip. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 nonresidential trip estimate. The police vehicle/equipment cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of $4,122,632. This results in a police vehicle/equipment cost of $91.76 per person (($4,122,632 x 95%)/42,551 = $91.76) and $3.44 per trip (($4,122,632 x 1 = 5%)/63,428 $3.44). 11 I TischlerBise 30 A Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ill - ,- e, -:.._--. za .T w- - t+k t:' .?.fir. ..7 .. .r-..r.,.t. ..:a. i .:+h',i:.:..:...s k';;.a..r r ',»tr ♦.s':z_`• x Figure 29: Police Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards do Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost Marked Patrol Sedan 43 $43,885 $1,887,055 7 Marked DUI Patrol Sedan 2 $50,645 $101,290 li Marked K-9 Patrol Sedan 4 $46,557 $186,228 Marked K-9 Patrol Truck 1 $52,526 $52,526 Marked Patrol SUV 4 $49,917 $199,668 Marked Patrol 1 1/2 Ton Truck 1 $47,361 $47,361 il Marked Motorcycle 11 $28,112 $309,232 Unmarked Trucks 4 $24,978 $99,912 Large Sport Wagon 1 $45,031 $45,031 le 3/4 Ton Truck 1 $36,568 $36,568 Unmarked Mid-size Sedan 30 $24,302 $729,060 Unmarked Full-size Sedan 3 $34,582 $103,746 Unmarked Van 2 $17,942 $35,884 Command Post 1 $132,667 $132,667 ATV 1 $5,200 $5,200 iii Property and Indentification Vans 3 $26,793 $80,379 8 Passenger Van 1 $17,391 $17,391 15 Passenger Van 1 $20,460 $20,460 Trailers 6 $5,496 $32,974 dili TOTAL/AVERAGE 120 $34,355 $4,122,632 Proportionate 2007 Vehicles per Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit de Residential 95% 42,551 population 0.0027 $91.76 Nonresidential 5% 63,428 nonres trips 0.0001 $3.44 *Source:Oro Valley Police Department iiii Figure 30 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for police 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 +i projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the existing LOS standards of.0027 units per person and .0001 units per nonresidential trip, this amount of residential development will require approximately 8.92 units of vehicles equipment and dill non-residential development will require 2.32 vehicles/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $386,132 over the next five years. Of this, $306,293 is attributable to new residential development. This equates to $91.76 per person ($306,293/3,338 persons = $91.76). The remainder, $79,839, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This equates to $3.44 per nonresidential trip ($79,839/23,191 trips = $3.44). I I I I 31 Tischleil3ise a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 30: Police Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONSSi 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total :: Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 Net Change in Nonresidential Trips ps 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191 POLICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Person 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Nonres Trip 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001ii 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 1.69 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 8.92 WI Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Developmc 0.46 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 2.32 ili Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $34,355 $34,355 $34,355 $34,355 $34,355 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $57,907 $62,097 $62,097 $62,097 $62,097 $306,293 Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Nonres.Development $15,883 $17,280 $15,559 $15,559 $15,559 $79,839 IIII TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $73,790 $79,376 $77,655 $77,655 $77,655 $386,132 . Police Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Person $91.76 Police Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Nonres Trip $3.44 11111 OW POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY II 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 IM accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost ofgthis re arin portion of the studyin the p p development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($11,300) is allocated to the projected increase in population and nonresidential trips over the next three years. This results in a developmenta fee study cost per demand unit of $.70 per person and per nonresidential trip ($11,300/16,137 people and nonresidential trips = $.70). iii POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES Figure 31 shows level of service standards and cost factors for police development fees for il Oro Valley. Development fees for police are based on household size (i.e., ersons er. p p housing unit) and average daily vehicle trips 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 the training and property identification facility, land for the police facility, police vehicles/equipment and the police component of the development fee study. . ThIei� 32 4:1' Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 31: Police Development Fee Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential Nonresidential Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family 2.26 All Other Housing 1.34 Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 110.32 Com/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 86.56 Corn/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91 Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28 Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 41.80 Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35 di Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65 Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34 Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF 11.37 Business Park 12.76 Light Industrial 6.97 Warehousing 4.96 Manufacturing 3.82 Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Room Lodging 5.63 Trip Adjustment Factors Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 28% Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 31% Com/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 33% Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 36% Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 39% All Other Nonresidential Development 50% Cost Factors Per Person Per Trip Planned Component for Police Training/Property ID $121.24 $2.05 Cost Recovery Component for Police Facility Land $13.65 $0.23 Incremental Expansion Component for Police Vehicles/Equip. $91.76 $3.44 Development Fee Study Cost $0.70 $0.70 Total Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $227.34 $6.43 di MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR POLICE IFigure 32 contains a schedule of the maximum supportable police 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 household figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total capital cost per person of$227.34 for a development fee amount of$513 per single family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing type category. For non-residential development, average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 sq. ft. are multiplied the applicable trip adjustment factor, then by the total capital cost per trip. For example, for a commercial/shoppingcenter from 50 001 to 100 000 s ft. 67.91 tripsper 1 000 s ft. is I q� � � q� multiplied by the trip adjustment factor of 33% and then by $6.43 per trip for a total development fee of $144 per 1,000 sq. ft. This calculation is repeated for the remaining nonresidential categories. Trip adjustment factors are discussed further in the Appendix. 33 le Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 32: Police Development Fee Schedule MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS I Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family $513 All Other Housing $305 Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Com/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $199 Com/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $172 Com/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $144 Corn/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $123 Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $105 Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less $59 Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $50 Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $43 Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF $37 Business Park $41 Light Industrial $22 Warehousing $16 Manufacturing $12 Per Room Lodging $18 34 a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan .> - a• i -a.... _.._ U.. -- r-a '}- ..Y . r i ._ -:�f.2r .. . __ .. r.:. r .. a ..✓ =.+v.. .3 t..... ... General Government im METHODOLOGY • ill 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 di fee study. As shown in Figure 33, this development fee is allocated on a per capita basis for residential development. For nonresidential development, the development fee methodology allocates iii the capital cost on a per employee basis. MI Figure 33: General Government Development Fee Methodology Chart 1 de Residential Development Nonresidential Development i, III Persons Per Housing Unit Employees Per 1,000 By Housing Type Square Feet A multiplied by multiplied by iii Total Capital Cost Per Person Total Capital Cost Per Job w: di General Govt. Facilities General Govt.Facilities Cost Per Person Cost Per Job IGeneral Govt.Vehicles General Govt.Vehicles ICost Per Person Cost Per Job I I Transit Vehicles Transit Vehicles Cost Per Person Cost Per Job Development Fee Study Development Fee Study I Cost Per Person Cost Per Job l .w;::,'-aT�c�w.a-,'+cs,-.wrF;^asws�asc:+nd�-'r�•�n:;s^.srca�us.rsxz�+r.?:r.„.9r '��sxP:^.cxsmv�==:sae:a:-:�;�.�r:w.csca::mFatrR:aa-.ass:r.�':erHc+as+.wv,r.3saw'x�s:t�:° _. 35 TischlerBise S Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ii PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL The general government development fee uses a functionalo elation concept to allocateid pp p 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. iiii According to 2000 Census data, 42% of residents in Oro Valley worked in 2000. This percentage was applied to the 2007 population estimate of 42,551 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 residential person hours. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that of the total employed residents, 17% 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 MI 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. ii 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. li otoa I I I I I r, a 3 6 _...,y .._ •S,�;... '4`X...,i:, rws,,, s.,;.�y::ai,F- •.•a.M1 r. _...., 5.„3,, ,y p TISChIeiSe a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a Figure 34: Proportionate Share Factors —Functional Population Demand Person a Residential Demand Units in 2007 Hours/Day Hours Year-Round Population(2007)1 42,551 10 Residents Not Working 24,879 24 597,089 Workers Living in Oro Valley2 17,672 vo 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 a Jobs Located in Oro Valley(2007)4 6,091 Residents Working in Oro Valley3 3,040 8 24,321 di 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. 4ESRI Business Information Solutions,2007. adi do 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 I Center. To calculate the residential level of service, the total square footage of general government facilities (28,401 sq. ft.) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% I (see Figure 34) and then divided by the 2007 population of 42,551 persons, resulting in .64 sq. ft. per person. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying the square footage by the I 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 .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 ';' I 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). II — _s ,o. * ,,.,•', ----- „v` ^,'-.^ 3 - ----- --—, .., - 37 II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan SI Figure 35: General Government Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards Department Sq.Ft.* Replace.Cost/Sq.Ft.** Replacement Cost Ili Magistrate Court 4,841 $1,240,333 Development Services 7,811 $2,001,289 . Finance 1,229 $314,887 Ili Human Resources 746 $191,136 Info.Tech. 1,394 $357,163 Legal Department 2,157 $552,654 Town Clerk 1,176 $301,308 Si Town Manager 1,315 $336,922 Shared Space 7,732 $1,981,048 op TOTAL/AVERAGE 28,401 $256 $7,276,738 S Proportionate 2007 Sq.Ft.per Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 95% 42,551 population 0.64 $162.77 11111 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 ill 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 $162.77 per ill 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). II I I t 38 0 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan II ,. ,. .-- ... -..., ,. ✓.: :k t<..;.....b:w_: n.. _„..;,.6iY..,r;'-y isr::f.. :k.,s.,sa,,w+,.. r ..-. ..: r.y'...'. a.i. -r:..,..al 1...}.,^..:. •dr,.:•....fA„y+.,x...s.,d.L rw.S. .,sw,.. y....r,A:. .:h... ..i.. ,.:`t•'. +:. . .'.:X 'f-.... ... 3. Figure 36: General Government Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan a NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS IP 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 ill Employment Projections 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 5-Year Total I Net Change in Population 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 di 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 a 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 di GENERAL GOVT.VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION di 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 111 replacement cost for vehicles/equipment is provided by the Town of Oro Valley. 49. To calculate the residential level of service, 13 vehicles are multiplied by the residential 111 proportionate share factor of 95% (see Figure 34) and then divided by the 2007 population of 42,551, resulting in .0003 vehicles/equipment per person. See the Appendix for detail on IP the 2007 population estimate. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by multiplying illi 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 I 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). iii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan di Figure 37: General Government Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards Type of Units in Unit Total Replacementviii Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost Full Size Sedan 2 $23,285 $46,570 Compact Sedan 1 p $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 id! 4-4 1111 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- li , 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 . P q $ ) I I I I I I r �� ise 40 • di Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan di .;..r; ,.'.;;r..,--,v..w•.ns rf..N i4.e:,.: - ..,.,F',<, .'..'g..yr'....py W:.+..�.'$!-X r.4 .. ,.- .s. Figure 38: General Government Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan 1M NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ill 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 a 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 1011 Net Change in Employment 707 891 665 665 665 3,591 NI 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 di General Govt.Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Person $5.30 General Govt.Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Job $1.87 di TRANSIT VEHICLES-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the transit vehicles/equipment s 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. ill To calculate the residential level of service, 9 transit vehicles are multiplied by the residential 11 proportionate share factor of 100% (as demand for transit vehicles is a function of iii 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. 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. iiii 41 NO f UI 44 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan IS 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%) iii Transit Coaches/Vans 9 $59,000 $531,000 $53,100 TOTAL 9 $531,000 $53,100 Proportionate 2007 Vehicles per CostP er ii Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit Residential 100% 42,551 population 0.0002 $1.25 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ iii Figure 40 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for transit vehicles. The IIP is II 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 unitsp er3 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 11 years. This equates to $1.25 per person ($4,166/3,338 people = $1.25). iii 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 ir '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338 I 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 3 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 I 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). . , -- . r,.. . . Tch1eise a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a 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- A development.develo ment. Level of service standards are based on current costs per demand unit for general government facilities, general government vehicles/equipment, transit vs vehicles and the general government component of the development fee study. da Figure 41: General Government Development Fee Input Variables go INPUT VARIABLES Residential Nonresidential Persons Per Housing Unit ..... Single Family 2.26 All Other Housing 1.34 a Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area 820 Com/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 3.33 Is 820 Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 2.86 di 820 Com/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 2.50 820 Corn/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 2.22 04, 820 Corn/Shop Ctr over 200,001-400,000 SF 2.00 710 Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less 4.15 a 710 Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 3.91 710 Office/Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 3.69 I 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 I 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 I GOVERNMENT Figure 42 contains a schedule of the maximum supportable general government development fees for Oro Valley. Residential development fee amounts are calculated by I 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 I $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., TischlerBise43 41. Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan 111 2.50 jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. is multiplied $62.68 per job for a total development fee of$157p er 1,000 sq. ft. This calculation is repeated for the remaining nonresidential categories. Figure 42: General Government Development Fee Schedule MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family $389 All Other Housing $232 Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq.Ft. Com/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $209 Com/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $179 Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $157 Com/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 I ,...: . TischIeise A Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Transportation iii METHODOLOGY The Town of Oro Valley transportation development fee is derived using a plan-based methodology linked to the Pima Association of Governments Transportation Improvement to Plan 2008-2012 and the 20-year Regional Transportation Authority Regional Transportation di PlanP (ado ted in 2006). As shown in Figure 43, trip generation rates by type of development are multiplied by the total capital cost per vehicle mile of travel (VMT) to yield the q transportation development fees. The methodology includes trip adjustment factors for `. fi= commutingpatterns, ass-by trips and average trip length variation by type of land use. p p 3r3% I I I I I I 45 4.41 III Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 43:Transportation Development Fee Methodology II NPR Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Ii' El1 By Type of Development Multiplied by Trip Adjustment Factors ! li (Commuting, Pass-By Trips and Trip Length Adjustments) Multiplied by Total Capital Cost Per Vehicle Miles of Travel .., ii Arterial Marginal Cost Road Improvements Arterial Average Cost Road Improvements Collector Average Cost Road Improvments Public Works Facility Land for Public Works Facility Vehicles and1 Equipment I VEHICLE TRIPS Vehicle trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003). Oro Valley's transportation development fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate the development fees, trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. 111 - T w.� 46 .._... .:.. .: -.. ... ,:.. .— . .. .... ;.-r:� �--..ems. _�.....,, .,,.. SIM Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting 111 Residential development has a higher trip adjustment factor of 58% to account for commuters leaving Oro Valley for work (see calculation in Figure 44). According to the National Household Travel Survey (see Table 29, Federal Highway Administration, 2001) home-based work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trip ends). Also, Census 2000 data from Table P27 in Summary File 3 indicates that 51% of Oro Valley's workers travel outside the Town for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.51 = 0.08) account for 8% of production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (8% of production trips) for a total of 58%. do Figure 44: Trip Adjustment for Journey to Work Commuting Share of Home Based Trips for Work 31% di Outbound Trips 50% Workers Traveling Outside Oro Valley for Work 83% Journey to Work Commuting Adj. 13% Attraction Trips 50% Journey to Work Commuting Adj. 13% di. Residential Adjustment Factor 63% I Source: National Household Transportation Survey 2001 (Table 29) and 2000 U.S.Census,Table P27. Adjustment for Pass-by Trips A simple trip adjustment factor of 50% has been applied to the office, public sector and goods production categories. The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. As documented in Trip Generation, there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass-by trips. Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated according to di shopping center size. For this type of development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by. For example, the ITE Manual indicates that on average 45% of the vehicles entering shopping centers under 25,000 square g o feet are passing by on the way to some other primary destination and 55% of the attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 28% (0.55 x 0.50). a *10 I TischlevlBise 4 p lir Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 45: Commercial/Shopping Center Trip Rates and Pass-By Adjustments Weekday 2003 Data,. Floor Area Commercial Commercial Shopping Centers General Office in thousands Pass-by Trip Adj ITE 820 ITE 710 '= (KSF) Trips* Factor** Trip Ends Rate/KSF Trip Ends Rate/KSF 10 52% 24% 1,520 152.03 227 22.66 25 45% 28% 2,758 110.32 459 18.35 50 39% 31% 4,328 86.56 782 15.65 100 34% 33% 6,791 67.91 1,334 13.34 200 29% 36% 10,656 53.28 2,275 11.37 400 23% 39% 16,722 41.80 3,879 9.70 800 18% 41% 26,239 32.80 6,615 8.27 Source: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003. * Based on data published by ITE in Trip Generation Handbook(2004),the best trendline correlation between pass-by trips and floor area is a logarithmic curve with the equation((- 7.6812*LN(KSF)) +69.293). ** To convert trip ends to vehicle trips,the standard adjustment factor is 50%. Due to pass- by trips,commercial trip adjustment factors are lower,as derived from the following formula (0.50*(1-passby pct)). I GROWTH-RELATED DEMAND FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS III The Regional Transportation Authority Regional Transportation Plan identifies regional transportation improvements needed to accommodate new growth through 2025. In I addition, the Pima Association of Government TIP list projects approved for construction during the 2008-2012 time frame. These improvements will expand the street network by 29.80 lane miles, at an average cost of $1.32 million per arterial lane mile and $1.22 for 111 collector lane mile. Figure 46 summarizes the cost of arterial system improvements that will be needed to accommodate projected increases in traffic through 2025. Planned collector road capacity improvements are listed in Figure 47. The top section of the Figure 46 lists those growth- related arterial road projects needed to accommodate new development. As these projects would not be constructed if the Town were to stop growing, construction cost are allocated I to the net increase in VMT from 2008-2025. These growth-related capacity projects have a total cost of$31 per vehicle mile of travel. The bottom section of the figure presents arterial capacity projects that will benefit existing and new development through reconstruction of the existing road paired with a capacity expansion. Construction costs for these projects are allocated to all VMT in 2025. These growth-related capacity projects have a total cost of$50 per vehicle mile of travel. This brings the total arterial construction cost to $81 per vehicle mile of travel. I I TchIeise - - -, - - , .-- - - -- - - - - --- ------ isc e liP iii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan di Figure 46:Arterial Road Infrastructure Improvements Plan aii A.Arterial Capacity Projects That Benefit Future Development State,RTA,12.6% Total Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share (La Canada Dr.Ext.(Tangerine Rd.to Moore Rd.) I 4.001 $7,745,0001 $2,331,0001 $5,596,7111 TOTAL 4.00 $7,745,000 $2,331,000 $5,596,711 Net Increase in VMT through 2025 175,297 Marginal Cost Per VMT $31 B.Arterial Capacity Projects That Benefit Existing and Future Development State,RTA,12.6% Total Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share First Ave.(Oracle to Tangerine) 3.60 $12,375,028 $1,500,000 $10,875,028 La Canada(Naranja to Tangerine) 2.00 $10,540,054 $6,250,000 $4,290,054 die La Cholla Blvd.(Overton to Tangerine)** 7.00 $25,083,748 $24,050,000 $1,033,748 Lambert Lane(La Cholla to 1st) 5.20 $17,977,977 $6,400,000 $11,577,977 Tangerine Rd.(Shannon to La Canada)** 4.00 $14,226,998 $13,400,000 $826,998 TOTAL 21.80 $80,203,805 $51,600,000 $28,603,805 di VMT in 2025 561,183 Average Cost Per VMT $50 TOTAL 25.80 $34,200,516 Cost Per Lane Mile(Local Share) $1,325,601 Cost Per VMT $81 *Source:Pima Association of Governments,2008-2012 TIP Projects,Oro Valley.Also includes Oro Valley's construction management costs. **These projects are also included in the Regional Transportation Authority's Regional Transportation Plan. oto di Figure 47 summarizes the cost of collector system improvements that will be needed to accommodate projected increases in traffic through 2025. Figure 47 presents collector capacity projects that will benefit existing and new development through reconstruction of di the existing road paired with a capacity expansion. Construction costs for these projects are allocated to all VMT in 2025. These growth-related collector capacity projects have a total cost of$62 per vehicle mile of travel. a Figure 47: Collector Road Infrastructure Improvements Plan Collector Capacity Projects That Benefit Existing and Future Development 44 State,RTA,12.6% Total di Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share Hardy Road(Northern Ave.\Calle Buena Vista to Oracle) 0.00 $964,000 $875,000 $92,004 Magee Road(Oracle Rd.to N.First Ave.) 4.00 $2,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,292,185 Naranja(Shannon to La Canada) 0.00 $5,000,000 $1,610,000 $3,504,405 TOTAL 4.00 $8,464,000 $3,735,000 $4,888,594 di VMT in 2025 78,624 Average Cost Per VMT $62 TOTAL 4.00 $4,888,594 Cost Per Lane Mile(Local Share) $1,222,148 Cost Per VMT $62 3 *Source:Pima Association of Governments,2008-2012 TIP Projects,Oro Valley.Also includes Oro Valley's construction management costs. I ,,, _,,... . , , • . . .,., , .., _ , . . . ,.., .. isc e TschIei se 49 Int iii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan VEHICLE TRIPS FROM DEVELOPMENT IN ORO VALLEY In addition to the cost per lane mile, development fees are determined by lane capacity and ii travel demand factors such as the amount of new development, trip generation rates and average trip length. Figure 48 summarizes projected travel demand data for Oro Valley through the year 2025. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors, as used in the development fee calculations, convert projected development into average weekday vehicle trips on arterials,indicated by grey shading in the middle section of Figure 48. At the bottom of the table are data on projected Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and the need for additional iii lane miles. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is simply a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. This calculation is repeated in Figure 49 for collector roads. iii Lane Capacity iii Based on information provided by the Town, the transportation development fee is based on an arterial lane capacity standard of 8,925 vehicles per lane and 8,000 vehicles per lane for collectors. a Average Trip Length Knowing the increase in vehicle trips,lane-miles need to accommodate future travel and lane capacity, it is possible to derive the average trip length. The average trip length on planned improvements is determined through a series of iterations using spreadsheet software iiii because the VMT calculations include the same adjustment factors used in the development fee calculations (i.e., residential journey-to-work and commercial pass-by adjustments and average trip length adjustment by type of land use (see below)). Given the projected number a of vehicle trips (summarized Figure 48,detail on assumptions provided in Appendix),arterial lane capacity standard and projected need for 25.80 lane miles of additional arterial road capacity (see Figure 46), TischlerBise derived an average trip length on planned arterial system improvements in Oro Valley of 1.92 miles.' iii 111 I I I / 1 The basis formula for calculating the average trip length is to multiply the lane miles by the capacity and divide by the number of trips. Tuschlerl3ise 50 , 1 ITown of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan .......... ...,..:r_. ..... :... .,.., .:!' .. :,•. _,,`.'," 4 r .. 'f G. .,.. .'f.z..t r ' .T... x.......J r.#-. .. f.. .. .. .,. ....tem #... I Figure 48: Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Arterial Roads 5--Year Increments Oro Valley,AZ--Arterials 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 Cumulative DEMAND DATA Increase SF UNITS 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 21,173 ALL OTHER HOUSING UNITS 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 RETAIL/COMM KSF 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 6,728 OFFICE/INST KSF 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,993 PUBLIC SECTOR KSF 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 1,235 I I GOODS PRODUCTION KSF 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 SF TRIPS 95,447 96,950 98,454 100,258 109,277 118,297 127,317 ALL OTHER HOUSING TRIPS 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 a gp RETAIL/COMM TRIPS 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 150,781 dB OFFICE/INST TRIPS 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 18,284 PUBLIC SECTOR TRIPS 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 11,333 GOODS PRODUCTION TRIPS 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 I li TOTAL TRIPS 208,746 215,074 221,898 254,509 286,126 317,743 ARTERIAL ROAD VMT 330,936 385,886 396,001 406,910 459,289 510,236 561,183 ANL ARTERIAL ROAD LN MI 6.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 25.8 ANL ARTERIAL ROAD COST(Millions) $8.09 $1.59 $1.59 $1.72 $1.59 $1.59 $34.20 IP de This calculation is repeated for collectors in Figure 49 based on the projected need for 4 miles of additional collector road capacity (see Figure 47),with a derived average trip length lop on planned collector system improvements in Oro Valley of.27 miles. a Figure 49: Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Collector Roads 5--Year Increments Oro Valley,AZ --Collectors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 Cumulative DEMAND DATA Increase SF UNITS 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 21,173 ALL OTHER HOUSING UNITS 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 RETAIL/COMM KSF 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 6,728 ^ OFFICE/INST KSF 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,993 PUBLIC SECTOR KSF 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 1,235 GOODS PRODUCTION KSF i 13 13 13 13� 13J 13 13 SF TRIPS 95,447 96,950 98,454 100,258 109,277 118,297 127,317 ALL OTHER HOUSING TRIPS 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 RETAIL/COMM TRIPS 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 150,781 OFFICE/INST TRIPS 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 18,284 1 I PUBLIC SECTOR TRIPS 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 11,333 GOODS PRODUCTION TRIPS 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 TOTAL TRIPS _ 168,434 208,746 215,074 221,898 254,509 286,126 317,743 COLLECTOR ROAD VMT 46,366 54,064 55,481 57,010 64,348 71,486 78,624 COLLECTOR ROAD LN MI 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 4.0 ANL COLLECTOR ROAD COST(Millions) $1.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $4.88 II Average Trip Length Adjustment by Type of Land Use The eng average triplength is weighted to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As documented by the National Household Travel Survey (see Table 6 in the 2001 publication by the Federal Highway Administration), vehicle trips from residential development, for home-based work trips, social and recreation purposes, are approximately I 122% of the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly 68% of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically account for trips that are 75% of the average trip length. I I • 51 go a 304 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ..„ .,_ ,,,, ,,,,, ..,_ .,, , ,,,,,,.,, . —.,,,, „, „,, •, .,, , ,,,—, ,..,,„... ,-- - li PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY—PLAN-BASED The plan-based methodology is used to derive the public works facility component of the Ili transportation development fee. Public Works will be expanding into the planned Municipal Operations Center. Figure 50 shows the square footage for the public works share of the facility and the corresponding costs for that portion of the facility. The construction cost is provided by the Town. The facility is expected to serve the Town through 2025 when the Town's debt service expires. Need for the facility is generated by new growth, so the costs are allocated to the net increase in arterial vehicle miles of travel through 2025. Figure 50: Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost StandardsI Facility Year Sq. Ft.* Cost/Sq. Ft.** Construction Cost Public Works Space in Future ii:' Municipal Operations Center 2010 17,060 $268 $4,564,091 TOTAL 17,060 $4,564,091 Net Increase in Arterial VMT through 2025 175,297 Sq.Ft.per VMT 0.097 Marginal Cost per VMT $26.04 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ. Square footage in planned facility less water operations and water utility production space. **Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ x 0 Figure 51 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for public works facilities. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the ill report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 8,930 residential vehicle miles of travel and 55,313 nonresidential vehicle miles of travel. This brings the increase in vehicle miles of travel over the next five IS years to 64,243. Based on thelanned LOS standard o f .09 s . ft. per VMT, this amount of P q ail residential development will require approximately 869 sq. ft. and non-residential development will require 5,383 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $1,672,648 over the next five years. This equates to $26.04 per VMT ($1,672,648/64,243 = $26.04). 7 The Town's cost for the new public works facility totals $6.9 million. The IIP illustrates new growth's demand for the capital facility and associated costs through FY 2013. The public works facility is expected to serve new growth through 2025, so the remainder of the cost is attributable to new growth during the FY 2014-2025 period. fil.40 a S ...:- y. ...,.,. . ...,.. '.:3't. .k ..:P .. ------------ r'11RT —.4 .b 5 a - isc e IseT ININ II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan di ... .: _ .Y. .r v....,- -i]':. 'F Iy.fiM .. r anai...rt J's.e ,i tt2i,.,.•.r.. i'Y .t.,...".'Yt .}cp'.:F...♦ f'r'...�'.,....x e.. f.'4:' 's`9l.:...,a'.»..4,•.. A,. fi :g+j Figure 51: Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan iii NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651 VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930 Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY ME 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Average Daily VMT 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 5-Year Total Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Res.Development 167 176 176 176 176 869 Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Nonres.Development 1,065 1,153 1,055 1,055 1,055 5,383 Cost per Sq.Ft. $268 $268 $268 $268 $268 5-Year Total Public Works Facility Cost For New Res.Development $44,637 $46,968 $46,968 $46,968 $46,968 $232,510 di Public Works Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $284,881 $308,340 $282,306 $282,306 $282,306 $1,440,139 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $329,518 $355,308 $329,274 $329,274 $329,274 $1,672,648 il PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 5-Year Total Public Works Construction Cost $4,564,091 $4,564,091 di Less Income from Development Fees $329,518 $355,308 $329,274 $329,274 $329,274 $1,672,648 NET DEFICIT $2,891,443 Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $26.04 a LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY-COST-RECOVERY if The cost recovery methodology is used to derive the land for public works facility portion of the transportation development fee. Figure 52 provides the acquired acreage and original land acquisition cost for the public works portion of the Municipal Operations Center site. di The Town acquired the site in 2005, and the figure reflects the cost to acquire the public works portion of the site at that time. The police portion of the site corresponds with the MI share of the debt issuance assigned to 1nepublic works. g so This site area for the public works facility will address demand generated by new IP development. The site is expected to serve the Town through 2025,which corresponds with i, ill the end of the Town's debt service for the land aquisition. The cost for the original site acquisition is allocated to new VMT through 2025. To derive the cost per VMT, the original site acquisition cost (public works share) is divided by the net increase in VMT through 2025 ($2,357,500/175,297 VMT = $13.45 per VMT) INN 11 a , - isc e ' 53 .. ,,"A i'..,..r. :i'_,,r _ t,-�,,r _.s';e - .„ .... .d:4... ..4(.:-.3.kE....f .r,RJ ...... .. ,. :,.:. a a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 52: Land for Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards Acquisition Cost PW Share of 3 Site Area Year Acquired Acres PW Share Per Acre* Acquisition Cost Future Municipal Operations Center 2005 6.6 50% $357,197 $2,357,500 TOTAL 6.6 $2,357,500 ePt Net Increase in Arterial VMT through 2025 175,297 Acres per VMT 0.00004 Marginal Cost per VMT $13.45 *Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ.Public Works share corresponds with current allocation of debt service associated with land acquisition bonds. VP 4 a Figure 53 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for land for the public works facility. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 8,930 residential vehicle miles of travel and 55,313 nonresidential vehicle miles of travel. This brings the increase in vehicle miles of travel over the next five years to 64,243. Based on the cost recovery LOS standard of .00004 acres per VMT, this j amount of residential development will require approximately .34 acres and non-residential development will require 2.08 acres The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $863,977 over the next five years. This equates to $13.45 per VMT ($863,977/64,243 = $13.45). a 4,40 a a a a a S 0 111 TischlerBise 54 Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 53: Land for Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651 VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930 Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313 LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Average Daily VMT 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 5-Year Total de Acres Demanded by New Res.Development 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.34 Acres Demanded by New Nonres.Development 0.41 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.41 2.08 Cost per Acre $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 5-Year Total Land for Public Works Facility Cost For New Res.Development $23,056 $24,261 $24,261 $24,261 $24,261 $120,099 Land for Public Works Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $147,150 $159,267 $145,820 $145,820 $145,820 $743,878 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $170,207 $183,528 $170,081 $170,081 $170,081 $863,977 dill Land for Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $13.45 a TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the vehicles and equipment tiii component of the transportation development fee. Figure 54 provides an inventory of the Town's public works vehicles and equipment. Current replacement cost for transportation vehicles and equipment was provided by the Town. Vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $1,867,222 for a per VMT cost of $5.64 (1,867,222 /330,936 arterial VMT = $5.64). 55 ,.. , ,r. 4•-, t..., :-. .y... .a.....u., n;i A¢,ro;i.'Htiwr*..a.f t..Y:,�s'r.,'> .i,fvML. '.u:-iok...+�'. ,..>k.et ....:-...'n., S Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan iii Figure 54: Transportation Vehicles and Equipment and Level of Service and Cost Standards MI Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost mot Compact Pickup Truck 3 $14,973 $44,919 lii 1/2 Ton PickupTruck 14 $26,000 $364 000 , 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 2 $28,050 $56,100 ow 1 Ton Pickup Truck 5 $31,050 $155,250 Lift Truck 1 $77,000 $77,000 III Mid-size SUV 4 $28,123 $112,492 iss Full-size Sedan 1 $23,285 $23,285 Off Road Sweeper 1 $70,933 $70,933 Street Sweeper 1 $205,336 $205,336 Crack Sealer with Vacuum 1 $50,485 $50,485 , Loader 1 $11,342 $11,342 IIII Dump Truck 2 $83,847 $167,694 Motor Grader 1 $211,631 $211,631 r Broom 1 $34,178 $34,178 III Water Tank 1 $50,974 $50,974 Backhoe 1 $89,000 $89,000 Heavy Duty Lift 1 $9,758 $9,758 Wheel Loader 1 $117,759 $117,759 Water Trailer 1 $6,747 $6,747 Equipment Trailer 1 $8,339 $8,339 TOTAL/AVERAGE 44 $42,437 $1,867,222 all VMT in 2007 330,936 Vehicles Per VMT 0.0001 11111 Cost Per VMT $5.64 *Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ a Figure 55 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for transportation vehicles/equipment. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase of 8,930 residential average daily vehicle trips 1111 and 55,313 nonresidential averagedaily da y vehicle trips. This brings the total number of new VMT over the period to 63,703. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0001 vehicles/equipment per VMT, this amount of residential development will require approximately 1.19 vehicles/equipment and non-residential development will require 7.35 vehicles/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $363,474 over the next five years. This equates to $5.64 per VMT ($363,474/63,703 VMT = $5.64). MI TischlerBise 56 IIII Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 55: Transportation Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 111. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651 VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084 '08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '121-13 5-Year Total Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930 F„ Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313 ga TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per VMT 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 5-Year Total de Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 1.19 Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Developm, 1.45 1.57 1.44 1.44 1.44 7.35 Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $42,437 $42,437 $42,437 $42,437 $42,437 dB 5-Year Total Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $9,673 $10,178 $10,178 $10,178 $10,178 $50,386 Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Nonres.Development $61,736 $66,819 $61,178 $61,178 $61,178 $312,088 TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $71,409 $76,998 $71,356 $71,356 $71,356 $362,474 le Transportation Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per VMT $5.64 di TRANSPORTATION 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 MI transportation development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($19,600) is allocated to the projected increase in residential and non-residential vehicle trips over the next three years. This results in a development fee study cost per demand unit of $.63 per VMT ($19,600/31,214VMT). tio 11 TRANSPORTATION INPUT VARIABLES 404 Figure 56 shows the factors used to derive the transportation development fees for the Town of Oro Valley. The total capital cost per average trip length by type of development is tii derived from level-of-service components shown near the bottom of Figure 56. The capital cost of the arterial average length trip is the product of the average trip length on planned IP arterials multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor and the capital cost per arterial II vehicle mile of travel. Next, this calculation is repeated for collectors and then for the planned public works facility, land for public works facility, vehicles and equipment and the transportation component of the development fee study. For example, the capital cost of the IR arterial average length trip from residential development is calculated as follows: the average trip length in Oro Valley on planned arterial improvements of 1.92 miles is multiplied by the residential trip length adjustment of 122% and then by the arterial capital cost per VMT of $81, generating a cost per average residential trip length of$190. This calculation is repeated with collectors. The capital cost of the collector average length trip from residential t a TischlerBise 57 I Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan development is calculated as follows: the average trip length in Oro Valley on planned lir collector improvements of.27 miles is multiplied by the residential trip length adjustment of II 122% and then bythe collector capital costper VMT of$62, generatinga costper average p g residential trip length of$20. Next, the average trip length in Oro Valley on planned arterial opt improvements of 1.92 is multiplied by the residential trip length adjustment of 122% and then bythe sum of the capital cost for theplannedpublic works facility,land for the public Ili p works facility, transportation vehicles and equipment and the transportation component of the development fee study ($26.04 + $13.45 + $5.64 + $.63 = $45.76), generating a cost per residential trip length of$107. These three components are added together to generated the total capital cost for an average residential trip length of$317 ($190 + $20 +107 = $317). This calculation is repeated for commercial/shopping centers and other nonresidential categories. I i Ill I 1 a I a I I I I {. :`FM- - ;..,<:.e...'.ti..v! .:—.1'�-•:,f+tr:.s—A;X:kr.y.-;..s1%'."':'....r,i— .a.i i'tit — . 'f*, -i..?..'..7 J ._ ,.Xx[.,. TischlerBise 58 al Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure 56: Transportation Input Variables di Commercial/ INPUT VARIABLES Shopping Residential Centers Other Nonres Residential Weekday Vehicle Trips per Housing Unit Single Family Detached 9.57 All Other Housing 6.59 Nonresidential um Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Com/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 110.32 Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 86.56 APP Com/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91 Corn/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28 la Corn/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 41.80 Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35 410* Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65 Office/Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34 Office/Inst 100,001-200,000 SF 11.37 Business Park 12.76 Light Industrial 6.97 ii ii 4.96 Manufacturing 3.82 Lodging 5.63 Trip Adjustment Factors 63% 50% Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 28% Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 31% Corn/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 33% IP Corn/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 36% Corn/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 39% a Level of Service Cost Summary 10 Arterial Road Construction iii Arterial Average Trip Length(miles) 1.92 1.92 1.92 Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75% Capital Cost Per Arterial VMT $81 $81 $81 Arterial Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length $190 $106 $117 Collector Road Construction Collector Average Trip Length(miles) 0.27 0.27 0.27 Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75% Capital Cost Per Collector VMT $62 $62 $62 all Collector Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length $20 $11 $13 Public Works Facilities and Vehicles Average Trip Length(miles) 1.92 1.92 1.92 Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75% Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $26.04 $26.04 $26.04 a Public Works Facility Land Cost Per VMT $13.45 $13.45 $13.45 Transportation Vehicles Cost per VMT $5.64 $5.64 $5.64 Development Fee Study Cost per VMT $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 Subtotal $45.76 $45.76 $45.76 de PW Facilities and Vehicles Cost for an Average Trip Length $107 $60 $66 Total Capital Cost for an Average Trip Length $317 $177 $195 ,i MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR TRANSPORTATION Figure 57 shows the schedule of maximum supportable development fee amounts for transportation in the Town of Oro Valley. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the . ._,.,. ,:. .....r .-4,:.-„....... ,.. .. ,, .,_. ,rw ,.. _ .alp .t. :._. TuschIeise 59 I ' } a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan vehicle trip ends for each type of development by the trip adjustment factor by the total capital cost per average trip length. For example, for a single family unit, the vehicle trip rate of 9.5763% i s multiplied by the adjustment factor of and then multiplied by the total capital cost of$317 for a development fee amount of$1,908 per single family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing unit category. Transportation development fees for nonresidential development are shown on a per 1,000 square feet of floor area basis and by room for lodging. Trip adjustment factors are discussed further in the Appendix. Figure 57: Maximum Supportable Transportation Development Fee Schedule a MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family Detached $1,908 All Other Housing $1,314 Nonresidential-Commercial/Shopping Centers Per 1,000 Sq.Ft. Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $5,462 Com/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $4,745 Corn/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $3,963 Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $3,392 Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $2,883 Other Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq.Ft. Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less $1,789 Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $1,526 Office/Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $1,301 Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF $1,109 Business Park $1,244 S Light Industrial $680 Warehousing $484 Manufacturing $373 Per Room Lodging $549 a 3 iI 60 i tiw el Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ill Appendix 1: Demographic Estimates and Development Projections am As specified in Task 1 of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on current demographic estimates and development projections that will be used in the Oro Valley Development Fee Study. The following sections will review in detail the 11, residential and non-residential demand factors that will be used to calculate development ilk fees for the Town of Oro Valley. ae Residential Estimates and Projections gii PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT A differentiation by type of housing is necessary to make residential development fees proportionate and reasonably related to the demand for public facilities. Persons per 111 housing unit is an important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service demand by type of housing. The best source of this data is the 2000 U.S. Census, Summary I File 3. The data for Oro Valley is shown in Figure Al below. Persons per housing unit (PPHU) is distinguished from persons per household (PPH) as PPHU accounts for housing vacancy. Two housing unit categories are recommended based on the demographic characteristics of iii Oro Valley: single-family and all other housing types. Single-family units, which include unattached and attached single family units, have on average 2.26 persons per housing unit and all other housing types have an average PPHU of 1.34. a MI ill 7a I Ir.a v. .t ::Y >,., ., ,.,.::g s.,.. ..r , td o_y l' - ,,, f,,,:, ,,....r:;+ . sism 61 mvit Si Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Figure Al: Persons Per Housing Unit in Oro Valley .84 Units in Renter&Owner Combined Ili Structure Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU 1-Detached 25,025 9,814 10,660 2.35 1-Attached 1,459 823 1,080 1.35 II Two 116 63 63 1.84 3-4 269 140 209 1.29 5-9 513 306 428 1.20 10-19 735 460 666 1.10 20-49 146 65 110 1.33 50 or more 826 441 470 1.76 Mobile Homes 416 216 309 1.35 Other 19 9 9 2.11 Total SF3 Sample Data 29,524 12,337 14,004 2.11 r,,, 100-Percent Data 29,541 12,249 13,946 2.12 Vacant HU 1,667 Occupancy Rate 88% al Persons Per Housing Unit by Type-2000 Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Hhld Mix Hsg Mix Single Family 26,484 10,637 11,740 2.26 86% 84% All Other Housing Types 3,040 1,700 2,264 1.34 14% 16% Total Less Group Quarters 29,524 12,337 14,004 2.39 100% 100% Group Quarters _159,o- Sample Difference (88) (58) TOTAL 29,683 12,249 13,946 111 Notes to Tables Source: 2000 U.S.Census,Summary File 3:Tables 131,P3,P9,H1,H3,H8,H30,H32,H33 AI ad 2007 HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATE To estimate housing units in 2007, TischlerBise reviewed the Town's building permit data for residential construction over the past 8 years. During the 2000-2007 period, the Town added 4,133 housing units, for an average of 517 housing units per year. The pace has slowed over the last three years, with an average of 348 units annually over the 2005-2007 period. This is shown in Figure A2. I I I I ,.,. TuschlerRise 62 0 di Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan d Figure A2: Oro Valley Residential Building Permits, 2000-2007 illi Average Average 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 2001-2007 2005-2007 Single Family 994 738 426 461 470 356 354 334 4,133 517 348 All Other Housing Types 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iii Total 994 738 426 461 470 356 354 334 4,133 517 348 Source:Years 2000-2001 from the U.S.Census,other years from the Town of Oro Valley.2007 data is through November. a 40, Adding these new housing units to the existing stock of 14,004 occupied and vacant housing ii units in 2000 (shown in Figure Al), the total number of housing units in the Town is estimated at 18,137 in 2007 (15,873 single family and 2,264 all other housing types). in Figure A3:2007 Housing Unit Estimate 2000 New Units Total 2007 II Census 2001-2007 Housing Units Single Family Detached and Attached 11,740 4,133 15,873 All Other Housing Types 2,264 0 2,264 ro Total 14,004 4,133 18,137 The Town expects that future single family housing construction will take place at a pace somewhat slower than the 2005-2007 period (348 units/year). The Town expects to 110 experience 250 new single family units per year for 2008 and 2009. Beyond that point, the iii Town expects that construction will rise to 300 units per year. The Town has not experienced any multi-family development in the 2000-2007 period, though it expects a small amount of new multi-family units to be constructed in the next few years. At present, two multi-family projects are approved, though the developers have not submitted building plans. The Town estimates that these projects will generate 50 multi- ir family units in 2008 and 50 units in 2009. No multi-family projections are made for future III years. Based on an analysis of existing developable land, expected rezoning and anticipated annexations, the Town expects to reach buildout in 2020. Figure A4 presents projected I housing unit growth through 2020 by housing type. 44, Figure A4: Oro Valley Housing Unit Projections Through 2020 is Base Year Five-Year Increments HOUSING UNITS' Annual Growth 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 7 Single Family All Other Housing Types See note below 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673, 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2 364 TOTAL 18,137 18,437 18,737 19,037 20,537 22,037 *The Town expects 250 new single family units per year in 2008 and 2009.Beyond that,the Town expects constnsction to increase to a pace of 300 single family units/year.Based on plans approved by the Town but not yet permitted,the Town expects approximately 50 multi family units in 2008 and an additional 50 units in 2009.No additional multi family units are projected. I z.. .. . , , - : - 63 ii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan lig POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS State of Arkona 2007 Population Estimate The Arizona Department of Economic Security estimates a population for the Town of Oro Valley of 42,551 persons as of July 1, 2007. The breakdown of population by housing 3, type is estimated based on the existing mix of housing types. Household Population Projections To project future household population (Figure A5), TischlerBise multiplied the annual increase in housing units from Figure A4 by the 2000 Census persons per housing unit by housing type (shown in Figure Al). For example, in 2008, 250 new single family housingI units are multiplied by the persons per housing unit factor of 2.26. This generates an estimated 564 new persons in Oro Valley. This is repeated for all other housing types (1.34 persons per housing unit) generating 67 additional Oro Valley residents. This brings the total anticipated population growth in 2008 to 631 persons. Added to the 2007 State population II estimate of 42,551 persons, there will be an anticipated 43,182 persons in Oro Valley in 2008. Figure A5: Population Estimates and Projections Base Year Five-Year Increments .44 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION Persons per Housing Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 Single Family 2.26 39,221 39,785 40,349 41,026 44,410 47,794 il All Other Housing Types 1.34 3,330 3,397 3,464 3,464 3,464 3,464 TOTAL 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 47,874 51,258 Awlii it 11 a I ;.i il 2 Tchleise di Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan di ill Nonresidential Estimates and Projections In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of development fees requires data on nonresidential construction in Oro Valley. The following sections show estimates and projections of employment,nonresidential square footage and vehicle trips. JOB & NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATES TischlerBise obtained employment data for jobs located in the Town in 2007 from ESRI Business Information Solutions. These estimates indicate that close to 5,800 persons were employed in the Town in 2007. To this is added an additional 326 public sector/government jobs based on input from the Town of Oro Valley, bringing the total estimated jobs to 6,091. Using the Town's Business Navigator GIS database, Town staff estimated the square footage of Town businesses by the following categories: commercial/retail, office, public sector and goods production. As shown in Figure A6, the Town estimates there is 3.8 million square feet of nonresidential development in Oro Valley in 2007. di Figure A6:Job and Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates 2007 Pct at Nonres 2007 Nonres Floor Jobs* Locations Area(rounded)** di Commercial,/Retail Retail Trade 789 Arts,Entertainment and Recreation 316 ill Accomodation and Food Service 1,192 Subtotal 2,297 38% 2,113,782 Office Finance,Insurance and Real Estate 1,070 di Other Services*** 1,342 Subtotal 2,412 40% 682,903 Public Sector il Public Sector 1,065 Subtotal 1,065 17% 1,062,082 T. Goods Production III Agriculture&Mining 26 Utilities 20 IIP Construction 138 Manufacturing 83 lil Wholesale Trade 50 Subtotal 317 5%1 13,441 TOTAL at Nonresidential Locations 6,091 100% 3,872,208 I *ESRI Business Information Solutions,2007. 2007 Public sector employment increased to 1,065 from 741 (as reported by SSRI)based on input from the Town of Oro Valley. **Town of Oro Valley,AZ ***Other services includes the following industries:administrative and support and waste ill management and remediation,health care and social assistance and other service(except public administration). VA --- , _, - - - -- ---- __ ----- , ,,-,, --- , ------- - isc e ise 65 To , II Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS The nonresidential square footage projection for 2008 reflects developments approved by the Town, including retail/shopping, office and high tech/bio tech projects. These are shown in Figure A7. Nonresidential development in 2008 is expected to total 1.9 million sq. ft. This represents a considerable increase over 2007, with nonresidential development growing over 50% in one year from 3.8 million sq. ft. in 2007 to a total of 5.8 million sq. ft. by the end of 2008. Figure A7: 2008 Planned Nonresidential Development—Oro Valley,AZ Retail/Shopping Square Feet Oro Valley Marketplace 880,000 Steam Pump Village 300,000 Mercado del Rio 100,000 014* Beztak 32,000 Big Horn Commerce 30,000 Garden Gate Nursery 50,000 Mercado at Canada Hills 60,000 Oracle&Hardy 25,000 Palisades 40,000 Plaza at Vistoso 16,000 Unnamed 10,000 di Subtotal-Retail/Shopping 1,543,000 Office and High Tech/Bio Tech Square Feet IS Copeland Office Building 8,400 Easy Care 10,000 Miscellaneous 10,000 Pulte Home Headquarters 60,000 Sanofi-Aventis 110,500 Suffolk Hills 6,000 1111 Ventana Medical Systems 134,000 Venture West Medical 100,000 Ea Subtotal-Office and High Tech/Bio Tech 438,900 TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL SQ.FT.-2008 1,981,900 *Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan _ _f:. _ :a ;'ae ,r TS -.. i,r 3 .,Y-_....:.�� Si To project future nonresidential development beyond 2008, Town staff examined nonresidential construction over the 2004-2007 time frame. As shown in Figure A8, an average of 231,956 nonresidential sq. ft. was constructed annually over the four year period. 141 The Town anticipates that nonresidential development will return to this level in the years following 2008. However, actual nonresidential construction is often built in irregular with minor construction followed by are- l intervals compared to residential development, g scale projects. Based on feedback from the Town, future development is allocated by type (commercial/retail or office) based on the breakdown of planned development in 2008 (78% commercial/retail and 22% office). For the purposes of the projections, high tech/bio tech is considered to be office space. Increases in public sector sq. ft. reflects the town's planned construction of the 55,000 sq. ft. Municipal Operations Center (2010) and 10,000 sq. ft. addition to Town Hall (2009) and well as the addition of a middle school. No projected increases are shown for the goods production category. The nonresidential square footage projections are shown in Figure A10 with job projections (discussed below). Figure A8:Nonresidential Development Trends—2004-2007, Oro Valley,AZ di Average 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004-2007 New Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 401,977 57,050 261,102 207,695 231,956 Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS To convert future gross floor area of nonresidential development projections into employment projections, average square feet per employee multipliers are used. These multipliers are also used to calculate the number of average weekday vehicle trips from nonresidential development in Oro Valley. The far right column of Figure A9 show square footage per employee by land use type and size. These multipliers are derived from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The multipliers used in the Oro Valley study reflect existing development in the Town, anticipating that future development will be of a similar scale,and are highlighted in grey. ISe 67 I iii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan li Figure A9: Floor Area Per Employee and Nonresidential Trip Rates ITE Land Use/Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial/Shopping Center Iiii 820 10K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 152.03 na 3.33 300 821 25K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300 820 50K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350 820 100K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 67.91 na 2.50 400 820 200K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 450 820 400K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 na 2.00 500 Ni General Office 710 10K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223 710 25K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 18.35 4.43 4.15 241 710 50K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256 710 100K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 13.34 3.61 3.69 271 ,710 200K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 11.37 3.26 3.49 287 axo Industrial 1111 770 Business Park*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 56.28 0.04 22,512 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 a 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft_ 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 Other Nonresidential 720 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 36.13 8.91 4.05 247 620 Nursing Home bed 2.37 6.55 0.36 na al 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 17.57 5.20 3.38 296 565 Day Care student 4.48 28.13 0.16 na 530 High School student 1.71 19.74 0.09 na 520 Elementary School student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na IN 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.49 15.71 0.92 1,084 320 _Lodging room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na * Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003. MI ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates,except for Shopping Center data,which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,published by the Urban Land Institute. *** According to ITE,a Business Park is a group of flex-type buildings NI served by a common roadway system. The tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20-30%office/commercial and 70-80%industrial/warehousing. a a a a a a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan -.. ;¢..,, .•:...z.:7.• -:-,:. ,...-:.:' .;;. .,.".,, ..r.,:.;,. -.. .. a.. xa b .. ..y'. ?a,X ,.';ga...e s .. ,rw,...::{ a.n ...r:•;,.R .. .�:s<: yf,F Figure A10 lists the projected nonresidential square footage and the number and type of jobs in Oro Valley through 2020, based on the methodologies described above. Figure A10: Nonresidential Square Footage and Job Projections Base Year Five-Year Increments Year=> 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 Jobs Population* 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 47,197 47,874 51,258 Jobs*'" 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 16,022 16,787 20,109 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 SF)*** Commercial/Retail 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,199 4,379 4,560 4,741 4,921 5,825 Office 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,275 1,326 1,377 1,429 1,480 1,736 Public Sector 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,235 1,235 Goods Production 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 TOTAL Floor Area 3,872 5,853 6,095 6,382 6,614 6,846 7,078 7,310 7,650 8,810 Employment** SF/Employee Commercial/Retail 400 2,297 6,155 6,606 7,058 7,510 7,961 8,413 8,865 9,316 11,575 Office 241 2,412 4,230 4,443 4,655 4,868 5,081 5,294 5,507 5,720 6,784 Public Sector 241 1,065 1,065 1,108 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,434 1,434 Goods Production 433 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 TOTAL Jobs in Town 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 16,022 16,787 20,109 *2007 population estimate from the Arizona Department of Economic Security. **2007 employment estimate from ESRI Business Information Solutions,with 326 public sector jobs added to estimate per the Town of Oro Valley.Projections for future years calculated by applying ITE employment by square feet factors to nonresidential square footage projections. ***2007 nonresidential floor area estimate from the Town of Oro Valley.2008 nonresidential floor area projection includes planned retail/shopping and office development in Oro Valley.Nonresidential floor area for years beyond 2008 reflect trends of nonresidential growth in Oro Valley from 2004-2007,with additions for planned Town projects for addition to Town Hall(2009)Municipal Operations Center(2010 and future middle school(2015).School nonresidential floor area projections made using ITE trip rate for school. AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ESTIMATES Figure All below provide a summary of the residential and nonresidential vehicle trip calculations used in this analysis. tii Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends are from the reference book, Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), in 2003. A "trip end" represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip rates have been adjusted to avoid overestimating the number of actual trips because one vehicle trip is counted in the trip rates of both the origination and destination points. A simple factor of 50% has been applied to the office, public sector and goods production categories. The residential category has a factor greater than 50% due to journey-to-work trips outside the Town of Oro Valley. This is described in more detail in the transportation portion of the report. The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience o store is not their primary destination. The ITE Manual indicates that on average 33% of the vehicles entering shopping centers under 100,000 square feet are passing by on the way to some other primary destination and 66% of the attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 33% (0.66 x 0.50). The pass- by adjustment factor varies by the size of the commercial development. Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan There is an estimated average of 168,434 vehicle trips generated by existing development in Oro Valley on an average weekday. As the table below indicates, residential development is estimated to generate 105,007 vehicle trips and nonresidential development generates 63,428 vehicle trips on an average weekday. Figure All: Average Daily Trips Residential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday(2007) Residential Units Assumptions Single Family 15,873 All Other Housing Types 2,264 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit* Trip Rate Trip Factor Single Family 9.57 63% All Other Housing Types 6.72 63% Residential Vehicle Trip Ends of an Average Weekday Single Family 95,447 All Other Housing Types 9,560 Total Residential Trips 105,007 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday Nonresidential Gross Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)** Assumptions Retail/Commercial 2,114 Office 683 Public Sector 1,062 Goods Production 13 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq.Ft.* Trip Rate Trip Factor Retail/Commercial 67.91 33% Office 18.35 50% Public Sector 18.35 50% Goods Production 6.97_ 50% Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday Retail/Commercial 47,370 Office 6,266 Public Sector 9,745 Goods Production 47 Total Nonresidential Trips 63,428 TOTAL TRIPS 168,434 *Trip rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual(2003) di **Floor area estimates were derived using sq.ft.per employee factors from ULI and ITE a 11 TischlerBise 70 INN a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan a _-.. ..'-,*:i'1..=.;Yb.",i w .,n:.3- ._..".'r 5_....'.:',..:-.' ..';' .. r ,.. ...- 'x'!a•.... u. G.... ... '<. z-.... `6; e ... +2.k-.x myr-._ .. a. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2007-2020 Annual demographic and development projections for the development fee study are summarized in Figure Al2 below. The Town of Oro Valley is projected to add approximately 325 housing units and 726 persons per year over the next thirteen years. TischlerBise projects an average annual increase in employment of 1,168 jobs and approximately 411,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. a Figure Al2: Development Projections 2007-2020 Base Year Five-Year Increments 2007-2020 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 Total Increase Annual Increase Housing Units 18,137 18,437 18,737 19,037 20,537 22,037 3,900 325 Household Population 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 47,874 51,258 8,707 726 Jobs 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 16,787 20,109 14,018 1,168 Nonresidential Sq.Ft.(1,000's) 3,872 5,853 6,095 6,382 7,650 8,810 4,938 411 Ave Wkdy Res.Vehicle Trips 105,007 106,721 108,435 110,239 119,259 128,279 23,272 1,939 IAve Wkdy Nonres Vehicle Trips 63,428 102,025 106,639 111,658 135,250 157,847 94,420 7,868 Housing Units Single Family 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 3,800 317 All Other Housing Types 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 100 8 all Jobs Retail/Commercial 2,297 6,155 6,606 7,058 9,316 11,575 9,278 773 my Office 2,412 4,230 4,443 4,655 5,720 6,784 4,372 364 Public Sector 1,065 1,065 1,108 1,334 1,434 1,434 369 31 di Goods Production 317 317 317 317 317 317 0 0 Nonresidential SF(1,000's) -,,, Retail/Commercial 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 3,711 309 Office 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,053 88 Public Sector 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 173 14 14/14, Goods Production 13 13 13 13 13 13 0 0 Ave Wkdy Vehicle Trips Single Family 95,447 96,950 98,454 100,258 109,277 118,297 22,850 1,904 All Other Housing 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 422 35 Retail/Commercial 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 83,166 6,930 Office 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 9,665 805 Public Sector 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 1,589 132 Goods Production 47 47 47 47 47 47 0 0 TOTAL 168,434 208,746 215,074 221,898 254,509 286,126 117,692 9,808 otm a Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ill Appendix 2: Arizona Development Fee Legislation is Development fees for municipalities in Arizona are authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 9-463.05. The legislation is provided below. A. A municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development, including the costs of infrastructure,improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services, financing, other capital costs and associated appurtenances, equipment, vehicles, furnishings and other personalty. B. Development fees assessed by a municipality under this section are subject to the following requirements: 1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development. 2. Monies received from development fees assessed pursuant to this section shall be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized by this section. Monies received from a development fee identified in an infrastructure improvements plan adopted or amended pursuant to subsection D of this section shall be used to provide the same category of necessary public service for which the development fee was assessed. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund shall be credited to the fund. 3. The schedule for payment of fees shall be provided by the municipality. The municipality shall provide a credit toward the payment of a development fee for the required dedication 1111 of public sites, improvements and other necessary public services included in the infrastructure improvements plan and for which a development fee is assessed, to the extent mo the public sites, improvements and necessary public services are provided by the developer. li The developer of residential dwelling units shall be required to pay development fees when construction permits for the dwelling units are issued, or at a later time if specified in a development agreement pursuant to section 9-500.05. If a development agreement provides for fees to be paid at a time later than the issuance of construction permits, the deferred fees shall be paid no later than fifteen days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The mirt development agreement shall provide for the value of any deferred fees to be supported by appropriate security,including a surety bond,letter of credit or cash bond. 4. The amount of any development fees assessed pursuant to this section must bear a reasonable relationship to the burden imposed upon the municipality to provide additional necessary public services to the development. The municipality, in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development, shall consider, among other things, the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees or assessments by the property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee. 5. If development fees are assessed by a municipality, such fees shall be assessed in a ` nondiscriminatory manner. 6. In determining and assessing a development fee applying to land in a community facilities district established under title 48, chapter 4, article 6, the municipality shall take into account all public infrastructure provided by the district and capital costs paid by the district for -. ..... . , ,. _:_ F72 __ ., ,, - - TihIeise Ell 14. Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan ill necessary public services and shall not assess a portion of the development fee based on the 110 infrastructure or costs. ii C. A municipality shall give at least sixty days' advance notice of intention to assess a new or IP modified development fee and shall release to the public a written report that identifies the iiii methodology for calculating the amount of the development fee, explains the relationship p between the development fee and the infrastructure improvements plan, includes IP documentation that supports the assessment of a new or modified development fee and U identifies any index or indices to be used for automatic adjustment of the development fee pursuant to subsection F of this section and the timing of those adjustments. The municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed new or modified development fee at any time after the expiration of the sixty day notice of intention to assess a new or 11111 modified development fee and at least thirty daysrior to the scheduled date of adoption of p p the new or modified fee by the governing body. A development fee assessed pursuant to this 71, section shall not be effective until seventy-five days after its formal adoption by the ill governing body of the municipality. Nothing in this subsection shall affect any development fee adopted prior to July 24, 1982. D. Before the assessment of a new or modified development fee, the governing body of the municipality shall adopt or amend an infrastructure improvements plan. The municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the infrastructure improvements plan at least thirty days before the adoption or amendment of the plan. The municipality shall release the plan to the public, make available to the public the documents used to prepare the plan and provide public notice at least sixty days before the public hearing, subject to the following: 1. An infrastructure improvements plan may be adopted concurrently with the report required by subsection C of this section, and the municipality may provide for and schedule the notices and hearings required by this subsection together with the notices and hearings required by subsection C of this section. 2. A municipality may amend an infrastructure improvements plan without a public hearing I if the amendment addresses only elements of necessary public services that are included in the existing infrastructure improvements plan. The municipality shall provide public notice of those amendments at least fourteen days in advance of their effective date. E. 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. F. A municipality may automatically adjust a development fee on an annual basis without a III public hearing if the adjustment is based on a nationally recognized index applicable to the cost of the necessary public service that is the subject of the development fee and the IP adjustment mechanism is identified in the report required by subsection C of this section. ill The municipality shall provide public notice of those adjustments at least thirty days in advance of their effective date. t f ;.tt.,..r_i'r- i.S'.."x ,.. - r 3r, �� „.,r_z ---.:ik8.t .. e, isc e Ise 73m IPt ii Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan Ili G. Each municipality that assesses development fees shall submit an annual report accounting for the collection and use of the fees. The annual report shall include the ii following: g 1. The amount assessed by the municipality for each type of development fee. Att 2. The balance of each fund maintained for each type of development fee assessed as of the II beginning and end of the fiscal year. 3. The amount of interest or other earnings on the monies in each fund as of the end of theI fiscal year. 4. The amount of development fee monies used to repay: (a) Bonds issued by the municipality to pay the cost of a capital improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment. (b) Monies advanced by the municipality from funds other than the funds established forI development fees in order to pay the cost of a capital improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment. 5. The amount of development fee monies spent on each capital improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment and the physical location of each capital improvement project. 6. The amount of development fee monies spent for each purpose other than a capitalii improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment. H. Within ninety days following the end of each fiscal year, each municipality shall submit a copy of the annual report to the city clerk. Copies shall be made available to the public on request. The annual report may contain financial information that has not been audited. 11::I. A municipality that fails to file the report required by this section shall not collect ?' development fees until the report is filed. J. Any action to collect a development fee shall be commenced within two years after the obligation to pay the fee accrues. K. For the purposes of this section, "infrastructure improvements plan" means one or more 13:1' written plans that individually or collectively identify each public service that is proposed to be the subject of a development fee and otherwise complies with the requirements of this section, and may be the municipality's capital improvements plan. Sec. 2. Applicability Section 9-463.05, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, applies to development fees adopted or amended on or after the effective date of this act and shall not affect development fees duly adopted or amended before the effective date of this act. The effective date is September 19, 2007. 30-44 has..: -:Fs•:-- -. - a .... - .._—.....- ••-- r,._- - ISC e ise 4 0 t -1 (DO ; * 0 -- 13 C) m 0 .i. . M ai 2) pli rral ei (A — -.1 ; 7 5 =I' 0 '4a 0 ci) ti lc rb ''.2 0 ••• 1 (-1 ■ft: = CD ts) ‘‘) C) ea > IN . Git I) 5 is) 0 0 c i 0 = , co no II=I 11 46 p....71 • • • • • • • --i IS E � n In mi.,G� c..) � O p �' < n) cia,. , o < 0 , n IS cu D rE) * ....... co (1) (t) Mil ....._ 0 m rit cu _ --1 . "...mi., 3 c m.... _ ,......, ..,,,,, 0 IrD ...... 3 . (D -0 m 3 0 p in p 03 et) -0 © 3 0) T(1)I rpt � n sa) `� (D ..... r)--- r) I IA rt cv ail 40.< ........ rt. rlv) rt ur) . cr) ....... )), 0Or ' 3� C cu r-1- -.....• CD * rit. up) cl: ..1 - CD '< ___,, Ca)� � (/) Lo rt C CD � N cl.. 3 0 (D _.. 3 < (D rn 0 3 (I) _..... ...1 < CD I su co a) IIMIIMMIall ,IF O D O CD .-: rt N � 0 O. 7 EU •• V)• N 4 i: i, ., ig CA Al n ��g G ) flflflfl (14,4c ii in i sii • • • • • f% N.• "akt M i CO N ET c o CI) (I)i (i) � 3 _ ___ (t) al CL. v) 7-7 e rt 3,_i_ IN Q) a) La C) GI) Cl. FIT :41 (1) "r3 al r) fDT. Q c .... (D114 m •st m = z rim rim D Ul • • • • M -I (i) --o. G) m CI) D 5 o ....%< 0 cl, o 0 o — cL 11-U--) 0 %,< a n CD o (1) co X' c CD M FIT (D D -1 t<D r<t- Pi* N 11 M ID ay •w --,,,,::Mr,I • • • 11112 -orf-8 0 z to 1 0 En 1 , 1 0 , 1 , i°-9c CD (11D B? Q° 3 3 o < � G > O (D CI) (ID (D (D _a, m N m --1 (11 !fb > x ri- 3 _ D < < CD _. ...i. o rD (D 0 (D —' 3 0 o D = , (D ,--- (ts c 0_ La." 3 D ai < %-d 3 o ci, CD (D 1Z3 3 . a MR 0 10 (D at) 6" IN (f) CO D''' D 0 -0 (D C CD. n---. rili n 3 M rt int CDum s -0 v) (/) m (i) (ID O 0 (D u) D (DCD (1) rt. -nQ) "TiX m 0 0.- m < (ID (D 0 (D (i) 73 --1 C (D < < CD CD _0 (DI— (D r-t- (/) C * Ii 3 C o n 0 d m' .`5 D N. O 7 SD• • A „,i:xi • • • • -,r),w, 0 °c”? =,. Fo) ' , -n -o z ET C ET X (1) --J ri) -1 a > _icrts or9. n. (rf)D, n. -p < �� n � r* -0 -<• 7-i: CI rr o - --1 (1) a .....,.. ..< (D (D 0" (I) n nC (1) (I) (C) < (I) -1 (I) � (D 0 (D - 0 (D --1 110 D -t) -• v) -I (D n r-r n -. < 0 D ai (1) (in -C3 ... a 0, 3 (D D 3 _1 0) (1) � (Di alrD c w (i) ci- a a) , -1 n M rD < 0- rl- -.1 (I) .A.: x (D (DCD (p �• � CO 3 (D --1 ri• �3 m fl- � m rD 0 Qrt74: v) .� � Q � X � 11 c (1) _. 3 CD D'"-1 D D (D D (i) CD , (1), 0.. -h n cn ....,„ n -1 D"' o ......,„ 0) 0 Q) 0 D 0 (i) a) D 'I r-t- "I r-r. D CP < --1 --1 - (/) 0 ° ".1 _ v) 0 D" M 3 (7)- sa) L .....11 cl)n n 3 'I< _. r-r. n "I MIIMINIMIIIII C .......... EV CD ii7 7:11: --1 u C .%5 C rrui5" (1) r-ti 1:3 0 mil I > r=f1: .....h M N CD CD n0 a) sa) G co m.o Q oi 74- `n `‹ a1 rt a • • • —I :aim � � -_,-p,) 7_4,115 al (12 � n � S 007 B-r. p � Q � (1) S �.accia r-r CD (Dt �---1 � al � o rt 0 —I 0_ D a 0 (I) a 1 r.t. V) I * (1) 3 n can -ri DI" r) -n 3 DJ Di- -0 (i) (D --1 rD 3 u) — (D--1 m [D (D as = !I CO rt. Ms r-t- X Ci.. (D < (I) 0_ 0 --) (D 0_ --i C n I D c _ ei) --I v) 0 Cr Ull Q (D v) a si) v) (1) -11 * rur rti D.- -0 � o- f-r p'1' Ms (f) m- (D (D D- CP 0_ — --11 D CD C D 0) (f) v) m 0- --) „, n (1) rtQ (to %< C 1-11 = CCI --h (D 0_ (1) n 7:4: -1 (Cs < 3 D rt n), ;;;" CD (D (D 0 0 n) 0- --s u)) Lo !f) r,— n 0 < th rt. et) v — 3 3 "" ca) ---h r-r p %< < a % 5. 0 (1) �; � --t1 (1) �=.92- (i) li Ill..._ mv)-a � � p ("la =-j. 13) o CD n'E p 74 --11 D" � 0- 0) r* rt rco Lo CD D ri. D cu --) (D rt — (p CD • i� o • • v iom M m Ecp � � (I) ,2;CD --ti 0 < 0 n 0 < 1,a n -, m -1 _. -C2 g.. ig cl) n •-• 0 ";.--t: 0 i 0 n M 73 cl) 0 -o — n -1 0 e=i: mia m in° (Di -r-DI Nu CI) CD 3 ;71 ,..., ri, , ..._ ri) P-iii- -0 r-t- 3 ._..h r=r: m ....... et) 0 c. (D (1) n = D fi X 3 IPIP 71: 3 cv 3 (1)- F5. O (DM CL (1) � 'f1 (i) m ri- CO M < (1) 3 o ca. (i) rD o) -1 (D 3 X — CD --1 --t) (m)= rt rip (-) IN D (i) (1) D" (.1) = r-t" MI D CI) D = (I) CD CT r) 0 0 imp ......• 03 a) D d 6- x M n � � rIP cr D.5 � a CD N � CD o cn CD -� CD C °; -C-.1;. 121W CD (I) fD am r • Era,Al 3= I � N 2i. I I I ....,,i,a . v) r-r --, ---1 (f) D > N 0°Imo • • D (0 D.. (D D- D''' CD V)cr:-S "-t) --I (I) Q.) (1) Q) e) (I) 0 ,• m -1 rn ni < (f) _... (D (D D M 0 (D, (J) r Ah-l' '7' 3 0 Q) —N c r* CD � �711 � —s t� cc�n) (I) n — ,-- (i) D — CD cl) n) e•-iN (1) mum � Q �. rn-r per' n � � � �G 0 (/) --1— (D D r-.7.• D (0 D 0 C -0 ri. "C3 0 (-) 1110 D- �p (I) o n' _ 0 CD 3 (D r-t" (D ,—• — _11 CT --t1 --i cu , „ cu ....4.1 ..0 O � (-p �271 �- < rt: � F). (Clp r'1' N rt � r�-r � D � � O � � CD � � (I) (f) c (1) -I rep (I) D (_1)1 rt =0 ;4- n 0 ..._-0 D..... a. rip < n'srimo (I) < — (Ds -- -, (Di � (I) (1) -00 O < n -3rt)nr—r. _ Q)' ' 0 '711n D CD 3 ;.—.-, (D (1) %-ii (1) (D 'n,-‘- 0 0 - (i) t'D 5. ` D D 'LI rt -0 C rd” FA. 1"11 .73 r-1- ri" Q) DI". V) CD El (D. 71 Q CD ej� < � � CL-..! CT � Qty!) 73 � � n D �: c �' 0 CD O 4 cn Qirr < C O rn-r � (p � � � fD � fD �' MI -1 c 3 -J 1-1 QCD CD CD rr 0 --1 ,. -10 — D (/) (i) C Ilia I at --) (1) D — 3 CD 3 ir r4r (f) (Do 3 < * 2 .45n -o c (D • D � Ort 2 _ D � n' Lo -=I is • • • • • • • • GI) 'E: i=.' owomov > - CD 7,uppu n pop r-t- CI) rat' j m 0) thrl" = I S (7) = L!4 C 1 2 ij (-I- (1)::• "R- - 1 M 5. el 3 ci) 3 a) Li_ N _. 'I ri. (Ds (D (D '10 5' (i) 5' --1 ca., * IN a.. " rD D rD 3 m -i< m m fp (fl1 (D'D (1) � (D3 (D 12 o •< (D4 o_ -0 Di" mi Fl 5- = LCD v) n PIP Q) --1) 74: 0 --1 r_i_ 0 (-1- CU 3 o 0, ca. 0, 0, m rip 0 -0 -1h n o_ -Iorr asD- CD--t1 = D (D (I) (0 sin- (1) "., n (I) &)r-r � � � Vf sa) Q) cg F DQ 0... 0 CD r-r O (D --1ET 3 t< .._,.. ar D CDN O v FD- ••N CI Jo, 0O0C 0 -0 a=- > (A) 73 > cL ° cLcLaMMUS ,04,< =EMI I 11%,< V) (f) (i) 3 • °I) ( 1" n • � � o =NMI• � rt � n rn o CD CD a � FIC v n rt N 0 • D1 O V S > > Z `6' if • c < 0 cp o o • 0 CD CD cn 0.= I CD -‘ (m o Oro r) ID ga, 0 � ,.., `< � C C )). (f) c ..., am■ �-•+ 3 ._. sip �---+,-,-. . CIS (f) ....- ).-':.-W _ D „, CD O (OCD C c cn rD • il- D 0 m,.. ___ m... D'' CD < E.: °-1-1 .. (D I 0 rD n e-t-• 11112 (1) -1 °J Ca. ri �=. 3 ,_, ,-,5. O "I,c) rl- Ca O —■ (1) -,--t �' ._. ■ ,--7i 3 c -< cn - - N "I3 ...... ed CI) r\J r-1- =I NJ o --.1 (1) CD E■"■ �' w 01 ,(J.) , N) 00 N V) Oi CD 4. O 00 O C.n O A) -0 -� oNo N) LV V) CD (1) D (r) N o ,--, ,--, ,--, 4. o---1 Om C• D Cr N W W iP O O 0001 ho/--k (1) (J..) N 4. C3 4. O O ,i "E3 ■ W 73 N N 0 .Ph w ~' ►-, 04. N 1 v. CO N -1 CN N i 00 o� O VCD 1 V1 00 W ;..4 O O - 4. 01 rD CJ DI" r- CT1 N N) 01N CD O 0 � � Oo Oo O \ N N '-'fr' Cl. O C Oo N 00 '--a IV O O 4. 1--' O (ft W N < (f) O 00 O a- CD CD.(45 lO ,...., 3 � N ►�-�, n . 90 .).) -,,t, 0) O N �l W 00 ,=,`=' N z •�•• O N 00 00 �7 O p 0_ •:• �� No N E ©n N 00 4, N W C W N N N 00 ►--, Oo Cit • • • • • 11. CD —1 6) r- -o m n) a cr < co. n X". w Nom (D V) (1) %i< (a) rt Gum) 3 0) 0 o (1) rDPi' m r*. rn � o vi � A cD o 112 0 d � 12: O • r;iiii • • • 8 =-. F—I n ,,. 1 -10 1 D 1 II cn -nn PD) oo__r, (D ...) --, x 0 c --1 ca, D - -, (D.z. Ms Q. n c -r-DJ v). CD Cm 6 � mgy � g °J rt °- - Q) o_ -41, a' � < LO ri,—. 0 = (1) — CD (1) , , e-,- V) (12 --1 D -1 -11 -.41 0- (-D M CL **< il) C C 0 CD- X 1E11 II n r-fr. r'? e-1. -r-i c e•-• M --. _ c n" Q) (NM' D -0 f=r': 7.-r_z: -1 -0 (i) FE: tu CD -0 h-i- -17.-0 D -0 (I) iv v) (f) c --1 v) C rt. CD 0 — (D .... < 0- D Ca) 0 _s C r-t- n D cii. n D'' Qj D a) ri. p --""' --- 0 r-r 0 D < e% 1-1 -I 0 t , ir, Ms .3 D ED (I) c I I) d 1 Q cn w 3 (p F15. (DO D fD D D (D< � SD � � C 'm �.... c CI) FD 3rD r=t < w (I) fl- si) rD � CD 7 i t T f^. Gl 0 i C, P--.3 X C.) '-,-,=I. -t Q°mom z C-1m A orl o.0 -"'3 F.,m p O - A -t CO v) 1 ,• cr. PP !W=Il ,-t- C") r' -t ,--t-, 7, ,. ..,.,, gE git ES. Zi-, 0 1-t ,--t t--, CI -. 00 O `C ci5 Omom ~' 0 0 qcr `al . (lan pa rD q III< u<1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 01. 2 " " 5' < �. ,� -• ,--,,n cn • n n �D �:.► Sy n ►-' n aD ,-* rs• rD ,� p C a) w m cn < cn U, p Cf) 2' CIA 4 '61 C-)'' ril r'-6. rt,-- n eill ,-C e.0 , ,Sc cn •4) F FT .t t-A,. cf, t. DI) a) Z) tl e-i-. 0,3 rim ,,.. P,) (11)q R. .. o d ::,- 10 0 p . . . - . .■n O41< CD n' & q H Er CD o e. 0 d �. tZcip W cl cn 1 n•Oq -I. n cr' - z N . O ,--,• aL M q CD • ♦•• r I-] '-6 p C!) r CD � '6":`ncc, t-t p p C r) ►CA - < (/) CD © CD p el O r, • -� •o o 0 rD "< r r T ,mr,1 en07 nz xi X:i 3 11 0 73 "Cl e) m ,-,.= ri• n it m m m a) CD00 a OriP M < n inPt n 12. 0"1`... ,..11. =• m init X' ,,,...... i s O p...Oto m (t) :,„. to%,c %., -I o r n CU m o 2) W rP O 0 r I 3 .., 0 13 a .4. 1:3 O - 3 0 0,,, NiL 0 m 0 M = zO ILOpi. zil , %ICm rim (D i-da Ct 0 `c R o � F5. cm H m. V • V P2 o � ��� eD AD 00 CD d > 9 0 �' 't. E• CD a it P rD �' ►�� 0-t ,� - :d ° ,� -- eD ct E • o CD •�i �' ° O • R a. a p 01rr 0 R a V 0- Ixi ,,..=- n) t...., t 2 il) 11) ;ar ..t, r, m .5,m,, O ,- In "I _, 0. -1 _ co tit z ro A A -,,I,O cp N ...... XI--.3 OM■ p $y (D co '-t t" p--+ Pit 13) __.2 0 11 " < bt '1-‘ r,:' ,q ;:,-' 1-, zmzf.,v) r--, O nip , m z—i ;'• - 2 ,,, z r--' �.' N. - � � .0 Cril Ull • 5 tz r `� tri� 0 M 3 ti. �' tv n ,-,1 4 - ;,,, ;.-, 0-i. (101 Cla -cl act cn I.*aJ ., Xi rt n `�' co co crimp'41 0 n rD O i Zn •tm IM Z A Oifill Or CD cn rIIIIII ii D Fli rt ,,-,,t O co cr r) A 4..1 Mn DJ 21 cr 1 0 MI O' co O0-■ o Z O M (D "Ct 12 O ...... v) 1114 0 o O S M 110 O O C rt �• 11) fa -- � N MI g< ( N N C oo ►.P . 1 N N ♦♦♦ W Go (.� O N 4.P ....A ra �. r .'..'Mil 4 0 1) .::-,vo 0 ;' ›. 0 rt x m a; ,.= '6'1 '--4 < all iCD > (.4 4 „,,,a, ,.... , , m ,,,,m” C CIT)-' 4 ,.... _. ,, 5-- ,ri -i- ci, c) 1.) 'rZ1 o 0,1 P. m P-t 1:3 = 17 . — ot , rt -... cp. ,..,, 3 0. 5 0 ''cil 0-3 Ci.P Z > v) tri cxl, tirl g al 3 ris (Pi)3 n ,,. rri mli mi c:, n ,..i. < a) XI ri: mo � r CD (D 3 o O (1:0 a) to' rimo "a 4 .1(0 zi milO 0-3 cTo c:' 0.11 w � o ai in, � o _mu. to tn 1-3 Fo— ci) "5 cD3 D 4 o (T 3 .. •• rD O 'r�' r.") I P T T Oho 1.3 eiri 0 re 0 ,,,. . m ...... IE M Cr 3_a 0 riN rim M < owl it3 4., n g—. ... 1 I 7 M W iI . 111111111111 in c0 011 0 %< 21 1.4 IV .L, IVm ir- 0 N 3 m s: 0 ri. ,... CD a; ICI OiLl � O iii< rip O to r) z a -I ,--dP bt p O � )t C r-R-' CD O 0 '77i Z :::._ CD n rD > �0 '71 ° r,N ,.� ►-�'� ►fit ` ►-t .•0p p p ` pn •�• �'-•. nr ,,,, rt OQ A' E V n 71 WilT n� n 8 11111111 .=11 11•11 1111 re min 0 PA Cr ;a.) Pa mn o 0. 13 0 M� 2c O su E--,5 � ,,,,CD 11 ro o z „. z, o ali rip ___. ___ _ ...9. 11 c d m o ,o z r A O > u v, '-- • ,-,- < o . ,i, , 8-d ,---, ouit < 41IC tt). w 0 't r7i 0,1' a, S' 'Z1 4) 0 aq m > ,......, c., _ ,-t ..ri -, , r-D- -t c n 0 ,-,. ... z ,,-,,h t- ,< z „, ,„, -1 P h e ''':, 0 , z--. -.1-1 Z. c";" ,CPt 0 > !MI A rttv A, rt r a- ,A 2,1 n N3 r= ct o ',.'-' - lE.1. i.a. . ,...,. ft, ,„ zi, ;1 ...... n -it (I) F,,, z. , .r1 4. --, cz., u., rt, "... z IC r rD to n e n ',� '� :,1.71 ,....: O co co 0'4 tri *0 a ct cw- r) 1Z+.'' 4- ri, n , ..: ct ,-, co T-i- lb 't4 Pp -, ,, o ,t. n r., '-- — pz z rD n ' ,�4 0-1 Z r*cf) o (D A C c "tm., z , At Ili cil (D rD 2, '� 2_. o 0 „, O Fri cr, 0 , �' =II tzt l'ili „, (D N 0cr fl. MEM 11 (D (1) (D CA (in H 0 . r„, ti „.., N., ..p. , , .. 0 ,4,. ., w < 'I' C -Eft -Eft ri 4) ci.) iC C'') CX) 01 G > tli tr ii .),0 .8,° .(:', .1 _ 1 N ...... (D 0 (i) 3 tk) .•• .-% co Y t } ,,xj z �«�'�s T f1 d T r �8 O=' `T v 4 rm 2...... CD .... . ,,,,a, co >, cr ,,, -11,,,,._s › c.p. , 4 g..... . CO OC1P rt �,- rD- 4 ,..i.j ,-.1. NI rt) „„ ii.i Cf),.., II< i rt ;"--",). m °'d 0 cp N Ca 8.: CIP 0 °""3 -I 4) N. O 3rill m z C to .< C (D IZI - o r o � 3 ItPt o ZI, /mut M ka 4 0 Pl. Nit rillz � o y � N M Ni 1'11 < ti) rT1 Mo n rrio o mi. < tx 4 0 su : 0 13 FFM Z 3 ..5 y r_r N CP 0 ID 3rap CD •IV CP °Igli. MI o f ii4 _u . p.t. M c)a 1-P P M I f I'1 .=I .13 G! T n 0 .=- 0 ,..... .1...d a) .a, ..... 0Q C•'1 s—•u, r Es ,--, Im ,.,). r,.., o I R• n r ro n n n n . n P OX7 w R n O p O (D o pr*, o "' 0 `-d '� 't � 0 r ►tet ... r CD. .• —t CD o n_., ___ ,.., p ci) x ___„.. ci A ....... m �-t ,--J , o L o o cn a o P o ` 5 o CD ,&" a k-f-' 0 .4......... ........ 13 I g p._, t, ~. e,, ' U' o3 n � n � � � � P n e -. (ID p o o 0 o 0 0 , 1 n �-�ci) ,d (DHPt- • 3 1-t ,-t cn �' c)Zi H ril H r° ,�.t p, '� n - Mil rD 'c cn '� E 1-t ,, 0 iin p-," E. '� P 'C '-i op E- ,-,1 ti ,:- E 5, n n © nCD a fD ..... .9_ ........„ „........... , „ 0 a (1)CD O 'MP "n :=1A0 n mn (b Min m m It N � 0 �o 3 o � CL m 0 0a. " li 0 NO O m 0 O �pN to W to `C ... • II P :-,,,,,i=4 %I ,.,_8 n C s0 O 3 Tr CD nH coo Z sla. aj c:, z. --al I. ,-.3 DI -, n '- , > n ,:t ri ,7% 4 L--'. e 0 g ';i1 ?:, ..f). ;1 '-'4 5,:., et) r) 0 ph) i um a c ,--t cr) .1 *II ' 5 :1, -z., ''') P., 6`4, .,..;. FT. 5 ::,-, 0 cfq , ,...i .S n 0 (1, , ._e __. • 5. et .,, rt, ,-, t < (11) N er) cz., rt),..t 4., '''' crq Pr, 2 E., cncil (I) cp pY ..74 > Xi i.t p., 0 n v, 5 X .0 , z- a - -d5E" R--, .,-, E . ti k..< ,i n -, , r.„ ,..„, — ,... ,.., n Fi- O O cn O Ci milciq cp 7111 n 0 r� p o�. �. -.1 O CJq 4--;;J n c'D cn cD -.' v) . �- O n' C O CD OPtu i-t o i O O . , 8' '4.1 E. e.f.. fa "ti crq co 0 - ~' c co 11111 ..... �°- Mil 111 n C CD rD L rt, 3/41 .-L :1., Ca O n' CD d0111 C � tD rt r ...... is: M , O -. .O 5.-t in 1 (D O �. o O `� PM r, n) C „, {i, p+ -. to! ki, .„ A) -.kO - W N 4 46.< =; 4=. O d� U-1 4. V PIN.1. 5 O Z kil 01 Q cn = fa) EL: cl, tr. , ,...., (:), n) pep. (1:3-:;1'. � � Lii P (S N 0-1 ••� O ON • FP P N O � WN .NC) � � V / W O � W Uto � c:3 � ►-+ N N II ilt ,,'' ,, ,-.','..,'.''-.''-...,,7.,, ... -,,.,,-, .- ,,-.,.',-,,•,.,,.-,,,„, , 1,-. ....... ..-,.,, . ''.....,..,._....„ . ,-,111.-1 tl! 4 8 . r- 4 ,Ti. ,....= 0 n z > ..f). ,,,› (1).=11 0 , .,, „ „„ , 0 0 „=, a ,,„ t, — . ,.,,,, cr, ,-,-, ... 2.IIIIIIIIIII ,,,,,-"I l't fr..• 'F.)g' 0 0'4 0-- 4 ,.,,..,. 0 rt• ,, — ran, fli i'-,CI) - , ,, --...... (7) e-1- eD eD 'a' 0 Cn r n CA. ,I.,-' '11 5 g,aS Crq ,..,.r) c4 0-4 ' ''' 21"- ‘0-Ii P) X r.' ci'. )"'d p 2 ,..r., 5 p; NMI I fr-t 5 . ph) . .7; .,..., ..,..., .• cr) mil li 0 , 1.t ,.. 5 crq p. I.) 0 ,, -' c7,no .,-. crq p) Q-, ,Q. Pi) CA Pt 0 3 ,__., 0 0� ©Ii 0-3 I: vi 3 triCZ < 1110"21 '-r1 CT1C-4 tau o0 C 't _11 4 mal. rip CZ Mill I w 0-3 ell N milo m (111) ...., 4 ' o 10 cD Oz � CP y IrlD 0 (11) .rD ti IIIIIIIII 0 0 M C'";2. MC ort C 11 E• 3 sv m („...,O �,- _r. CD cJ, w k< tn n> Z. 3 (b� ° 'CCM 1 o IAN rifil fpillril ••� N) C N N O ;rt N 't M W .t (11)O -u o fin 00 5 r a 0 T n Wel I Z GI 01 T 80 s §=- _,, m m 20..... z_,a) rim =E..,,a,n o_s =11 I 111 ti I 11)__ in a J Iy N 1 0 r 1 �. o ref re al 13) re re re CA Ca. 0 cn P.) i 0 't ,_ IIIIIIIIII , , , '—' '4 — ,-,- [ X 't i E• Gli) O CD f' "t U-1 '--. 0 0 t-t a _ ", < -t n . 1-t i 4 r2,... 4 (� �t E: 3 .,. i. 0 < O O ° rD O .. • re `c `C cn fi 111111C 11111/ n-• ... ....Ire v) R-• , O L..., R (ID v re re . t cn P re (1) !-t i0 ,,, i rt) — Cf) re ,t0 O O C : _ 1111113 (D (p fir ' Cr 3 i ,.. • • . .0 0 C SD MINN rt' `. ti:11 1111111 c 17:3 IMO M 0O (ID 0 Z "ft° n) In) I • Z" S i' a. •• I h.) CL z `ft Se 41. 1 ° "11 0 6 O 1, O tl r LIZ cDc. w 1 i 11 , III Y, GI07 8 0 0 N �P 0, N N N ,-- Z cr) O 0 © 0 0 0 0 �O ht ,...� d � r c2 4 r71. '" 0 n 2 > ( C :4 CD Xi — onr) r) Z0 co- w (74 ci,, 1--t-H-N ° ,----,'—' E v) 4 g a m .t7; rD rp,..1 2 ct, ''*. Cf4 c'' rD ,..- ,„ :3 g MN II "1:2 , ,-,1 ,r-, ,-,1 pie ., 0 rD rD ,,, ac, ':4 p), 8 E ,,,,,, cp .., rt) „ ,,...i, ,c, is yip n ,,.. es- et.. --- -,., ci,. 5' 8" — °1 > IrD -.1 rt,' pi, w ___ c, ,_., cn P,) cn ,, 'c:, ch (id (2, ,_,-. E f-,-, 0_,t ,-t- ‘..1 cz 0 ,.... '''.4• td 01-1 X >< X '-nt aq 0-1• Z..' 1..) n c:D tt). (17 6' 'ti '-iz '17i o..t CD 2,) SZ) P.) 0 0 ....z E Cr) 131) 11. 1. 5 c) ul z►iz �'t'"alc. IMMO 0 0 ,ri nnnn 000oo �- c) ,z,, • $a., 0 cp , --4, '-I '-‘7o GI4) v, ,-) ,-) ,-) )71 © ,-,.., G'1 o 0 o O M 0 o rO <n 0 0 0 n ,-,-1 rim 0 .t (7, P.) ■ Ocn ,... n eic ,.. ..._, 0 rD Oil rt. ,, < . 0 0.-• .< = rD 113 o rD 10 Crim It O , O13)to 0 et < fp _u, )_. _u? -t „.., ,.,. .. si) L...i .1 {:ft i3r _u, a, r..1,) I:, Z N W ►-, 01 N cr, -, N MI CDtI U1 N N J �l 0 J �■ ..< � �7 Cn C,SI O �7 � V > Pit z zu N 5 O '� ri) 117 M ok,�. T1 �. • 11112111111hu ra. • *oft m N {P- -EA oi ,-- C O ° O ,--' ►•, N c_) W N -• N (A N O 00 ui 0 *1 N •C).) i-, *c, bi ►- Vii C71 OQ 01 O (r) FP 00 N N 0 $ j T;-1 is4 Fr:_ t—' 4 � C-i = onX >. U? iCa1-4 .,-, o 0 = s 4a., ph) p,) C14 cf) 1--t-, ,..1 cr ,,,,,-a, , , , ... ,..... CT:2. rt, ,--1-, ' rD ,,,, (c) e-t- ,v (1) 4 g.....a .--1-., o--1 a) CP 0 Cr cf) --,. (1) '71 p.t. =II 111 i ci) Crq n .to ca. cf) 1., ,-t P,,) . cn ,,, E 3 7a E. .1.),. 0 rD ,..t .1 cri 4. ,..,:i p.,. .• a .• ,.= rt p-t .. 0 c'<- = u'-i ,1'. Z- k.) n ,, 1-4 0-i Crq P,) (A ,..t. ,--, cn 0 0 o "1 '5' Z C 4 (:-.) cp � © � 2.1 61 o › �� cid3 © p, c © r .N © © mai to o ,pti o tri GI N ocr) < tim 41 '-ri r cD a Z 4 -1 rrj fl, z11111 0 r0 0—I o oil mil 13) co ro ■■■ ,,, >o '5* 4 al ccp -Q,e o GII) m '`"'' L w oo .. z 0 ,_,_ Ot y (f) mrimID z � o M o b M O11 N n 00 4. 4P V� O t.1 (11) • z N o 01 0o 01 �l ,,. su m (1) • tz. •.• c ,- N 6.. rD iiil ,--t0) 0 . O ,.N 00 1 I f n n m co 4-.1n xi m 0 —I1., C ut3 M a) mi m 0 ,g O 4 M < IN . ti 4%° .`",_'CA n 4' Q „,,. as „9 N ,a) m c X IIMINI w mZ oat Pt m M 0 "13 11 4 M ,, rill 112 0m r• 7 3 , , eD Z yrilli M rite OI 0 ` rD ZI. Z tal Tit O ti) I . CI --. a,� ° 0 NM OM I 0 ).-, ..... 4 , a.. rt 0 , p 0 to w O O O0 3 ri) < ZIC '-r:J r. i R H 11411C CI) .R fr-ci4 r-ri c.fc?t . ca., p ,-,:,= , n . H. � . 4 - H ,--d In. r* = rt, f., rt, ri, E". c'-‘ 7,3, PT fl , "' n eD 6 '' i' ,-,ci) rcn , , a., n , ' ,2-.' Pt,..t po ,h,-,--,. 0 4 o 4 P rt, , p rt, a:, t.1 0: ti cr., ,,, 1,,,_1 0:: CI:=71 Li. ra:,__I L. 5,. --)"' P )--d pi) •-•• ; R --,zi ,--- ,r2. 2.,,. n --.- '-cs , ,-,z, .Lin n0 nrt, n rD . P-t rt, p -4—. T ',#*— ,,:, ''' '4 tt 0 / --t)-t p '*' cfc? c, n, n ,-, ,-t P 0 rt, 0 ,-, c'17; P 0• ,-, cr, . .... rD P 74 ri) R eD ,P2-.ri) .".: ri n n g n II 4; T p.._. 1114 >I T f� 0 3 al 3 ,.....0 cc) rill _. 0.2 a, * * sH r. r. r. ti 50 ri V (ID ,..f. .. .8/ co cal „, no --ct . 2 p i _ cot• ,co,, ~0a ".1. 0a NEI O oZ. — r p _ c, . :1, po P-z -ct ..-= -, ,t < fs c, arri coo o '��' ^ v• A X ,,• nmom r-r ti .-- ...t -3A:1 o r.,. O O O 2, 't m ,.. ,,,,,,. 3 7:::, m ,,....,_ ,„) ag ,,,, ‘.....,. , rt, cO'1. p0 �]°p • r, �n r, vim, 0 iiii ,,;, h-t '8 ,-4 'O' ,--1-. m ,,,,.. ,,,,,, Q., 5 toO to ti)11rt co \' o N * * 00 S 3 .4 ‘.1. Call CTI �. 2 H o O O rn H0 e., ell • N � ›, ...., CI Pill .� r r oq r_ :----,.3 ch 2- • � � a, � ,i 111:1 3 Ei-, —.. ' c °' a1 b. , . .i, rt. , z I a) milk z „:5 ...t r,. N N ti..40 , , . In d o CJi N Cn �7 N cot-Oro �A ►� 3 Di O 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' O O �' eft. cn - al Itn co ,. ,7. M O i-1.. Z ,..I. Z PP XI 7,- ro O N z � � '� 41 Zo clD 1. v, �, N N O (...)1W ren-,. 5 V V �. N O V 00 ►P �7 �i 8 .I O V ►VP O1 ON O) fl) © • o r CJ7 00 )00 4=. 00 ". n O O "' O ;3 ;:o — ell '."! ` CD CIS z (I)0 ,: ,, U a • < n o o ,.. n � � nHcn � O " .s 5rD � O C C O1 01 O CT W W Cr, 0 C C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 e C N .t-' `" o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ..„ a —. 0 N 0 co 0 0 VI -EPIN a o a o FP cn I CD R W N CJ7 Oh 00 In O N 00 N CJ1 (ii �. N O CT O N v CW C v a V 'O \O •• V' V.' O -' W O' 7 W O Ui 01 .51' Oh • Efl O, ui T,fl ►-, OD `0 .0 V O O ka N V00 N )-, O� Ch co W UOi 00 0000 4, 0Ui 00 1..a CA V IA 0-, Mme-' 00 I. 111 n,-.t Illi n T S''8 , `n P F-CD :'' Dv n 3 0 A Pa r 13 5 B o z A mini ,,,g CM. n r-t• ct al M p,) :1, m o 0 n ,... , , „. 14 MI r1) 0 al Z ,..1. I 0 ,„ irnit ,.ti R 3 xii ..c4 Cto 1111 CD c0 Pali ..c4 � 1 C �` M NZA* m 0cn .! N o as 3 Di , fig ,c.-;) i.,.., '71 MI Vft o y0rD X V El - r r ° NomN 00 Z f ..... o `0DJ = m A rt, o nE?h ftzt = mit 011111 a slit t" tip. Di xii „, c„, 0 O © 0 0 0 v' 0 n (1)M Oti Z., p• MP N 1 1141 0 coo 0 0 V 0 OocintN V) O.. ::::, �O Ft,-, O O 0\ �- C �' � O O O O OMI a) n 0 0 0 0 .. 0 © O O O 4 A -I aq t J ,.., n .ri m ....• 0 _rk 0 ,....3 N z rt O � ,-7+ p '"'' kil- EA rcl ID rD -. �7 N 0000 tv Cr) rn rt, < Z" < N `J1JI O O 1 0 N o H `° H U10 0 0 0 COcn r--- 0 0 ;p w ; H 0 N) 000 00 00 CO N) N 00 ►P N N Ch & 0I N Ul O 0000O cmo N 00 14=. N 4P FP CO 01 4. s' T y X rt 0 '8 4t. '''. 'Z, E: au a in3=- .z.,- t- a. ; Fc;•....... n -, r- 4 ,.t7, 7J 0 n ct i-4, > 4 ct - DJ;Fa) 0 ,, o ,,, ,, crq j:,'', 0 ...., (D 1--, F2., > . ,I• 't 4'. 'F'.,* c, ' 0 7,2- rt 3 - 0:3 „ e_p• „t, ...._ , . ,. c„ z.,_ .. .73, , • ._,, . rt, _ . , ...,• o- tz '4_'(A* cip „ Ocri , n ti „lb 0 .,i 5. ,,,, p, ,,, , -i .. tTi ,-f, ,- z ,.H--t. ,-,- ,-, - - , 0 ,,i- z.,t. (A Crq ",- a ci) '-d T 5 ,..,3 cii" d1110U1 , O C3-1 coo coo o 0 0 0 0 L o0 119 o cr) aq 0 oDil °o z MN -I o o 't r`!i C!) co . ,s.il '71 '-'11 * co ca' ,t. m fit c .. -,m0 tii CA y _fttw Imilz 03 it -I 0 ro tli M. CO O �• rimz O tl -. oPa W th '01 < c e a) ” ati ro c c, o n —t,,„ 11, p,. 5 am iii O `T. orli N %'. 0 cm pa al 0 6p w >1 ,C MCr •;• pINIIIIIIIII c,p4 5'o z 0 (in , , ...t 01 01 W ►4, ) 01 to o W N cr cr cri 1 14. T n ,F„zrin en es% mil g crii) ht n n o O n Fal5-=II ',-,-- o rt -0 CD - af. - •-... -t > n > > 0 IN g.a 2. cn < < :‘, < ., , < ., ,, ae rD rD O� O ''Ci rt) O rt ''L: �D rt o ''r. .4 moi' fD rt '-s (D z " ,: `-t ,,, z i .•aaa■�■ p, cr d H 't a) a) cn n 0..t n Z-, V ;1) 0% '5')* n „...4;41 = =i ''� � rill (1) cin A n . o n n �, � � o o r r �' � � r �, �. � � r �' c‘i- %MS 110 O '-1 Z- (/) ' ID CD cn CD ti CD CI 0 , O v) A n G�4 o n > = y Xil .1% < O m ,.., z• - A.) ,•-•• 0 , , — cnr° cl,- ..,2 ,L) › ,-:-,- n I'L cr < r—, OP 0 e (i) ,_...,-, rp ri n u, , „...., c, < c„ — , cep., Ctg.i. DJM''� • O n On �., �- �D O a 0� H Iiii fD rt cn O ,cry. - �.• �.i„ rill loir . Ill� y, C 0: '1:$ < < '-rcF 4 0 ,-t W_ Crqm fD O H 0 i-i = V1 H H *10it t-' riD 11=4 Li ..,-,:, rt). . IQ rt) Z"' = Cfq IC LA 51 qg O t Pp rotO 0 it' W N O U1 W N N Oift N r-� Oil ••� V V W �P co N O N o O N 0 It/ 1111 C C MIN I CI ,„.1c all Raft 4.Nv> W' Ui oviw a'N ,-.1 - O O0Cv C\ , oN oV N. -.7 0c7, W .p u-, 1.4.• o ra� o N � U) A) •�• W 4,-EP N C' v C" Cr o V1 a1 0, 0) 4 01 4P o N W N o V V o N) liamimmosimillow r,! S,E « 'yrs T. r¢, T , o z 4 0 :iic m O8 M CD cn r I. rD rt, ►-1 ce,aims -..., O r 7 r-___...., ctoo n �,; > cc? rt 4 al ni g a) Pt m-g" ''t • 'F'). '8 0 crci 4 < X �i p ,_, ,,, riA '-r1 Cf) ..i "'14 11.1111 ,,,,CD : 0 E (4. ht 8 n ., il 5. c c. '� t\. o o �c O 3 5 cgi o �- 5 4. d V1 0 0 " c ,- > IN,3 g V �n o n Gd � r 33 0 � � o o Ci o r a) .1 x � o C , . r o o �' r OO " I n -4 4 rii rim ni O r, z 11 3 y ts 1:3 rrl tri m Ull rt 4M 111C1 O O V) ‘10 Q' o C ....„ Z mil M cr ,-,• ,-.3 yCr) rt• kft _Qft -t ,..... ,...., Wwa;,.-,,. . ,_.t O � � , rp ti O 7....., otli'1 0 ri. O < 0 o W %< (bC (D rc err ii.„,O O 1:3 ID ID -EP- -EP. +++ (D w � � iv � N Pli CD CDo t c Ti.---1 0 (0).,._.,8T P+ S C..=1. (D 1: JCD 3 am• r"' Zr rg 0 � = Q n Z > (i),.y (ID , 0 p, p, crq ,, p--,-, ,_ F.4, p..t .., _. ,...i. v. 0 1213 a: E u, '6 -. gl, ,-r-4 0... rp ,--t cr cn ,..c. 1-J-I 1-,• PJ 11:3 .. ,_ .., e-t• CD e & .. ill Pa c.n ' ill< ets r 0 co 0 r G4oi Z fD o 0 0 t v,t 0N O ot 00 p p ' • MINI. "II o cn o o ag 5 ofat cn c) 4 ti111' -,- ti et) CU mrl (1) Aiii _ (D it3 , a —■ _., ...,....,,.1 z zzzzzZ �`' (1)z ti) (11) 3 ri. \ \ \ - \ \ \ N O � 0. N z 11 CD : z zXXZZZ Z �' %"! --,, -,, .._ ,., z 4, cr z �D > > > > > > > cZ' W ►.p � 3N ..c u) _u, „ ip• _u, c, 0 {,ft „.., _c3e. _v, _E:ft -.QA- -EP. i--1 'IN 00 N N 1-' O FP c' 01 W co E33 Cf) co IV N - 1--�-1 N O coo -k N 00 4, 4P (Tt N "..tW coW CDoc NN O Qi 00 Qi �7 •,. ,......, N) • -•-• 173 V v t H --t 0 1 NMI N• c1.111 O r n LV V v� L� 0 r^ Lv lp 0 ill V J 01 C 4- N CTI W ti DJ •�•� 'C 00 W O 4. C 0 4. 00 4. 00 WCr W MEM if4 - - -E - 01 Epp 01 0000 4P 00 N • 00 4P 00 N 0\ Z O 01 0 W N 4. N W 1 T , _... .. f.:F:ti::,4,:.,,,,,-;;,,,,,,' ,,_...:, , CI • • • 1=-..... � cn n 0K3- n) D D D O ,az, -00CD rn D � • Vil ' C CI N 0 = rt — rt ni — (f) m (1) o' .7.1). --I rim � a-- n r-1- LO (/) (/) n cD- 3 v,' C n Imil = 0 � O w �rt. rpt (r-I- n 73 (D -- �p w CL n D 0 0- CD CD 0 n 0 D D n n''' an D 5° Lo X (f) 0 _. . w -11 < r-r (f) (f) Q.) - teD C V) rt � 0r1 D 0 5. r-r CY .....• CI) C (I) D D. 0 %< 0_ Q) _ -h D t......i. 0 -1 n . D c 0- --1 CV C V) (D V) Q) r-r ...1 (1) (D —1 ca) rr (f) o D liii < ....1 a) ii" Q) 0 _. 3 -, o.. %5 , n ri: OM III N Z D CD O 6-- 0 = Q) rt. C n rD 1-1 su -.... -. r-r V) •• -7 D 0 . • I c,4 ist. (1) ca. n m- P X 5• (-Jr' • • ci =111 (0 0 .2.a0Q O_. 3 rD (f) C r) ■ v) •O ■.\) EMI 111 0 3 0 O CD N 0 A) •:• C.4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2 Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 4/23/2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Philip C. Saletta, P.E.,Water Utility Director SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF REPORTS ON POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SUMMARY: In response to recent Council direction regarding Senate Bill 1406, the Water Utility will be updating the recent Water Development Impact Fee Reports. Red Oak Consulting has been contracted to perform this work. The updated reports will be complete on April 22, 2008 and will be presented to Council at the Study Session. As presented at the Council Study Session on March 12, 2008, S.B. 1406 proposes some significant changes to the current development impact fee legislation. Among them would be a requirement to modify the manner in which credits are determined for developers and more importantly, a requirement to include a twenty-four month waiting period for all newly platted developments to begin the collection of impact fees. This twenty-four month waiting period would be applied to any new fees that become effective after January 1, 2009. The twenty-four month waiting period has the potential to cause both administrative and budgetary consequences for the Water Utility. There are two impact (development) fees that are currently in place for a new water service. This includes the Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fees (AWRDIF) and the Potable Water System Development Impact Fees (PWSDIF). The AWRDIF currently is set by Ordinance (0) 07-32 and in the Town Code — Water Code 15-17-4 and 15-17-9. The AWRDIF has a five increment phase in that commenced on September 19, 2007 and will be increased through September 19, 2011. Attached is a copy of this phase-in from the Town Code — Water Code. There is some risk that this phase-in currently in the code would be subject to the twenty-four month waiting period. In response to this concern, the Water Utility will present information in the updated report that will eliminate the phase-in and suggest the fee be set at the original amount calculated without a phase-in. In addition,we will discuss: The PWSDIF is set by Ordinance (0) 07-31 and in the Town Code — Water Code 15-17-5 and 15-17-10. There are no expected increases to this fee however, the updated report will discuss a Construction Cost Index that could also be applied to the PWSDIF. A Notice of Intent will be prepared for consideration by Council. In addition, draft ordinances for the AWRDIF and the PWSDIF will be prepared to include these changes for review by the Water Utility Commission and for consideration by Town Council. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 4/23/2008 The Water Utility will follow the same schedule as proposed by Town Management as follows: Notice of Intent to adopt new fees May 7, 2008 (60 day waiting period) Review by Water Utility Commission May 14, 2008 Public Hearing on potential new fees July 16, 2008 (30 day waiting period) Adoption of potential new fees August 20, 2008 (90 day waiting period) Effective date of newly adopted fees November 18, 2008 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Town Code—Water Code 15-17-4 git14Philip aletta, P.E., Water Utility Director 6itail adAtco...., David Andrews, Town Manager 15-17-4 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fees AWWA AWRDIF AWRDIF AWRDIF AWRDIF AWRDIF Meter Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Capacity 9/19/2007 9/19/2008 9/19/2009 9/19/2010 9/19/2011 Ratio Single- Family Residential Demand 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adjustment Factor 5/8-inch 1 $1,300 $2,270 $3,240 $4,210 $5,182 3/4-inch 1.5 $1 ,950 $3,400 $4,860 $6,320 $7,770 1-inch 2.5 $3,250 $5,680 $8,100 $10,530 $12,960 1 1/2-inch 5 $6,500 $11,350 $16,200 $21,050 $25,910 2-inch 8 $10,400 $18,160 $25,920 $33,680 $41,460 Multifamily Residential (Per Unit) Demand NA 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Adjustment Factor Per Unit NA $625 $1,090 $1,555 $2,020 $2,490 Commercial and Industrial Demand 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adjustment Factor 5/8-inch 1 $1 ,300 $2,270 $3,240 $4,210 $5,182 3/4-inch 1.5 $1 ,950 $3,400 $4,860 $6,320 $7,770 1-inch 2.5 $3,250 $5,680 $8,100 $10,530 $12,960 1 1/2-inch 5 $6,500 $11,350 $16,200 $21,050 $25,910 2-inch 8 $10,400 $18,160 $25,920 $33,680 $41 ,460 3-inch 16 $20,800 $36,320 $51,840 $67,360 $82,910 4-inch 25 $32,500 $56,750 $81,000 $105,250 $129,550 6-inch 50 $65,000 $113,500 $162,000 $210,500 $259,100 8-inch 80 $104,000 $181,600 $259,200 $336,800 $414,560 Irrigation Nonturf Demand 1.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 Adjustment Factor 5/8-inch 1 $1,300 $2,270 4 $3,240 $4,210 $5,182 3/4-inch 1.5 $1 ,950 $3,400 $4,860 $6,320 $7,770 1-inch 2.5 $3,250 $5,680 $8,100 $10,530 $12,960 11/2-inch I 5 $6,500 $11,350 $16,200 $21,050 $25,910 2-inch 8 $10,400 $18,160 $25,920 $33,680 $41,460 3-inch 16 $20,800 $36,320 $51,840 $67,360 $82,910 4-inch 25 $32,500 $56,750 $81,000 $105,250 $129,550 6-inch 50 $65,000 $113,500 $162,000 $210,500 $259,100 8-inch 80 $104,000 $181,600 $259,200 $336,800 $414,560 Turf Uses (Per Acre) All Turf NA $13,900 $24,900 $35,900 $46,900 $58,000 Uses - Per Acre A variance may be requested if a meter is required to be increased from a five-eighths (5/8) inch meter to a three-quarter (3/4) inch meter solely due to the installation of fire sprinkler systems. If the variance is granted, the AWRDIF that will be assessed will be the cost of a five-eighths (5/8) inch meter. The variance will have no impact on all other rates, fees and/or charges associated with a three-quarter (3/4) inch water meter. (07-32, Amended, 06/20/2007; 96-43, Enacted, 01/08/1997) Town of Oro Valley Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fees and Potable Water System Development Impact Fees Study Session April 23, 2008 ic, • Statutory requirements — Notice of intent — Begins formal process to increase development (impact)fees — Does not set or modify fees — Establishes Public Hearing date — Makes available reports • Water Utility Impact Fee Analysis — Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee (AWRDIF) Analysis — Currently finalizing report 1 Impact Fee Analysis • Revising Analysis in response to proposed legislation and at Council's request • Alternative Water Resources Development Fees (AWRDIF) are being revised • Potable Water System Development Impact Fees do not need revisions • Water Utility Impact Fee Analysis for AWRDIF prepared and updated by Red Oak Consulting AWRDIF Analysis • Currently the Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fees are set by ordinance to be incrementally increased • The updated report proposes to eliminates the incremental increases and provide for one increase. • Fees are based upon meter size • Ultimate Fees reduced based upon adjustment for no incremental increases 2 1 r • '� Town ofOro ValleyWater Utility ,: a—: Alternative Water Resources Development Im Impact Fee Analysis P Y F,,,, O,?,' Table ES-1 Proposed 2008 AWRDIF Single Family Residential (per meter size) Proposed 2008 AWRDIF 5 -inch $4,982 3/4-inch 7,470 1-inch 12,450 1'/2-inch 24,910 2-inch 39,850 Multifamily (per unit) Proposed Per unit $2,390 Commercial and Industrial (per meter size) Proposed 5/-inch $4,982 3/4-inch 7,470 1-inch 12,450 11/2-inch 24,910 2-inch 39,850 3-inch 79,710 4-inch 124,550 6-inch 249,100 8-inch 398,560 Irrigation (non-turf) (per meter size) Proposed 5 -inch $4,982 3/-inch 7,470 1-inch 12,450 11/2-inch 24,910 2-inch 39,850 3-inch 79,710 4-inch 124,550 6-inch 249,100 8-inch 398,560, Turf Uses (per acre) Proposed Golf Course Turf/All turf uses (proposed) Lakes and Open Water $55,800 Cemeteries, Parks and Schools Other Uses April 2008 Page v • RED D D ....� ooloY4t.lw'Nv w c`j0L 001O)T.4.'wrvr I�Tw D {7MI0gN r `'T0 � CD < _ .I i.I . ! CO CD = i i i_ I . -� Co CD (DI _ c _, .. --,--• ,,, a,I �. co (ns. -i 0 c) c� �0 ;C) N 0 --;5. 3 CQ 0 0 c� 0 C) N 0 �- 5- = 3 13 «; c, N 0 5. 5. 3 tQ = o cl 0 o a_ m ;--;:i a_ 3 P) ; o_ -n CD _. -0 �..< �. • c ID = u) 90 w C `c O �- a- -0 > 3 E 3 5 3 �. 4 73,,, al CD (D 0 CD CD CD Q CDD SI) •--, � m _ = CD = y. = (I) cn > = a, n 7111 -Ti = m CD - C D) 'N• O) Cv to = --i (D CD -I --s -1 -, Fa < 0- no -z (D C - 0 : co (7• )- o = (D -0 D n- () c n D = Q - Z co cn N •-•• N C _, o (.n N -, N '' Z N r s� co > O'O c n rn oo (-3' Cr O,O cn C) O0 cr Cr Ui D co U' Cn .cr. .< D CD ( 70 5 0 O D n M <D 0 ED (1) - *. - 6 O4a 44�4 04 44 4A 44 44 4A 1A!4A 44 _a 0 �" CSD 3 -a Co 0) W N 44 44 14A 44 O 01 W N I ;44 44 44 sus 44 iA 4A 44 CD — W f CW 4 . 01 N O O 0) W --a --- 4� C?t N O O Cn W -� --& O C:) W -& V V V V V V V V V V V V V V i V V V V V V V V V V N •A (n C.n CO O O CJ1 00 - C77 N CO W a a CT1 co;4a Cn N CO W Cr) O 4a N W W O -'• V) dp a co co a a j a co 01 01 a -� 0 0 0 0;0 a 01 C�1 I co N a a i 0-i CJ1 i s �► a • cD a a a a a a a a a a - a a a a a a a a a o � � a a�a a1 O�o a C �- ! m sa, CD- *. (D 0 3 N `-D A C ,.♦ 0 M C �- b, - -'14A'4A 44 4A - j 44 4A <A 4A 4A,44 -a v -5 CD N CO -I i CJ1 W -i -1, 44 44 EA 00 --x 01 CAI - -J► EA 4A 44 4A 1 .�. -� 4A 44 44 O — �• -I, W j 0) 0) 00 ...101W N -1. W O O) CO alI W N " 00 -4. 01 W N N 'T1 V V V Y V V V V V V V V V V V V V I V V V V -0 -4 Y O --4-,.. CC O 1 Cn V W -� W C� 4>I V N Cn C71 �1 W -� W Cn;4�I N O a -� W Cn 4). N p (1) . a a h a 0-i N 0) 01 OD O V - a s 01 N C:) 01 Cao i O 1 V •i CO • O01 00 a�V -a a rm. 5- a a a a a Ota a a a -a a s O'a a s a ala a - OHO O O O - 00 0 =' a 0) ( m 3 C o °° a D C) C o = 44 4, 4 i 4A tD M (D 404 N -u 44 4A iA 44 N -4. EA,EA 1 44 44 44 44 0 ..G W CJ1 0) 00 01 N -i 44 44 44 C71 0) CO C31 j N --a 4A b4 44 44 N --& 44 44 44 t0 - O 01 <.O N -a -� CJ1 C) CO . W CO _) -, -�,Cn Cn co 4a W -a CJ1 40 00 4a C) CD ' i �� Q -co Y V V V V -n3 V V V V V V V V V VV V ''CO .4k) N CD c N O O 0o c0 N - -co,N N a a co;co N -� co N (J1 a -co N -i 0o N O 7 CD O 0 0 0 4a 1V O O Cr) 4. -1 CO CO CO 'N CO CO O -a 01 ' N O O C!) 4a -i a ---1 0 a a a a a a a a a a - a a a a a a a a a - CJ1 a a a a 1 a -a co 1 CD M- m < CD o v < 2 a) d4 44 44 1 4d4�44 4A 1 I CD Ai 44 a 441 44 44 4A W N --- 44,44 44 44, 4 4 4A 44 -a 0 • O- W N --4� W -u O Cn W 1 W N -. 44 EA W -- O O W 1 N --% 44 N -44 O W N 4A -a 44 44 tD - _ = _O 0) O CJ1 J j c --& O 0) . C=) _ WO a-i;V _W _-1, O 0) .p. N CW - -a I_a 0) '1 O CO O _ N o O C4 CS) O C?1 W!_N -co o N a O C71 I O in O;in c _N in N -'• a a a 01 O 00 01 (4 N " -h. a a 01 Cr) CO 01 W 1 N -� -a. N - CO 01•W N -a -a , O a.a O O O O ala O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHO O • a O O1O'a O O 1 m I CD n ' D < tw 44 44 44 4A 4A 1 ( M 44 4,... N -u 444444 (A, 4). f.) -' 44444A44 V44A44 j 0 01 -' Cn N C0,4a N -,14a 44 -� CJ1 N CO 4a N -a 44 44 44 4).1 N --' 4" 44 c.0 - CO 4a 1 CO CO N -� 01 N V a CO CO N -I. 01 N V 01 N 1 --1. 01 N 'N1 Cn R V V -•',1 1---L V V �/ VO %n VVVVVcn Cfl 4. CO CO V in -� V CJ1 c0 4a CO V CD V V V V 4, a V 4� -COV -COV V V is -' o O 0)1 O 1 01 0) 0)'V Co Cr) O 01 I Cn --i I 0) V'Co - CD 0) - Cf) V 00 �. O OIal,O O O O OI ___.....,..C N • 0 0 0 0 0 O,O o N3 pc) O '�' o O.OiO N • --, II , Q O 00 I MVP _ I f s � AWRDIF Analysis • Includes by reference several reports - Reclaimed Master Plan - USBR Central Arizona Project Report • These reports are basis for the analysis - Included by reference in the analysis - Serve as infrastructure improvements plans Process and Schedule • Similar schedule to Town Impact Fees — May 7, 2008 — Notice of Intent • Proposed Fee Amounts • Adoption of Analysis which includes by reference numerous reports which served as the basis for infrastructure improvements plans • Set Public Hearing if approved — May 12, 2008 — Review by WUC — July 16, 2008 — Public Hearing — August 20, 2008 — Council Consider Adoption • Ordinance will include new fee amounts and will propose adjustments using Engineering News Record — November 18, 2008 — If adopted, Fees effective 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: April 23, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Mary Davis, Communications Administrator SUBJECT: Naranja Townsite Public Education Campaign Update SUMMARY: Following the Council's approval of a public education campaign last November, and the subsequent approval of the formal bond question on March 5, town staff and the consultant, Gordley Design, have been working on finalizing the education plan and messaging, as well as developing the tools to help in the education efforts. At this study session, we will update the Council on these activities as well as presentations made or pending in the community. ATTACHMENTS: Public Education Plan A JAI /L.,4 4104 Maly Davi , • unica '9 t Administrator David Andrews; Town Manager LLEY ?BJP ,... 4,0 y \141)Pt, Q(Ilp 19 PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN FOR TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NARANJA TOWN SITE OVERVIEW The quality of Parks and Recreation programs and facilities within the town of Oro Valley is well known to local residents, but the town has also been identified by several prestigious national publications as a place where multiple generations can enjoy a wide variety of recreational activities together or separately, as they choose. As early as 2004, Nick Jr. Family Magazine, a part of the Nickelodeon media group, rated Oro Valley as one of the "Ten Most Playful Towns in America" using criteria including schools that perform in the top third of their state, favorable student-teacher ratios, general safety, library programs and access to arts and recreation activities. In 2005/06 and again in 2006/07, Oro Valley was named one of"America's Top-Rated Smaller Cities" in the publication of the same name by Grey House Publishing. Designed for readers who are considering relocating or expanding a residence or business; corporate leaders contemplating relocation or opening additional offices or new divisions; government agencies; real estate consultants; human resource personnel; urban planners; and investors, the publication specifically noted the excellence of Oro Valley's educational, medical and recreational facilities. In 2008, Oro Valley was named as one of the top 100 places to "live and launch" a small business by Fortune Small Business magazine, in part because of the quality of life and community amenities. Major parks in Oro Valley include the oldest, James D. Kriegh Park (formerly Dennis Weaver Park), with its olympic-sized swimming pool, recreational fields, and racquetball courts; the Canada del Oro Riverfront Park, which features tennis and basketball courts, recreational fields, walking trails and connections to equestrian trails along the Canada del Oro Wash; and West Lambert Lane Park in Canada Hills, a nature park with hiking trails. Steam Pump Ranch, the home of area pioneer George Pusch, and Kelly Ranch are still undeveloped. Catalina State Park and the Coronado National Forest in the Santa Catalina Mountains form the eastern boundary of the town. However, despite the quality and diversity of existing parks and the plans for those in progress, the area devoted to parkland 300 acres, including as-yet undeveloped properties falls well short of the 10 acres per 1,000 residents ratio recommended by national recreation authorities. In fact, based upon census data, which show a population of 44,000, the town has already fallen woefully short by nearly 46 percent or 140 acres. Further, the 2000 census reported that of the 12,249 households in Oro Valley, 27 percent had children under the age of 18 living in the home. To date, Oro Valley has been among the fastest growing communities within Pima County and the trend appears to be maintaining its momentum, which translates to an ever- 1 increasing disparity.dis arit . Even bynewer measures, which involve meeting the expressed needs of the citizens of the area, the town is fast losing ground, with significant numbers of Oro Valley residents' leagues and teams, corporate events and family gatherings being turned away or relocated outside the community. For a populace with a median household income nearly 50 percent higher than the U.S. median (2006 census data), and a lifestyle that affords commensurate discretionarytime, this disparity can adversely affect residents' perception of qualityof life and community, something the town has worked to promote from its beginnings. Y OroValley also boasts a vibrant arts scene and a community of supporters of all ages who are clamoring for additional local venues for all forms of art and artistic expression. Thisp lan outlines a multi-faceted approach to citizen education regarding proposed development plans,to ment lans features and funding sources for the Naranja Town Site (NTS). If carried forward park in its entirety, the will ultimately be the largest and, perhaps, the best equipped recreationalp ark in southern Arizona. Long-range site plans include a performing arts venue, aquatics center, recreational fields, tennis and basketball courts, dog parks and a BMX/skate park. With a current resident population of 44,000, Oro Valley has a substantial number of residents Wt p p from around the U.S. who maintain second homes in the town. The community education plan must address the information needs of both full- and part-time communities, and the message must be delivered in multiple ways to reach the diverse population that calls Oro Valley home. We believe that effective messages + appropriate context = informed action. SECTION I: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS A. REVIEW OF PERTINENT INFORMATION RELATED TO PAST PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS, INCLUDING: REPORTS AND FINDINGS FROM PAST SURVEYS AND POLLS, MEDIA COVERAGE, AND WEB-BASED COMMUNICATIONS (I.E. BLOGS AND LIST SERVES) The Gordley DesignGroup team has reviewed/attended the following to provide background for our Phase One activities: • Webb Management Services Report, Performing Arts Phase One • Webb Management Services Report, Performing Arts Business Plan • Town of Oro Valley's Web site and NTS data • Attended two Oro Valley NTS study sessions (9-26-07, 11-05-07) • Oro Valley's Town Council study session minutes (07-25-07) • Oro Valley's Funding Study (2005) • Oro Valley LOVE blog • Memo (6-07-07) from David Andrews to Mayor and Council (NTS cost detail) • Articles from Explorer on NTS and Greater Oro Valley Arts Council (GOVAC) • Marketing Intelligence's survey and report on NTS (2-2-06) • Arizona Association of Counties Web site property tax system in Arizona • Town of Oro Valley's master plan (8-07) • Arizona locations income per capita report 2 Our preliminary findings are as follows: Since the town purchased the NTS, a comprehensive plan for the park has been developed. Stakeholders' involvement in the planning process included the participation in public meetings and surveys of nearly 1,000 Oro Valley residents; cost estimates have been developed and project phasing has been approved by the Mayor and Council. In creating the public education materials, our team considered the February 2006 NTS survey findings and analysis that indicates that, although 77 percent of the residents initially reported some awareness of the NTS, a significant portion (41 percent) of respondents have no real knowledge about plans for the NTS. Given the latest population estimate in Oro Valley, that translates to 17,000 residents who have no solid information about the NTS and its components. In response to these findings, our team researched the best methods to reach the greatest number of Oro Valley residents effectively and efficiently, within a quick timeframe — realizing that some partial-year residents may be difficult to reach after May. This broad reach required a campaign that implemented the use of paid-media through area outlets and non-paid media (see Section III: Implementation), as well as public meetings. The key message of campaign materials was to educate on the elements that will be included in the current phase of the park if the bond is approved, the cost of the project and the financial impact of the residents and business owners in Oro Valley through the secondary property tax (for more information see Section II: Key Messages). B. INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEWS WITH TOWN OFFICIALS AND PRIMARY INTERNAL CONSTITUENCIES The team has interviewed the following individuals and groups to date. • Council Member Barry Gillaspie • Vice Mayor Helen Dankwerth • Council Member Al Kunisch • General John Wickham • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Lyra Done (Vice Chair), Bob Parks, Bob Delaney, Margot Hurst, Dennis Ottley (Chair) • Parks and Recreation Director Ainsley Reeder • Parks and Recreation staff: Nancy Ellis (Multi-Modal Coordinator), Lynanne Dellerman (Recreation Manager), Kristie Riester (Aquatics Manager), James Gardner (Parks Manager), Danielle Tanner (Senior Office Specialist) • Architects David Wald-Hopkins and Dave Burns and landscape architect Don McGann 3 SECTION II: MESSAGING, GRAPHIC ELEMENTS, MEDIA AND SCHEDULING A. KEY MESSAGES The campaign will focus on outlining the current bond question, listing only the elements of the park that would be included if the bond question was to pass, and how the estimated secondary property taxes are calculated. While we will show the master plan, the messaging will clearly p Y state that an approval vote in November 2008 will give the town the authority to move forward on securing the bonds to fund the construction of the elements outlined in the bond question. Additionally, funding the mechanism and total amount approved by Mayor and Council will be fully defined and explained as calculated and projected by the town's finance director. B. VERBAL AND VISUAL ELEMENTS All copy graphic and elements for print and informational materials will be designed for the most cost-efficient and effective production. All verbal and visual content will be created with sensitivity to the community with its unique geographic, economic and cultural features. Our writers andra hic designers will work closely with the town's NTS project team to ensure that g p g the content, including copy, is consistent with the town's brand and image. All materials will be submitted to the town for approval prior to release. 1. Visual Elements A basic look and feel for all project materials that is fully aligned with the town's overall identity and brand will be immediately established through the basic design and layout of general visual elements. The design elements and graphic standards for NTS will communicate credibility and consistency with the facility as defined in Phase One of the Master Plan. We envision a standard layout or "shell" that can be utilized for all print materials, such as fact sheets, ads, handouts, displays, Be and this visual foundation for overall informational communications, etc. y there is a need for at least two more involved images in order to facilitate effective communication. The first will visually portray the relationship of Phase One project components to the rest of the Master Plan. This image will be designed primarily to inform what is included in the 2008 bond issue if it is approved. The second rendering or photo simulation will show community activities utilizing various areas and infrastructures of the park. Due to the constraints in thep ublic education campaign budget, we would advise that these images be generated bythe Master Plan consultant team who are familiar with the plan for the park and also have the capability to generate images such as this. Other images will be drawn from p Y existing Master Plan materials, such as the site plan view. 2. Verbal Elements Verbal communications will be constructed to present factual information about the NTS plan in a way easy that is to read and understand, and will address public concerns such as light, dust Y and noisep ollution; traffic controls; specific features of the site; and the anticipated costs and schedule to construct the current plan. It is expected that a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ5), which can be published and can also appear on the town's NTS Web page, 4 will be integral to this effort and these FAQs can evolve over time as additional questions and concerns arise from residents. The funding mechanism selected by the Mayor and Council will also be presented in a concise and factual manner. All printed and Web-based materials will include contact information, so that residents' additional questions can be answered in a timely manner to avert any misunderstanding. C. SCHEDULE The final schedule for the public education campaign will be developed as soon as the overview of the campaign plan is approved. Execution of some elements of the plan will take place concurrently, including conducting the final stakeholder and education group meetings/interviews. March 2008: After the Mayor and Council have reached consensus on the NTS plan and approach, final talking points and printed materials will be developed. It is vital that the message is clear, consistent and credible. The implementation of the public education plan will follow, including the development of informational materials, paid and non-paid media campaigns, media training (to be conducted by town staff) and media contact. April — May 2008: Media contact will start in April and continue through the end of the NTS education plan campaign period. Opportunities for distribution of project information through planned community events and partnerships will continuously be sought and utilized as available. The paid media campaign schedules will run April through May. Post plan reports will be drafted and presented after the campaign period. Note: Public Service Announcements (PSAs) may run during the summer months on a pro bono basis. 5 SECTION III: METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION A. METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION Publicity/Media Relations The team will assemble a press kit that may contain, but is not limited to, the following elements: • Fact sheet including talking points, complete contact information and Web address • Map and/or aerial view, plot map with ingress/egress and other features clearly delineated site; information about the purchase of summarizingthe historyof the • Back rounder g thero ert ; outline of the 2020 Plan and the original Stantec report; a brief p p Y description of other work to date • List of key pY la ers (architects and landscape architect, etc.) and brief biographies for each • Meetings will be scheduled with the editorial board of the Explorer and the Northwest edition of the Arizona Daily Star, the Tucson Citizen, representatives of KOLD, KGUN and KVOA, and others as may be appropriate to the message with an eye toward obtaining editorial support and also asking each media outlet to identify a reporter who will cover the NTS story as it unfolds. Comcast and Oro Valley Vista have already expressed interest. Note: A press release will also be distributed to all p Tucson media for general coverage. • Arima media contact and an alternate will be identified and briefed p rY • Media training and message points will be provided to town officials and made available to others who wish to avail themselves of this service 1. Paid Media Thecam campaign aid media n will be an integral part of the public education plan and serve two p p 9 purposes: to notify the community of public meetings; and provide a vehicle to distribute project information to thee ublic visually and verbally. Note: the Internet will be used as part of the non- paid media campaign. The campaign length and specific schedule will be determined once the education plan has been approved. The estimated launch period will be April. Print ads will be placed in the Explorer and the Northwest edition of the Arizona Daily Star. a. The town currently has a contract with the Explorer so a larger ad (such as 1/2 page) will be cost-efficient. The Northwest edition of the Arizona Daily Star is less expensive than the 6 Explorer and will be used alternatively for both the "image" ad placement as well as for public meeting announcements. b. Web page. Concurrent to the quick Web improvement recommendation (see below), a unique project URL will be secured for the development and dissemination of NTS project information through a new project Web page. This URL will be connected to the town's site. This page will provide a project-specific forum for content and FAQ's. The content will include project information, history, aerial views, plot maps, architect renderings of structure elevations, downloadable PDF's, news releases and project updates. Quick Improvement Recommendation: The Oro Valley's Web site is a popular and powerful communication medium. The depiction of the NTS is easily obtained and contains a fairly comprehensive overview of the site. It is recommended that the renderings be placed on a PDF file to enable the user to download the illustrations and data more quickly. Currently, the overall plan takes several minutes to download, even using optic fiber equipment. A speedier process will encourage users to become more familiar with details of the NTS plan. B. MEETINGS AND GENERAL OUTREACH Face-to-face dialogue with the residents of Oro Valley through various types of meetings will be an important part of the education campaign. Although this type of activity can be highly productive, resulting in a good understanding of the project, it also can be very time consuming. Our role will be to begin the process of meeting with specific groups in such a way as to make it manageable for the town to continue meetings that will be productive and true to the overall education campaign. The public education materials will help provide a consistent message for all current and future community gatherings. The formation of a speaker's bureau will also be a key step for the project. Civic organizations, business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and its committees, park user organizations and Parent Teacher Organizations would undoubtedly be interested in hearing first-hand about the plans. Specific group meetings included in the scope of our campaign will focus on no more than two opportunities to meet with those most interested or impacted. Although we can assist with some elements of a large forum public meeting, our current planned allocation of resources does not include staging a large meeting for this audience. 7 C. BUDGET Informational Materials: $18,000 This budget includes the design and production of various informational materials, which may include fliers, print ads, radio commercials, news releases, direct mail inserts, photos and fact sheets. These campaign materials will be designed for use by the town throughout the campaign and beyond. • Assumes up to two (2) print ads • Assumes up to four (4) print ad message alternatives for the FAQs • Assumes up to one (1) flier or direct mail insert • Assumes up to two (2) fact sheets • Assumes no printing or mailing costs • Design and production of the NTS project Web pages • Assumes the town will maintain and update the site and Web page Research, Meetings and Account Services: $12,000 This budget includes group meetings and one-on-one meetings such as educational groups, homeowners associations, user groups, neighborhoods, stakeholders, Sun City Government Affairs Committee and The Greater Oro Valley Arts Council. This also includes meetings with town officials not previously secured, including the Mayor and three council members. • Assumes no more than two (2) group meetings • Assumes no more than three (3) meetings with town officials • Assumes no more than (2) town study sessions Paid Media: $14,500 The funds required to implement the paid media plan will come from this budget. • Assumes up to eight (8) print ads Miscellaneous: $500 Budget total: $45,000 8 ORO VALLEY NARANJA TOWN SITE } .: to s + ,,.. Y\.' - moi`"' �M .4! ` r _ „Frequently Asked Qesitos What is the Naranja Town Site (NTS)? The NTS is the name given to a 213—acre parcel located between Tangerine Road and Naranja Drive about one mile east of La Canada Drive. Oro Valley purchased the property and commissioned a master plan for a multigenerational community recreation facility at the site. The main entrance would be on Tangerine Road, with additional access from Naranja Drive. What does the master plan include? The proposal describes a landscaped park that includes fields for soccer, baseball and softball, as well as tennis and basketball courts. The master plan also provides for hiking trails, play structures for children, a dog park, a bicycle track (BMX), a skating facility and several large picnic, festival and other gathering areas sited to capture views of Pusch Ridge. While not included in the current bond proposal, the master plan also includes a performing arts venue, a community center with classrooms, an aquatic center and ample parking close to each of the park features. More than 1,000 residents participated in the process of selecting the amenities for the NTS. How would the NTS development be funded? The ballot question would allow Oro Valley to issue a maximum of $48.6 million in bonds to fund the initial phase of construction. Voters will be asked to approve a secondary property tax, calculated on the value of their home or business. What is included in the current phase proposed in the bond election? • 12 Tennis courts • Sidewalks, paved paths and hiking trails • 9 Basketball courts • Restrooms • 3 Soccer fields • Concession buildings • 4 Baseball fields • Park furniture, such as drinking fountains, • 4 Softball fields picnic tables, grills, benches, bicycle racks • 5 Sand volleyball courts and bleachers • 4 Tetherball courts • Earthwork and infrastructure • Multi-purpose field • Offsite access road improvements • Playgrounds • Naranja Road and Tangerine Road • Skate park entrance/exit • Bicycle (BMX) track • Improvements at both access points • Dog park • Landscaping and signage • Festival area • Maintenance area • Picnic ramadas • Parking • Large group ramadas • Horseshoe pits OEY q quo For more information please contact 01- Mary Davis at 520.229.4712 Ainsley Reeder at 520.229.5051 A C=,``;> mdavis@orovalleyaz.gov areeder@orovalleyaz.gov NAPANJ TOWN 5 € T E Or visit our Web site at www.naranjatownsite.com NARANJAORO VALLEY TOWN SITE Why isn't the entire master plan being included in the bond? The Town Council with significant public input deliberated for months and determined it would be in the town's best interest to implement the master plan in phases. Also, if the full master plan were constructed, the town would have needed to request a primary property tax be approved by the voters to cover the operating and maintenance costs. When would construction start? The NTS would be developed in multiple phases. If the bond issue is approved by voters this fall, design for the park elements would begin in January 2009, with construction beginning in phases thereafter. The outdoor recreation should be ready for use by the end of 2010. What about noise and dust during the construction? Because of the unique terrain at the NTS, the planning team anticipates that less pollution would be generated during construction than is currently generated by the undeveloped site. Every effort would be made to control noise, and those whose homes are in proximity to the NTS would be kept informed regarding work schedules. Is the park open for use prior to construction? The park currently offers walking and hiking opportunities and is used by the town for some activities. Once construction begins, it will not be open to the public for safety considerations. Would the park lighting comply with our community commitment to maintaining a "dark sky?" Yes. What is a secondary property tax? Under Arizona law, secondary property taxes, calculated using home and commercial property values, can be used to pay for bond issues. Upon the maturity of the bond, the secondary tax would lapse. As an Oro Valley resident, what would be the cost to me? Based on a home with an estimated market value of $300,000, the owner would pay a secondary property tax of approximately $10.20 per month during the first year. Commercial property owners would also pay the tax, based on the estimated value of their property. While these bonds are outstanding, the secondary property tax would remain in place to pay the principal and interest until the bonds are paid in full. Have population growth and changes in property values been considered in calculating the property tax? In the last five years, Oro Valley's property values have grown by an average of 16.11 percent per year and during the last 10 years the property values have grown by 14.48 percent per year. The calculations in estimating the property taxes were based on the average assessed value in Oro Valley and assume an annual average growth at 13.51 percent for the first 5 years and 2.7 percent growth per year thereafter. Por more information please contact 0: io Mary Davis at 520.229.4712 AinsleyReeder at 520.229.5051 APAJA.,.•'��� � mdavis�arovalleyaz.gov areeder�oravalleyaz.gov '�•', •` Or visit our Web site at `.,,.;.a qdv`R.\\t.e,\v\Ym.eY^\..\\Y'•YM N.Y.o..•\V'..tl...\•hY"^'pt I,°JIV6EO www.naranjatownsite.com NAPANJA• ORO VALLEY TOWN SITE < y What are the projected operating costs for the park and how would they be paid? Operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs for the park are estimated at $1.2 million. A portion of the town's 6 percent bed tax would be used to pay for the annual 0 & M for this phase of construction for the park. Is there a need to develop the NTS? In 2001, the town of Oro Valley created a citizens committee to explore the recreational needs of the town's residents. The plan for the NTS was developed over an 18—month period with input from more than 1,000 residents. Nationally recognized experts helped guide the planning process and benchmarked the needs of Oro Valley against other U.S. communities. Applying national standards, even with the development of the NTS, the town would be about 140 acres short of the area required to satisfy the recreational needs of its residents. Can changes be made to the master plan at this point? No. The plan went through an extensive planning process by the community. It was adopted by the community and will be executed by their standards. Has safety been considered? Yes. The Oro Valley Police Department continues to be committed to the safety of all Oro Valley park facilities. Does the park preserve natural resources? The town is committed to open space preservation and has thus set aside 60p ercent of the 213—acre park for preservation. This was also necessary to allow sensitive areas in the park to be retained and restored from previous damage caused by mining and other activities on the property in the past. Finally, the topography allowed the town to set aside these critically sensitive areas. Has traffic been considered? The access for the park along Naranja and Tangerine roads will be scaled to accommodate the projected traffic. All of these infrastructure improvements are included in the bond amount that goes before the voters in November 2008. Where can I get more information about the plan for the NTS? Up—to—date information and a detailed explanation of the plan can be accessed 24 hours a day/7 days a week at www.naranjatownsite.com. In addition, you may contact Mary Davis at (520) 229-4712 or mdavis@orovalleyaz.gov, and Ainsley Reeder at (520) 229-5051 or areeder@orovalleyaz.gov. ..,.94, For more information please contact ;:. Mary Davis at 20.22 . 12 <• w�. 5 9 47 Ainsley Reeder at 520.22 5051 NAPANJA mdaviseorovalleyaz.gov areeder@orovalleyaz.gov TOWNovN, SIT O r visit our Web site a t ,;..,�,..,.tu.,,. .,x www.naranjatownsite.corn ,. . .., .• •:•.,.•,,.•,,,.,•• • ..^,.—,,,,,,,,,, .,, '''yis••-:. ' .,;‘•,:fr).4:•••"4••-• -.. 3..1104 , 4 44:0 *414 • - z ,_,,L4 4 4\., , • " 4-4-. ', ,:---1'.•_,,rW,L'. •..,,, ,.. . ,„••,.-,; ,,,, 4.ii., # 'I.,-.'; • •4'. ,. f ';-!*;" "-,,44-, ' ' -,0_••',. ''' - . - .1-"TI ' .---' 4 .44 4"4.11---- • 4.7,',..4,.. 4i - 'ft• • ' 4 _„,„/,,-- . _-_,..., :.,,, , ,.,"'„!•!:-,." ' ' ''' - I .":. '''.•,••,,,,,,,,,..--1::','•':'7 i„ $''''."':"••, ,..• ,,. .• 44, , it , ' 4,- ,,,, •'- '1-. •J-!--,,,,,.,,,,,,,;;;F..',,,,,,,,,„ if/4v 1,,4r;,,',.-,.,,,--,..•:',--- ., .1 (_ . , ,.. ... :1 fr. +.! ..0,, ,,,,, r,,,, 'r'...,,,,..orr.44,,,,,,-,, . , '.Ati,,,,,,,,• , . ,- ', , , ‘Nik' -. _ 41 '''''ft,','.4,,• '•''' ..-4;:' ,,,:rt'I'LP,'''',,'' . ' -''''''' ' ' .."'"'*'' '. ' - ': * '1.„.' , . ,-',,,,--,.„ !: • ,','•.,•,,,,,.,•-A:--',"‘'. ' , . L,' , -I -''' '44 ' ' 7-1 ',.' '2,.-•::-.).:',.'"'"*.L'.'7'•'':',•-•,'A' Ar 7. .( ''I r- 1.1 , . ,.: 'L 1,,,,,,,,„, , • .„,„::.., ',;',PH. '''.: ' , ,„, , ,:,.'..:,,, .,,, .„;li,-'-- _, .‘:,.r.,7,,: ,, ::: '.../ ' _ '—:::f.: .*7 • --7':' st - '. ' Ylit • ; .. '''' !.;. . ,-:,:' ',.. ".',..';'?,'Lii.4,' ,---,ok,,,,',..,,,-,'-':-'.; :, '•,10-1ri ., . _.,,,.-,41114: littot ..;,..,.i.,, ...;44f,,,4,„A-,,,,,, „,,,,, ,..,:,• ,.,..-.,..„„-.:_.--,,, -. -4- l',,--,py‘ts. :97, '••,•'' ..,‘::''„•"•'•;••; ,-;.' -:• =; ,..'•,. ',1 ....' 1 •t.1;,il:471 ,,...‘,, .j... •. t,'N',. ..- , 41.. r, •..'„,.:-.44---,'. -,...3.,. „,, -;.4,4lit''':,'..-. ,/.... .1 _ --, • ,:. '' 1 S I -. i,/'., t i4.,,,,iri j-d,',......M.;,. ,,' : 41,r-' ',...r 1. T, 0 •••,,W N : irly *,..-.,:,,';.,.•,,,,,!,..;i:;.:.,,,;,,r !; ',- - ,.: ... p.iy . -.,,, ..,:, •41 ._,, _,..T.,,,_ ..1i4,: . f .,.. ,..,,, yvvvvvy'ylirirrir:VirrrWrir • „,......,..,. :..r.,,,,,,,., ,: r , 4 .,:,...:„.,,•..-,;•••te ,-4 i.,,,,,,,,:,;„4-4. ...,:;..,.,:r'-':2:-.';'.' 1'4 ,J, ''''''' / , l . , . .., - r-.. -r- 1 . r, ,-. .• . ... \ .•.'''',.'i':::'..,: it''.'. . CURRENT PHASE „.., , .t. , , ' ,...;., „,,,;(>,,—.....„-.14,.„ ,•.......,,, 4 t 44 ,. ,.,. hyn, /4- .'''.7'. . t• .14 • • _.•-,., , . • t..%•:'• 2008 BOND ISSUE . .,.. 4,..,,,,:,..:: 1,--",,, ,„,c. 4.„,, -; • .. ,...._ ., „., . „1,..,,.i.,,,,,,„ hro. -,-,•:, '.4.k.'.: -,',.,' '.‘''''.•. --4---Ii",..1-1,-,.,ti,,,,,-.,•:"'•''5-:',1#11Y.''1:. A ' •;,•, ... -,,,,, , _..7':', )9, .L, ... -:, '• •" .. •,-% :•.,' -1'..,-•'v••• ' .11' •,..17tr,'..., -,. 4' .= '', 1,r.'I II ' /,'" • - '•:''''' '•!'.."•A'Aii,-.••." •': '- ;:ir4::i if ,-;71:' , ',. ''''.•'.',, ; ''',.., .7( , . 4.4::•''-''''' *,,,..'-'i,'.',",;'=.:•J'• .;•• 1, '..,7' '''',,,, , 4.' f• -.,,,,, A ••,. • , . • ,,, ----= -=,,,,, k'•-•' '.'1 --, -•-,•:••,,,,,•'.-,, _1 . - s':,; • 7,‘„,,, .,,ji 4 ''.. .;.,iL; ::...,••••,--- • l'•''•,,,:.=...,'„,•:.!.." .. :..i.r .,....-7;-', ,T,.!, au.: ,,. .,N .0 ,, : ,,,,• -,,,e,;.,,,.,4 ii.....:;,,,,:.-.-.-'I.', '!'.7t..:".' ' 1 ' '4%-t‘: .1r.1 4 -"-... .•;i,,,,, ,,.-.',..-•-•,- ,:lt.':_7..•':•• ', ...;')'.•.-'-::-:-:'.:',.,,H. ),) . , ' -t 4.—-'-...'::-'11-44-•'' ''''''--7.*• -j 4-''.'4'11,- 1 th. ,ii-ti ,.„.•,, ,.• ., ;•.---rf ,,:.a.,.,,,,,,,.,,,,rit s to..‘,„., i;0.:'''.- ' . .., .. _. , , • ',,::.: ••, .--i.,... ,,,.,,. , .,,,:„..„iii. . 1 0 _0...,• ;,.._ ,, .., • ,.. *,,sV,-.; ,,u.,,:rr•,,: '': it 47% 4116. .,;:-.1!:" .,-..,,-;;;;T:,,:::'.•.!.4,-''''' .;'''----,':t..,,,,:. .7'.,1.7:- . ''''. 4.'1,,,t;,;', r..,,', ,-,,,r: ,.'.-,' r'. r.•=cr, ....41,-,..,;„,.,. .2.,•,:.:;,;4 - .. .", I 1 r''.; --,„,,:,,,,,4,;....,.. , .,,,.,, . ._ ., .,.,..,_. .,,,,, ....„...,„...m.-i rit, r.•,,.4,,A4,•:.;,,,,',,....•,,,,, . ,,, ,-,,4,4 ,, :•,,,..,.• 11'• .:7•'•'••'.. '•!.",!'" .." '.,'. ._.' ' *.____J. t':.,,-; .,,,d., k''..,-,k.-..,...:'„,44). , ,.„... '-'' • L. ,..4 .,.-, '.:1'4 -- -1 ''-•"' I 1::' I AP' : -• , : ,, . ,If-4.- :••:.i3O k.: ,.• ,:. ' -•;,:: , -• -, .. . r.,,„;,,i.,':t-,--r til.•,':•-;",,,,,.A',u." : '."". , 4• 4,4„), 4., :."',"-;4*':44.'•# . ' .",,.,51",4 ' • . '''''••,','''''" • ' : "' i.'.,-''''' • 'r,.0—..'''';''''-',7*-: ,-,( ' '•,-:' ' ,. -. -,-,-,..444t4 . .. ,-;::-...q.,..,,, 4,, ._11- _ • 4,,,,,, ,.., . ., ---7.-,e, 'I I ,___ ,.I # ',.' -Y- ,017..,i,JA,.:41:-.,,', - . _ - 4,4r--7. P,"- ;it) p*, " pi ,-• . ,,,,i ji4,...;44 1 2 _ .. ,,., s .,,,..:, ,,,.‘ ,.....,,,,e' .,•,:i.--, ::,,,k.. .,..,..,!,,,- ,',1,,,'.,,,,,, ..., ..,.'''' Aida ,ii ,.'.., -..,. ' - -,',:,. 7.7--•.:-.:I ";,---- I 7,,, __,,,,,,,,--,":4-• , 7-r. --- ' is 40 '','.:-. -...:' :ill l'i,!.;,:-.::., 4,,,,--*'''..,,l'-'''• .40,,L,' „iv 4 ',___q. 0 . ,,.., _ • .-- ' ' - eg 4 ,n,„4‘ '• I .1.!=i..,":„1 :: r'L•' , 44 11. r — ' - .._.0-- --i. — aai. .?...‘,..4•-'1_, 1 a :,!-:•- L-•----*1,r-. -."i,,,. ,,,..•''',./.1,,,4* 4, 44.. .4). flro 4' :' f:i: ':.-I--la. A Km __7---, oi. '. 1 ), '-::::', ,,- 4:•;„..,_ . ( ..i. , ,-, , ' r''/. '''' *ka 446 4* ,i'T,:i•••.101.2', :.,•,.:,,..-._.-H-4.',,,' , i• -:;:. ' 114 mia ,... . ,-..,?,,.., . ,-..c.,,:.,, :m 2 /.'..,,e,-,. ,t, ,_ , ;-,- • 4 ----4, 4.?",\...ii$,„''.. .....,,,,,-• Itt. L. f./,41...` ' 9, 4,.1114 ,,..4 '\-',:::''.'-:- ''! ,..,k, -11-".: :. - '• 4e: 1/11 ,,,., -,",''-.''''.ff.„.„..-T ,,,e7'. 4.4 / / , ..,, 4, 7, '" .* 4 J 4.)„x, / '',,,,,,s.,*-...,,,. -,...' 10.1.4,..•: , UMW 1 ._ - 7-;4 4, ; .,,:,, '': , . v ,'' -4.- ,,,,. fit '.›,,,i-,..c.i4) / 'I,,,,,,," / —_.,, . / % . „•-,,"'"" 44.,_ .--...',--1,,..i, .....,.......,..,—„,„, ,_., 1,,11 1 .. . /-,,,/ .3 ,,,,„.,.:.-,..--..-:••_.,• ti, . ' - ' w ., ,41. 4, , A , •:._.,:;...T,:;.: ;', i, ,• ._ „c„,„,....... -.,A,,,,,,,,ftii.N., \. ;',,,,,., • ,,,,,,.,.•:- .11,.. 44 ii;?,.::...;':•,.',..:,; ',' *ilk 4, :,, :,,,s,,,,,, ,,, i 1 i ,.0/4,,,_.; •r•-•• : 40, ( '''' evpiti. „.:, .,• ,. . , Y .\"•-,„,,,///i, . ..,-,.,,, =,. ...,.., .., •.•• ..,xe ., . ., ... ,. —t ; ',...... .." ,.' ,„... ,,t......., , "r1C, . . . , . . ..1 4, ,__,,,-., ' tra -4 \ • '''hi •'110 4., 4' ‘ti.3,--lis i‘leei it. ..,..,::„',.-,,:„v - , , . 41,. .,. ,,,,l 4 ,04, ,.. .•-,. '..:,:p.,',...-",,, ,,,,:, •'•?"-.71791,1—"--"" - .—'-icj---.•.. — I ,, s:.,,,,,,,ij.-0,'„,-,:f,-. ,,,,,,‘,„„,.. , -gip , •.,.,, ' .--..,;;,4, ' ''''''''s:'-r'' ' :‘.--, ,':- 4 4 Va *•t° /',.' '''''. \''' lo, ' '-:::',::',',:''tXt,fi,4N1, ' 4 4 4 . 444 ' '' '4) I, 1'0 ' 4 I I ' L.1rPr'',-Altr' '.:.' .4.,. 4 4•1 4 - ...., , ...!.. r, j •-• '•'',,'_,,,-.:':;:-,,.;-,,:',,':(.1t4,-1,r, ).. ',!!-•''• '•.-• ..:41 4 :,'„7 k.''.,-.:' '':',,,'''...(N-,- '.'':'•'.:::-•,';J,':•,:''.T*,-; ':7'-?:;'. ''4)4 ••.• _.., ifi I, 41',,, •„:•,,,,-•,-:",•-,"•,,,,4-i';,i4J.c,..4_, /44... 4 - - -.- ...,„., ..,, Le- •-:,:..... ..r .,.., ,,. sr.,,,,,,,,,,,‘, , ,„ - -,..,:,,,,,,,,,-,' r„...-- r- / . . ,, .,„ ..r,.,.,,,, ..r.-4-' I •,kr,'i!• ...,.. \'') ,• ---..sic ..7'- .' , ' , .4—4011 413 4 4 4 'r r .- ,',..`- ‘,•.„,,4, ft : , i to,.. , _ ... ,,-- . 4 4,-,,t4 4 -. 1", • . ;I' *A40.:., • ._ I i i , ii itt , '•,,,111• ,•. ' ' '•'165t...---..',,,„. 1-4.--iF.--.1 1,r,i,,;T,.•7; ....,*• „• . - ,. V:- •* ,jblaht l.--.'‘,,.." `-' . ''''''4 ' • • - ., ...,,,,...,^„..-,•,..40 ,•'•,,,,,,, 1 - •' -..'''-7,-; t: ::: ''74:',E.::.,,''•.''I-:•,' 1' -11# 414, • '11.'''tr' 'W'L'" ,,,,• ,. . , , F.-I -.. .. I - ll ' '4, ' ' -.' • ,,,, ,4.,..1.0.....,4•,,,,,,„,„,..,• , , ,,-,... :,,. .., t—I,LE •,-4ii:-.,-,..,0,....,-, it, ,, „,..4.,,,,,-.• ,f,,,,,,,,... ,:, ..,.. ,,,,,.,;.• ***,_H..,-*Lt:t*,,,..-t.,,, i I ,'„;,ilt,:.•*-z.:- t;',•. , ' '' ' ...,y• 1 ,..••• „,. , apw all;...-•'..,•:,' - •,..114 "`"*e,•,,1,,,..,;,, .-••4$' ,, 'V ==,---4 , . . r.'4'.';,''''.:,,,,..:4-'ii . ,4,'...,‘',.0!', ,•••;-., .,. .,, ,---it—i ---r 7_ .„._.. —4,. •,,•*,,,,il .., t..L:.:,,,,,:'•••,.,.:, .„. „...,, ,:.: ''...':' ...” . . : :,,, 4,,s‘, ,..,„;,__„.,..-..4.,,.,; -,,,,,,,,:., ,a,. ..,- , . (ndhe ar.:'.,,,,, 7.--- . 4, r.:44,4,-,,,,.•.. 0,,,,',.r. 4,,•,.•,:-..,' 1- .•'''''L ' ' '1,'=,iik,f- .' - • ilk ,,- --"N• =7,7" .... ; ...• ,r_ ' ;1 , ' ' , ,--f i..••4•77',... • -4, . .E.,10f,, IP' ' ' - •, r, ,>, , i ffr„...;--fl-L-:. ,,.), 4 , 44:-1•• •''.''.H._.,.... .1*,'"os- # - '', . ' - ,,Ii :'.i.. - (C--.::„ .2 Ak- • . ' '.4_7 .---- ,- -,-:','- , . \;;„, ,4111 r ''...-'.e-l'A ' 40-....--e.,,,, ,A. ..;.- ,,.,.-.., ,-- ,- ._ : vii) -,.,...,,:,...,- ::41,, ':.t.. ..,..0„ .'•t...,r I ...,,,..... , ? ,0).; 440:1. .'•••;11...f"# ' ;47,4 , ..._...------, .. ,,' -a a - ...a' l''''-:.,,,,,,,,'Lt, '••,••,•,:*`'''•.::*!. - - - ' '- ''''''s.. ,.-,,,,,.,. , •,,,-,N '- / 'ailliffL' 774 -\,-• — 'W.' J 4 *''''•1*:''4 : ' j!••••,•+0,-t'••"At=• •••...-=4,. a c , *.., ,,,,• • , *%ae:44-„,4--.7,4,4,9044,40 .., ,,:,.,,.•,i-..,,•:-!, •0:•,..:.,':.•,,,,•„,• . 4:, ,...\Ir ,...",,... Nti, - '4,7eir,r4ir', 11,4e4 _,..„.. ),,,,„ 4 4 44,,) 4.4•r_r7'4")--,4,40-4''- _ ......„.j:,,,,,,,,,..........,.....— ..............1 1 — — • --..' ,..2 -- -- ------- --- NARANJAORO VALLEY TOWN SITE Secondary Property Tax Calculations If passed, the town of Oro Valley would be authorized to issue bonds up to $48.6 million to pay for the cost of construction for the following features of the Naranja Town Site: © 12 Tennis courts 0 Horseshoe pits a 9 Basketball courts 3 Sidewalks, paved paths and hiking trails • 3 Soccer fields © Restrooms ® 4 Baseball fields 3 Concession buildings © 4 Softball fields ® Park furniture — such as drinking fountains, • 5 Sand volleyball courts picnic tables, grills, benches, bicycle racks • 4 Tetherball courts and bleachers • Multi-purpose field o Earthwork and infrastructure ® Playgrounds o Offsite access road improvements O Skate park ® Naranja Road and Tangerine Road — © Bicycle (BMX) track entrance/exit improvements at both access © Dog park points ® Festival area ® Landscaping and signage • Picnic ramadas ® Parking ® Large group ramadas ® Maintenance area FUNDING Property owners in Oro Valley would pay for the bonds through the implementation of a voter- approved secondary property tax calculated on the value of their home or business. To determine how much your assessment will be, multiply the Full Cash Value (FCV) of your property, as it appears on your most recent Notice of Value from the Pima County Assessor's Office, by .00004. Example: The Assessor's Office sent you notice that your FCV is $249,370. The amount of your estimated tax for the park's development is $249,370 x .00004, or $9.97* per month. If you do not have the Notice of Value handy, you can estimate the market value of your property and multiply that number by .85. This will provide a general idea of how much your assessment will be. Example: Your house is worth approximately $300,000. $300,000 x .85 = $255,000, your approximate FCV. $255,000 x .00004 = $10.20* per month. *Note: this is the maximum estimated tax per month. For more information please contact qR NSF OPO MaryDavis at 20.22 . 12 5 9 47 Ainsley Reeder at 520.229.5051 ov az mdaviseorovalley .gareeder orovalle az. ov NW P A J A C� Y g TOWN SITE Or visit our Web site at O</NDED o www.naraniatownsite.com t 1 t co M d- to O CO ' LU M d- Ln <0 I`, 1.n ' - N <fl O d' 00 O k do' -, N N N >- ir 2 O N. co O ('- LU L Cr 00 co 00 N. 4-7 in r1 Lii rn M N Z (Z O d- iii- b'9' b9- kA- (1=i- 0 Q a X n W 2 00 O M in oo O CL L._ in ,-+ in 0) N <O O co d- �-+ r-+ r-1 N N Q69- bF� t ti) = J o ``1 0 H O X � LC) C,) N 0 CO J ~ (Q • X N L O d- ,--+ Z W >- 75 * to < in - 1--- c c Cn 1- 1.- p dam' - - 00 N N O CC Q (1) 4,9- bq bq 64 b4 c0) < W (.„) -' 0 > W > a. > 0 Zw E cc EL W }. >, 0 O LU co N. N N tf a- CC i Z Cl. IC a. d d- [< r-, d- W O < O a� Z b�4 W a.CC Z � � � � cc 0 'a O W 0 N W 8 -cp 0. I,- Z I- t!1 W (1) Ln C-• bi) (0 2 O 0 O O O D S W ( 3 Z W 00 L N <0 O `t 00 O cn Z "4:: L- ?0 cu � 00 O M p cry I- 4J > 0 J 69. tl9 J Z 0 +� p Z Z = 0 m 0 -0 < O > = Z I- W CU 0 Q O C O W H ca Z W E i--. Li. vi E-- > Z 0 Q a, O O >- v m - i 3 Q W CC (Q W ccvv N W < I- c.) bb = � ° a o ai z O 0 Za. O n = 0 0 0 0 0I- j� in00 0Q� CO 0 0 a) W 0 L O 0 tn. 1- F- < ev t 6R 6+4 bkt} te 0 > a- E * -a 0 = y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 4-4 > E O 0 O 0 0 E = o c o 0 0 ▪ _ 0 0 0 0 0: W C 69 6 69- bCO .ct• in �A- 64 2 EXHIBIT A OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR SPECIAL BOND ELECTION IN AND FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA ON NOVEMBER 4,2008. Question No. 1 PURPOSE: PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNT: $48,600,000 Shall the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the Town in the principal amount of$48,600,000, top rovide funds to design, construct, improve, furnish and equip general and supporting infrastructure, recreation facilities and related facilities and improvements on or serving theropertY in the Town known p as the Naranja Townsite Property, including earthwork, infrastructure, playfields, courts, outdoor Y recreation elements, support and parking for the site; to pay all necessary legal, accounting, financial, architectural, engineering and other contingent costs in connection therewith and to purchase bond insurance or other credit support for the bonds? The bonds may be issued in one or more series as General Obligation Bonds. The bonds may be issued in the denomination of$1,000 each or multiples thereof. Interest rates may be fixed or variable but shall not exceed 12%per annum. Interest will be payable on July and d January1 or more frequently. The bonds, and any bonds issued to refund the Town's bonds, may be sold at prices that include premiums not greater than permitted by law. Bonds will mature over ap eriod not to exceed 25 years from their date of issuance. Bonds will mature on the days of eachY ear determined by the Mayor and Council. The issuance of these bonds will result in an annual levy of property taxes sufficient topay the debt on the bonds. FOR THE BONDS AGAINST THE BONDS KCH:gmh 785039.1 11/30/07 A-1 V , 0 ' IF VP A' •..,0 A Naranja Education CampaignUpdate � Town Council Study Session April 23, 2008 Goals 67/ a 0 Provide opportunity to residents of Oro Valley to learn about the Naranja Town Site Master Plan 0 Distribute information regarding the November 2008 Bond Election, including: — The bond question that will appear on the ballot — Specific plan elements that would be included in the bond question, if passed — Information regarding how the bonds will be paid, if voters approve, including how the secondary property tax is calculated — Provide resources for the public to use in obtaining information on the Naranja Town Site plan and upcoming bond election 1 strategies ; 4.30 6) Integrate both verbal and visual elements to explain the information efficiently and in keeping with the town's brand and current information resources � Ensure all information is factual, clear and easy to understand by all segments of the community Provide all elements of the campaign in a timely fashion so as to give the community an opportunity to seek out the information Tactics/Method of Implementation 4 '\- � Publicity/Media � Paid Media � Update the web site (Centerpiece of the campaign) � Speakers Bureau 2 Implementation Schedule ., . r March — April Develop materials, including: O FAQ Sheet O Update maps/aerial view O Financial information sheet re: the secondary property tax O Web site updates O Advertisements Schedule speaking opportunities O Sent letter to HOAs, community groups Implementation Schedule continued - 1101144e April — June G) Speakers Bureau 6) Hold Open House(s) c) Launch updated web site c) Meet with media July — August • Anticipated minimal community contact • Comcast PSAs directing residents to the web site for information September— October • Schedule Open House • Comcast PSAs 3 MeetingsH . - .**1 Held to date: 0 Met with Parks & Recreation Advisory Board 6) NW Pima Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee 6) Open House at Wilson K-8 0 Media briefing with Dave Perry, Editor/Publisher, Explorer News Scheduled: — Sun City: `'All About Oro Valley" May 14th at 2 p.m. — NW Pima Chamber General Membership Meeting, Thurs., May 29 7 a.m. — Community Open House, Tues., June 10, Oro Valley Public Library ,1 11,71-,-:,AMA, - '°''' .num" ax.Mauruuemfim °"VpudxgsaHq,:..::xHyroxnuNllU err Questions ,,/r-----N---„, NARANJA TOWN SITE 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 4 Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: April 23,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Phil Trenary, Operations Division Manager SUBJECT: Work Study to Discuss Buffelgrass SUMMARY: Buffelgrass is an evasive plant that if left unchecked will alter the Sonoran Desert. Buffelgrass grows in dense stands, crowds out native plants, and can fuel frequent and devastating fires in what has generally been a fireproof desert. Competition for water weakens and kills desert plants, even large trees and cacti, while dense roots and ground shading prevent germination of native seeds. Oro Valley has Buffelgrass in Town Right of Ways and in Town Washes. It also is located on private property and doubles in number of plants each year. Pima County Supervisors have passed an Ordinance that declares Buffelgrass an evasive plant. FISCAL IMPACT: The spread of Buffelgrass is exponential and the cost of controlling is estimated to double every year. 4 P.: enary, Op, moons Di 'sion Manger Craig Civa r'er, Town Engineer en Watson, sistant Town Manager II 2 J David Andrews, Town Manager ,,- --� -= to ev,•+ 00 W ° . : i''' ar,_-:--', ��� S m � ,� �,. r.+, D �, Cr � '_*, OD n � � C � cinO �"� '�T7k-"' �' rD + vv, N rD cino i):": S po- v Gltracc k. -- rD of ..t �- CD �' Q- v+ r•.F vorD ,-+. nv,9IC _ _ o :up( - -t �' v, uvi eOS • d = wcf ▪-p to cD i a- 0 ‹.--:- ms-+ OV f -- rte-+V � - S rD �-+ 7rrDNr „„........_*"” ( , - l► -.: y_r— a° . n'- On� Cu _+ CD.. :<A0Mo_ci — O< n 0 �• C- - "`"'."�. �.: � °�`, � CSD �' 5===:4 V, rnD � - Z� 7 CC ,�„„- '...---1' _ d rD 3 yE ).-Ti r ,i^Vim S ir: i. ,'.:( ', o` 'kx" ;*`�•y �,. _,;"+1/4.4..3":,..._- , „-4th+ ` CD v, CD S CD S li :,i.k. 7,,,,,.•,, ,,--,-,-.z.,...,..:-,,..-\-7,,,----is -..... -4"r•ie"4: *-40,,,,,*, " * ' ' '\ • ,,'''' '• v."' s 0 CSIOn 71.,-fisit, ), ,,,,,. ;f,:- - _ '4 ' CD * w ° r J "ill&, '"'� t. - r , . = rD a) _ , O <• O O TQ �, MNa = Booco :.. w .` C ,, = _ LI n v.-*i "Q v,• m- e=+ C = O rD VI •at _ -.,, ,rr rD -, =—* Z ; _' d M 0 = C Z to O C —• a ''' ill -Q L/'1 (� e..h N V1 gG .• ' to rl r- r- V, '� _ -� a) --t CD =." = MI c, rD C C C- Di LA v, cQ a = a, Q, _ _ = ...+ v,• G1 o.-, Cp O n O' rD O r=-+ VI _,,, C O O < ' cl p O d S rD vi < rD C rD v, = rD- (,/'f - -., v, �, -+, -, O n o- _ 4 if 2 rD " S O vl rte' �.. t4 _ �• -` O rD =' "' ►+° -- a, a• a rD = __. e-+ O - ,,ti . ..' �+ ,� rD 0 — e-t S - ✓J ':.`, -..i ,, y,..a te -'•wr M. a ""'...+y F.. qfl Un e�F rD i • ,� re, H ET e-+ S ^•.„ rD 7r rD O S VI e--1. f ! .� eN-. H N i c - e-*`• v, D v, DJ -a S • CI o en � rD v' 'O r- n O CU + < . C m - ert O S C = O; O 'L7 S cu O — B -0 e-+,.< D = v n N S eD = E Q •p O < ..�.,CD -p 7p e-+ n d a.. -� e-+ n Cfl n • p • ►"� .• = r+ II) � O O- rD v, � O r..* p � � C rD =- O � � � rD O � � _- O o ,.♦ • CD el �' O * = M n CIJ e-t O an S C nv7 �-+ O O O C O V, C et ::<• CDe-+ �-S n �' rD ='Q — O Q ,..�, S O O O ti eD e-+ 0 p S S OlQ rrDD O = -po =' S` 5-a rfl C7rrD �Q O = O rD > > �' cn N `< a" Q' rD < Ou -e to O- ---a CQ rD -` -++ - o5• a. O a e-+ rfl _ V, rDCP19O O eD en en rD _ O 'pr+ O eQ = C= <_ C rD n v, -•s O V, -, O e-+ (^ O �' OSQ':Cr*:°:-.... '� CS '� dlG- Q S rv, = O O' p, - O n S n = e-+ rp aJ O = rD v, en= CrDOO = rC.+ d v, C r=D C v, SrD�_ —'lGp� Q. r-f' e-+ <- rD '� = rD O- rD r+ Cu Z (O n O 3 O v, N to al r'* cr prD O p- rD - „,u;,i�. _ 'a O G� ; _ = v, G) Q. cv'i, t0 C O 'O p N rD cn (n -, N m- a c a =o c fD .1 0 0 C *-ca• 7,— `° v; fD = a) = rD n tQ r+ rD d o cO 'a - = cn tTili �-�' e-+ 0 e-�-+ = S rD S n -� r —cu m v, =”tC1 =. ' '.*.. . II- r„„ .--:e ,.,. , '- ,ii,tr eD = • ��D < toLct n = O N' =• D rD "^'N 4 - •' • �-+ 0 CD -++ - - — Di tO p �-+ 00 :t -41 --' O v' '0 Cr O v, O C O v, = a) v, .4 II,, 111 .. a - u. . LA -0 o._ cr M'"to = • i' iit C .w"Ccl) NO (D.-. w— O V1 .-+to Os `< -, rD — rD O Q '` 10 OaDi ' a-tra _ .< = . Fi = O C "D_ 'Q O ii pj ,.+ CO-++ 2 r ,1, `v• k`; ,,.. „ ... :,. . ... � f fi � "Rd► eStlitn .` 4 4* 4 r . 1 ' i �vL „..,„ . .,,,,,Att L 411=::1 , * 1 L*'..,,,,,j,, C:0110n * ,r, .„, ,., , ..,. . ...,,..; 4 _. -..,,,_-,-,...4.,_ -,,,,,-.77.it_,,,..,,,,,,..... ,,..... , , . .. MaST` , .- - rift,...,:,,.. o: ' k ,it 4. -*: ...;1';°,74., , .1.,4,-:: . ::"r4 e +" .12r47 ir ' "',,,�, • ! % 2. ..; :- ''(,„ .' . ,,,�, :rte- q- , . . ,,,.., : , ., . . , .r .,.+' + www r a � , t 4 1/1, if l'4 " :" �' 1.. ..i ..0i • 4' y y , M '.a .4 1 r 1, ,/,*.4..,',4,. R4.., a • ofr: T r- .i.t iatt-'s ii ,...4..„ .„. ' '-' '''"4 ;lit......."*?,? - . , ' / '' A, 4. • , sp j . ". 4.4)-4,,, 3 � a , \E� r3' +r "Y c3R's ' ;� i} y i y _- a V i L_ w ca 0 a� v* '4 Al K c4 cwn CA 1 ca O C _c O p s c�a C 'in ..0 W p •� • CZI t +-+ 5 ' CA I O ..- ca....,-. - › 01 C p N GU , al > c a) v, cu 4-, co 440 3,0,E s Ts el . N O a) , Ql p +�-, ,- C Q•� Q v�0 r:3 (1, kp .-6. s v, o c .c_ 17 c c = $ . - ' 1)411 • ` O1 N vi p C to .� O ra 7...z.I, illialikmdink I' F, c .? 03cu CL) fp o °' ' o DC Q o • ca • �- CC �- N a a U ! : I CU Nliea. 03CU CU a LL C +_ ..� 02 .....4 . ,..., _,:3_, c . a v, o CD ti ,^ O F a .4. v -v W 01 ° cn v) v; o fl..00 Z a N Z c C) 21 M _ " �... - +� ce C1 >� +-� W C CC s4. C W aMINIM O ro cp 11 • •0l•� ° a) _ C _2 W �4-- ) G� O = LA cn 0 - CO^ O -n aj "O >, c c 'ca _ tJ Q c (N =41.a c a) c co" EE W no v C Q •c C •> a� Z o c W 0 _ ,-- in-ti Ou �+ v=iL- 5 = V' O, „F• > u0 a, ._ he Z .0 w u_ v C) 6/.1 C ^Ll 1 _ C +, •O C a) a W r 1 01 CD C O p1 C O 4"' > C CUCUMOE CL M x til G. L • `+= 0- ca ;:..1 " a) co c�iI cn C O O > f0 � —! CU o a1E C1L -C a, cat C) D n' 2 o P. ca ca CC v ._ o o ..c a) O CU C i �•, pum� - c c p v; a v > = c r �- _� • > •i c ca C u u 0n O c •— V • .� CO O {�-a > C V 2 0 C •0 O L C O � C ca C cz=- v, 'O GJ 0 a3 C kj C N N -v a. O �„ a s Q c C I.-•" -c c c O t 6- c'° C a, .� 5 c c CU c CU V v) 0.......4 •1= ` O IM '� ��,, O N 'LZ cn CL +� O cn '-- a) cu Q vO C c C) C C •� 't%1 v 0 tn O O ca p > C a) y ca 'Q O O C .0 C na ,- -C _ .0 a c CU 1 : i ,:i • CO — ' en --, C 'Y 0 4:f..; C a1 t�0 eD O) -U to co .7Ei C Q1 co •C O +•, O a) C `n C .O 03 v' +'' 4' C co,.lull vl v V j C V O 4-1 p C '� a) C "p > �n vs L ca C i G� 733 O a) V as s •cL p ..fl C a D C) I p +ter = C C L �- >, C ca CU aJ m .0 m ca cn 0 -0 H 0 .— CO s CO 01 >•. ca 1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN B U F F E L G R A S S STATUS al111111111111111111111111111111111R1111111111111116 a 1 •RO • dpillUI F .--c 3 SCHOt PAR - CORD 911/111111111111 .! I`i 1 f;, I 1• � I •I, ELEMENTARY SCH• ig%ramina .....____Th\..y." , . ) __,,, ,4064 Ss1 ,�... ` l! sii! - , ) 6.4,, - * _._ C(:y,p� i SUN RY- .7,4 e • ` TOSO GOLF CO•^�.%v1 __ '1 0" 'tut .., i / f,,i III \ 41 iit L -UB AT VI.OSO •.� Of 1 (A I1 �',i HONEY• T--- I % BEE �' CANYON PARK , L j 111 /1 LI12.P ei ': ---- / "#, 1,1 �•HpXgM4. �,,� r!O NEY6 E E J 4 ii `•PARK (t:� ' •RESERVE (' , , . .. „s, i . , .. . p"w'� j I E _Y ( I 7 • _ , __�I gtti Ir 1 P• f..,§.CHO fir ( . , iteSCATALINA TATE PARK _' —— i. X1111 �'a i i al :.;;I' l ■illi a 4 . :, 111110 . aininmous ... ..-. .. , + WILsoN CFIPRIPla "' 1 er I ° _ Ti '''''C g-a SCHOO i., ill Pail P. ikatti 141 111... C;f13. _, r y , , _ r }: Fir . . . .,IRONWO.0 r pp, 4 .,,!„ 0 If` ) \''T 1 1,4 r it-p - i \ Ate. . t , I CASAS ADOBES •;:+• • BAPTISTFill AO° 0c. •: • f SCHOOL \ \<, 1} _ Pi f t.",,VIL. O •1;:.� 6.. t‘1,-- 11 ,` cf';',... , a ��\ .. i,"-j) I--- WEST ' • Na/ ' ? ' 7, .ELORO . 00• 0• • PARK /11I11ImI I1tIIt1t111$r tr,Ze / ----Z &I I ' Mil Pim �; •5q• ., i1S•H URS' '- - LT.• L iv'i.. ..or- 1 • _ `� i:\ •' ORO VALLEY --- `•. ,• ,, . p ac--1\,(---Ist Vi impaii 11112711 t1 .7,4 OUNTRY :•t ..:. E r n 4. -1 ' §i • *410 ' i -m A 1. Ips ,,e,.:••-.•OD , f N.L . , GE t 1112# amimt 1111 PARKCHRI SAN ,1 ;- _ AC• MY 0 Living Buffelgrass ® ADOT CANYON DEL i • R. ORO HIGH KKR, a 0 Sprayed Buffelgrass O Oro Valley •�• �. KRIE ,� ... .r,. 9 • Sprayed and Cut Buffelgrass ® Private Imo- sr pi .'1 _U. - ® 441_, • Dug-up Buffelgrass 41 ____ �� O .ti: • Eradicated Buffelgrass •-• ..:14 :',4-.'"', 0 Living Fountaingrass - . ••ire.'. ... • ■ !3.+;i +'•:•,�,r'Its .41, iir "447., . ti� *_, „.. • riti ... ''a�"7:• • Fire Station Library JIM y !f� •ii ,R0p4/1:; l t'.' ' -- Oro Valley Boundary � '�' [ ELEME YAI � .�. 0 Police Station �r TKR ..riba `�'.�, ?�GllllJ iL_-... .`?:11.40t4. �0 '••••�•+f,r Golf � � � 'I1�I P.• c iy _, IMAc Oro Valley Government Park , G) I., t� r\ J ,, © Hospital hil •` ' '' 4 r•''.7,.j 0 WO,,200 2400 F. .•.;•.! �� School o ozs o.s rrt� `! z.• I . t . 1 t:,. �, iik,,, rCROSS1r ��;'�)-#AlBt7Cg----••111 •EO .•0 ••:. 5 • V- , -° ri; 11# ' r PIMA tMMUNlTYCHOOL 00)...,_1•110• P.';',:4•`� • r COU.: E . g l ,II N Ilia 0-.._._- E/L 1�°". NORT ,�-•►� us 441pialm ,0 1. 111:',...4//i•.......r ?10HONOI, *4i; •r.r.I • 61 oder • CHUL . // �S� 1 I� ; PARK i' I r r / Zoo C >, CD .0 < CO N CO C (I) 2 00- ci) I— Z z0 E a) _ o.. .4.., Nom. _. O.. < (/) 0 < L.._ co od W ›, COU ix co Cl)„.„.::.....„._.......;.,s,„.....,,,.__,,:.,.___„......„, ,....._,,,,,,......„..,....,.,:..,,......„,,,„,a.......„....„.,... ...1 < ..„....„....„...„,.....,,,,,,...__,,,,_,....,...._......„. w ILI_ , Li... %.• co ,,,,,,,,.,„„._ ,.,,,_•_:, .,,. _ "... , ._,_,, 2, .: . , _ ,, ., . , . . , . . .. .... . , . .. ... ... , , . „ N ......, cn co U c .Q L 0 CO ...0 73 (1) C C CO CO ...1 ^ L 0... Q >1 73 CO (1) C ..,, (/) ...... 0 . c Ci) Oo CO (/) UCO ..I0 Cn (f) = u) ca U) LJ 0 2 -0 0 asCO 0 (I) 73 C 111.114.11 0(/) D cJ) 0 0.• E 0) _a 0 si_ IL ca u) Ni as s_ cf) 0 0 >, 0 • 4— ai,) 4— _ 13.) > z 00 0) •_ ilt 00 (10 MI cf) E Z (in -0 m o •— co 0 2 ci)>41 L (I) = 0_ (I) L.L Q [ s ,--14. ' ',,,P,♦s „,„ ,«,-,'":',7"_/:'/,,,-„,. ''♦ . }t ,,,w�`C”, t ' -0' # 4c ' .' ' + ,e Tt: • y'., „ `vt a ... ",, ", '. t 8 .. * *. f +�y,� a, Pr.µ ',--- v ! 4-41: � ,`tea► y 'H4• f ',,t F i'°.4., , ,k '`ypy :` �t 3. 6 d v 41'4-,11..!,e *, ' w' t.' tr-!, t `r 4 ,,,, , p....t.,i, _, ,,,,..„,,„ ,,.,,, , 4 . , / r # " w « 7 a , i \ ,,, , . , . _ „„ , .. . , , , , . , . . b w , w {{ '41.7;'' i t .r ` x r' /}A+rk,r" , ,y yt a'l l �" YID¢ i rdll ,++TTw S 'leh'b- f".c''-`►w ,'k,, , '.6:- I r,Y'fr 'ti.i, '.: .-•q.w f # "`",'"h A` M.. 4. E,�y"pf �'� ' ''.41,i,.� t".' . w `' � '.:1117:*','" t 1'„•-�<'�� ., k + .�� t.;. *1 .Ei',,'* . �,�!^6�F� .,,f �: '�a ;�':•�r�; ,•.e;� e,:s '..'.:',..,'..:..-'-'7,', t,. :,i •.. . T r.t •ice 'yi z, '�:. -,, ..,2.-.- ,,eil' ,,,7p,' . ,.".7,..?,,,,s4;2,.'''''.1.4...:,',',....2,,,,',i-,:i!' •;.',,,s,: , A� .........' ` � ,�•"'1•1�`\ •,,... +'Air u,i= ,.,r W : ..!• ._�''"y:..yam,.1 . ` w-... .a ''c :, a. r -a,r• ,aY..',- '"'y.•..a. b a.W, P (i ` tit t i ..a �� F [q 4 � JJma \ r 4,, ,,,,-..„.;„t,.. ,..,,,.„..,, . ,, ..„,,,..„,..„,,,,..„,,...,. `, `)Ma ~:„.,„4._,...,,,. ..r,,,;.. ,t �?ey rx4Y --• `�r ,1 `i1�, .... - , —, ,,,i, �- , ...--,,,,,,„,,,,,,....„„,„,,...,,,:‘,;:i.,,,„,,,.. ,. , :�^y.<M ;:Mr . ' i.__ « 'r ,f.r . y: Y^- r ,w'r -.;_‘,--,t-1,-. .,.► .,----:-.-t,„;:41.,°-...., .q r� .Tk1,^°= My' i, ` t , _ k."' ''''----,,,z.,._ ` `1r ...,:i;..4-''',‘,.v..'-%-Z.-:4‘;''-+„ ; ` " ' _w' qt-nrY ,. q . i �tf.�9 # ` r J.a-~. � �w. + , kYA•„(, M . t -[ , KTF �• `« ^''a*ti a.�;' �41�. / ! ,y +,, ' [.i2 ? ,t: �}A: hhk•a� -! e , . nv1 y + ”„ .. . R � ! r ° '. i ,, t,. " RI < ,..,;,74'.11—'7.',..-1:..--‘,1' s ',...4'4-'''' R' ” + ' a�ydk • tet �i'T .. ,.._ ., s„.„'„. ‘ . „ti,ikt, • Ilk' .: " «.^ c.r,' r.y� w '" . . .'�-'a �t Y. ,y (yt + ^# FFF , . . yY4„ 1� a y'-'''. isT, t�P^i.9: • 'ly. -r A '� r wi- - y' •-,-..,.‘,. i.o •." ~ 1 0 �5 . + .''''''"--'.**m,':-;" , ,".',"1- p f '.' •tP` 4 t6 "-r aM. " iI `am` . L `,"Y".� yiY ST �a`» �... . � tr; *,�'-a- > r-t_.-1:::::-,,,,,, • i .. -M" „T,,nom`- . T• `. _ , fi, e`> • + .�i. u - W « w ......Y•.,�<."••.r„<..,.w..- - .-2*'.,„'!"---:' - .`,re._:7-�-_� ,�,..,.� , i n ..la:" .'w i,Y, +4 2'.�,' +� .�,.+ f a .tom y«4$ ..y r ' • "�'r wry 1f�, " 4 �`. -r+- .•:`^4•- .. A..'+tMr„I r,/•.ISr..`M!.'E�.. •.�i, .., ".`. "akt'tiy Y F' , '. -- ., .,•*: 101110 • a3� ''" -1 . 4 .1�" ,.+ F-`, i9oe4'?y's \ ' "` .- s" . "- `,..„,-;%:,a-rd.'3•,,4 _' ^ . tkr , Ta. Y°/.nom'""^, "wdrr w'" k, 't•. ,"A. k :'+ g " ", �• f, '."- Ry .:� ,> 4.»L .< . -,.:44,, .., R � ?:r � v 1 . �f ' , . t�.•.\ v �•W • -�1. .,,,,f.,,,,,,_:,„,...4,-,.„,,,,,L.,..,....„--- ... .wT "t�• r kar y", -'""•'-'-',kr;','. T ,d YF ,.a /W*,k 1\, � d , r " y� ' � � rM '+W „a y, \�R °"� — K °.+x � .f M -' -" ` 's" , `` "+ t. .y..,...',7' ^wr ' �? ,.% e. ,. - \-, vim\ F',, - -. K ,,� h ,,.mo., ,�. w'.,w -'h„y..i+ A 6-"°L" ,,,,,-,;#1r,,,,,(..- ae ' r- ° .,- - - .M- _ i , g� "`-- +_ • �t , «. ,tii 1 'k"` _ ? ' i` Y-P „ �N..",.T,°FO"Y .> r-i , ... --. y . ,,-, ,,kM P � . t " • .' 4 `' .'°`^ «,a•,,,,,,,,a ,, -' « : . , `} + P.�f,ti y, ,i .r r--,,,,,,'''ArltA1" t " 7s, '4, f, � t • _. •------,,,;„-- .., - ' — ,,, „,. , • .. , t. 7)1-, • f ,' .a,,' �•' < 'Y71y,M. �' .n.N ..\ ! `t ' r.'QrcY,',4',...-1,‘,........,'''�YMa' '",a: r � ,,� . ? .,, ;40. , ` rr .*- J�"T''. ♦•f"P � ; � -*,-;.4..,c.,‘' . ,�► � "!_fA , w� .'1... k. �.-t.w<T.� .ryi . _t- a,"[t- ,a #f'4.� a.yN ,",';ii i A >, iy.:� 4. ,)1 w ;/ .r �PClt►� " � macy•� ,-c. , - *e 4t Y " h► �?e, � •,, l , M . ""w � i, a /§+ " � ' g• ` w•`�r ,Yp.,s . , . y1r i � , °< • 1' � - .♦ +y"+ L\k t.\.•,00.91a <wm F `; ,`' . _ .. .•.2..• r ti . � . ‘,44.7',,'‘ g,, -*"ii. '''''l � . a �•. ,` ~�, • r ' '..' - • ... r.:r`a:.^..•;."� .k.�:..' w \ > , "'. e, w, •c'"'. ,;*''' +1 ''-',4, :`.... . r� -,7- ..:i ''''"--.7 . �.i .. v. _ .,. �t ' r ,-,4,,f`,V,., ► *1 �+ . t �P ,.r ..`,�.. e. � lhg , - MAk�+�,yyif "�r ;�. .v P,. ..;;. vk .• u' 'w .� � � "�^<LP +fi � ."'S�' tlk.w , �". P^: ' ;. ,'d4°}.',..'7.,-1-'\-';',.4,-1-1.• t �f ��•t !,u�js � 1?: F� te, a .... ' ,« .N V1" � - ' d•.� � �• t +»►,ma .�. r'M." w< -,RMz';! w _ rr ( O 'C;9.r is tom' e.•...F,. ice ,'�, � ttZt„.. t•` a .. •• , ” - '+\ ` , \ '''''',4,;:: .,...,14:7'.'1', � ! „ ;1:,-,•x,.4.:."'4,'-•.,;;;;,.';'7..::!, 1. rl:d^r : , t, •. '',. .4.` .. tw ' . . .-`1,:' .Y; • �'/`'•, .a� Yv��4 rip,- �-- y " • , x,.. ,x ' ' an•�'40.;,;.-.......---.. . > ,, ► -s ; ! .�v"MQxt e,t . " ` i Y • • • lic, f. • • au 1 \ .� ,3 •Y.pWaw +, � r?.. "..''-x yY. ,,,.:-.4,', ,.-", R+. .: ";. t*. 1i " , ,.w tel" y � teY � \ t. n',„,,,...,y.`., �.a` '.�,�.r XA '1,.AA,t^�,wkfi,-,-,-- ,:..-.0.),....,„M.-7.,,.....0., _ r • . t .'7,44.1430.. . f . "`,n' _ rx •.• ',. i „.'.4--A •R t - i � .! 4aE c: 3 `'�7 . t ,:k '* T .'•4.,•0%;2.t7,..-d'''.14-,'-''''','.'k, aam ys} .A, � r ,.'eY .L: „y� :eP ► WJ � r � \ . -m +11y : 'i ,,,,,,::‘,•!,,,,,,L, kryr '' "o. W4,,,, >:F+.. ''''.1"...'"r. rAt.'75.1...7::„..,<}+. ' '. '�" re, 1 �. i �. ° v,q .,wb+'�� ''''Yt� , •+ >: s " R :1 •. R� " � '*V..‘� 4 i � '~ R� , ,• f�,t�'P�” ,, ����'"..•M 4 w"w. ," ..•�a �I 'y .�.,''.k.'4,- 2�'.�°i a�, `Y. f „,rA r,, �.S • J < - „. h•i: `'7;;-- "a"' '�4. c,+/ ,,•, .�c<wc+ 'l,��- . . iA..r *" , t.l"Pakr ,�+.' t/. r . ,\�"k � » +w . " Mc •:r �PW.N'": ,, "R.1vw�,a. t „ .i,-..!.:-....:t ..y?Vi'. w1"1., .? 'F' ` "9"+!1" �1 " M.+ w pr w ,plr4?,!*s,r .iLw; ,. a ,'kw dR•„r , a..i . ite_ ., ,Y ".; a , , r , 44 .a F„ , \ �”,. , wti . A. 7 .... • ,,,,,,,,A,,. ..„..7„ . , ,...„.._ , ,, • Cl) >N _0 co C/) a ES 0) 0 uLD •_ C/) CU CO Cn C w E co W co Vi) >, O Cl)i co cou) E co o_ p LL (1) (1) (09 w E w cf) co ._ 0 C 2 w -0 >N 0._ 0 w ....„ 0 cts a) c ....• a) 2 c C E co 2 "U p CO U r ‘=Lii � c cy) 0 0 Cl) U coVC.) / Cl) (2 (Q .—, ..c 4.0 CA.— U � s.- (13 wCD E ... ..c ._..... *a co 0 2 cf), 0 a)CC Ci.) (..) zi5 -0 s... CUL " 0 .0 0.) as 0 4„, , '"' iv C.,.) co c).. Q •� a. (i) co 0 O cn cn ›N cn ..c cf) -o (0 CZ L_. cf) CD ...ci ..0 1.1 0) E cn 01) >N = _b._ co c co ID ›N w _ cu ID 0_ a) w = a, ki— 2 E — 0 cm a) 4— � U 0 as � U) •— (..) Cl) 0 w ... 2 6. w 0 +.• c) cm w co c E as E = .c = Cl) (,) (...) _. as c ci) w = w O CI Ul) _CD 0 E co 2 Li. co = 0 6 0 0 > c •_ C 0 CI C M MN = 2 (10 as ,.... 4.• — w 0) C CU _c.4..Na a) L...... 0 < 0 0) M•11== 0 W iss, LL 0 0 0 0 -'_ '-''''''''-''''''''''•••"‘'-"'' "'•-''''' ''''''''''''''''''"-• '-••-•---,-."•••••„•,,',-,,,,..•,-.•'-',,' "•.':', .-;,,••,, --••'•:,,••i•••'-•-•-.,","-••4,,----.,..pf; .1.,,,., ..;•,:f:-.''',••""*-'7"''-' , . ,•,.:,-.'„L.':4,•..• ;,,,.?;:',-',.:4',-•:..+•-:,..?L‘ i.'-.„-::.,,.2.':.••'..ri,„„.,;;;;,,ki,l'441`...',.,•-•'-,.M,:...-„I':,•.'„:::.,•-•-•,,,2 " :,‘•,ic-,,.',-,.r7,.--- ,,,,i•,,T,:,.., ,•,,,, „--,,f,,,.:,-7 ..,-•1.,., ,ef',..,;;;;;',.,,,.:4-4. 7'•,!...•-• -.•-,,,,i",,.s..;,,,,,,,,,,...„. .#411.*:',•"„",-.- * ',4 i',..,'• ,•-, :_.,; „,,,,,,,e,,- ,..':::-..':::',••'._"'",.;-..::!'•,,--7",'.,-•- •...,'''.'.-",.',,, rf10001F''''''''.4104:" ' , 5"---'7,-i,..„, ;'. '','-.4..; '!''•-•'t ,',...;•7'''',•''''''.' '1'.•'-':'''';'''''-'4':',:'.,„,.:" ':,\4'..iihts-; ' -,. . i''''..- ''',411,-,'-'':'-'.,''.,•;".',.'''•'''-;...,e;)!!',,_,,, ''''.,,,l',..';'•: 4',''.'"'''J../ .'''S',;;;;‘,-,';. '',','''''' ' , ,•:,...,,,r''' ..*,:i",71,t,"...,,,:.4','...,,,.,,,..",'''''''.‘.....--r '-7';',4;•q,'„'4',''''•• -•,' .,,,''•' ''''''''''',,,;144''' ,...,. ';' ''':,' ' ‘'..4'..'''•;'' '-''''''''''.,. -•;"*,..',,i''''•*'''''.'f':'''•' '''k'•.''''...' '';''';.*,*', ' ,,,,., •‘,, ‘ ., ..• .. ,,,.0...",,..„,.,., '. , s !'' ''."'''',1:`'.'-•.'''-','''''''''''''',•ti'';''''''',.t.','"''''',.'•'..,,i.•4'..''''..i''''''1441'.'''.''f'''''.'s:11'1. . •••''''''''''''''.'''''''''''''1''''''''''''.''' ''''''''''.'''''''I , ,,• -4,,,,•,:l•71,.`' -...„,;;,•,*?;'-,-,„ -..•.,•.,,. ‘...?..*•.,- -2,.;„:2',,,,....:,.,;.•.7.,•;,iti',`,,,„1,t,,,,'.,;.1-'•J,•••,,:,,,,',:-.,...:.„'.- ':.,,,...-,,..,..,,..,•••.••-•„..,..„.±:,...-„,,-.66.,..' -------„,,,,,,,,.•-•••2 ‘...,,.., .,--,... ..,... ..,.....4„,,,,•:::,,,,,,,.,.-,.,..,..,;--- • .,,,,, •v.;,-...-•..---„ .-....,* • ",'t.,,,..,,::.",,,,..,,,,. : ' ''''''''*,,,,,,,,..H.''''''''''.',-.—:0;4*,' ,,,,',.':19,..-.',"''','. • .. '' ' ,'..;:' . _.•-14- . ,t, V..76.414t.'"';,.•':.....•,„, '„,'f'.„.•.'„...:„:,,,-,.-, .„. ',„''''•••..;:,:---' ',7,......„,„':•,,......--;-_±,...4z;',,i,„;•.,,,*''AVii--s:44i','.•'„i"4,4.....-,,,,,•‘.....: -.:c.',--..',..., - ••7,,•-.--..'.,,,..t 6.•,-,'.7.....;,--.. •. .,..,-,,-.,!,., —--—-----'--- --.2.-...~7,:„:7 7.,,...„7-7. .•,.„2:..,,.„..„,,„„,....,,,k•-,,„„,.......,-;..,...,,,,,,,:„...,,,••-...•7.,...?,..;-,:;.....,... .?.: , -.st4°:•;•••• •';•*.7,1,.•-•,,.„ *•' . '''. ;..,,,,.:i.,,,.....-,,,,,..,..„..........=„.„„_.,„„__ •i i i„.,/ ,. „7,* „,,,,,,7_L..,...,..,...,.•-...,; ,, ‘,.,,,,,,,r,..,z,,,...:.,,., , ,,.•,.,,..,"..,,,,,,ly,,,,,,„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,, , , .,•, •••_.L„••••,.::, ,.,.. _ . ,. :,..,: '2' / ''''',';''.'" . ,,,.,"-:. ' -;;•:f..,,''' ,', - •7.'•'''****-*:[:!.:44..'' '.1,. ' ' - ' '''' ,•!-•-•. '::' :•'....:7-•'''.•...' ,, -. -.--. 1, .',.'.-7:1,1:.:, ,,..,.; , , ''''';','",...r,-.. -• •. . •.,'' •' ;',. ,4;.te......,:.,,,.,,,,1/4 ... ,,.., , „....,............. ., ........ . : ..,,,, ......_,. ...... .....,-...._...............,.....:,":„......„:„.„,„.„,,„,..„,„„.......,,,—,.•.,„.—..-..:.„,.........„.....„,..„..,..„..„.:.–.:„.„„::,......;.....,„..•:,,,,,,,- „,,•-•i••...'•.;44.•..,,,,,,,..::-,:••k•--7•46.!'•' -- i.,/, .'-_.;',..'*,','„„•,•-• . _.,,,,„ ..,,, •..•:,..,:•-,,V1•'•‘,4. ' , - . L'4,.....•,-; ''"'"'ll't ''''',4•S'•:- .:' • ,',',. •‘',,,t,ft.•,•:.',, .'",,-,---,--•- . --- '-• -''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''..-'''''''''''''''•- '••.- ' '''. '''''''.'.: . -.47.,"-,;','!' ,, -- - -,'''':'. , .'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.-14;ji4itb, • ' ,••• ,,,-..''',7,;;,-1,4-7:77,,, '''- .. '— ., '''''',:i,,.,, ' 4 .L'''''''4,4,‘7:4 •..--,,,. ,,,,4 .,,,,, ,, ,,,,, ::i',.-1.,•.:',,,,,,- .- ..,,,,,,,,,,,.-,'•••••.-,,,,,,• -, ,, ,..,•••• ..,'..,,, • - .,,„,„i,•.,..•,::::,-;,:,,,,„„:.., ,,s, i„,•. ,,,..•:, •”- -'-''''''''' - ..,,'''''''''''''''.''...''''''::::,.: ,,,. . ,,, ....''''''.' ''''''."7.'.. ,`...'•'..•:''''.:2•'•:,.",'.'4,."3::'***C. ,,,,...,,,,•.•,:•,::••,,,,..,,.,,,,,..,,,,,••••,',..,,,,:•.",,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,, ''4„.''''.•,','L'''''''',•',:',,C2,1e4'''-`; '''f'4•';'••• '''' • -' '•'••.. • '''''''''''''•''''.;... '''''.'1•4`''•X.'-''''''''''''''''''''''. 4*.''.1.7.'''' , '''''''''':"'-'''''''•6,'''''.' ''''.'1,......•.t.t41' .".‘ . ,''2'. , '4,", ''' .•"'''''''-'''. '''' ' .4.. --• .44,,....*„...,1'7'•-w::.,..„,:.;:.,‘,1C"..t,:'7,,.,,,,',.;,...4....,,,i,.;*',Iit,...i';':,..7....:,...iiiiiie,;.,),;,,''.:,........'.:14-":47.1'12,.'..,,e,,,,,T.t.,‘„),-, ..,2',1 .=2. , .,. ',.-...„--- -„ - •---,,,•,..„,t•-,..,,,ti,,s'•.•i..,...,,...s,,.,,,. ..,,,,A,,,,,•. ..,, , .. _ . .._ _ ,,./, ,,,.,,, _ _.,..„,,_....6,.....7,•,,,F.,1,7:;--:-:..:-.v.41,i',,,.- 1-:f.:.7'.;"* , :::,,,, -6' ••- --6;--:::. ..'-'.......„: .....','"' ..,,-',,,, .,,,,,,,,„..-,1,,,i..fi ,....,6,2 •-:-.,,....-1, •I- _7;:6-.!'.t..7..-'''','''''''"'-'--i';;;*'"'*,;,.1.4::'•!:1447ito''",'-',', ' ' '• '.,,..,•• ''''''''''-6'11'''''''' .''.'''..-' '' . ' .'1"1' '''•'''''.•Si lei‘i.i.':::....'''''''''.,•Ar ., '''''•,,'' '. .--• .,..., -..,...„ •„.......,......,.„„.....,........., 7,• , , rr- •N.;',7‘,••,,,„,,,,...-.;:'..„.„•''- ..........- „,,,,••• ....„ , _ '',...„„--,,..,-,„•„,•.„--....,„„.,„.„-.„....,...,„....„...,„...,„.,.....,,,,,,„.„,,,„„_„,'"•.•-• ........„_„.„. -i.'r -„,•,,, . ,- ,„,,... , •-,, ''''''•••'''-."'",,,, -'''''''t.,, '. z„ .. ..„. ....,,.„,....:.., „. '•••,-..-,.„ .".7..•,--:i:-- -:‘,---,--,-•••f•-••...-.., --- k .,,..,..... . ,,,„.,,........_.„.......„„...., • ,. .., , . 1.-,,.,., -........ , . .,... . . ;/. _ , „ .. .... ,,,,.., ... ......, :. i , —,, ,,, .,,,.,....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„....,...........,,,.......„..,..., ,..--,,,,....,i„:,- '.6,,,,..„ ‘-.•.- „A , , • • . • „.. - - stitif;,'• :,;-,••••,••,-,::.":7,---.:-, ‘_.....,........,„..,.,„..,..........:....,.,.„.,.„..„.....„„....„,:„...„.,,.:6,...„....,,.„,„..:„,.......,,,, ., -.:.•.•......, .. :, ... , .. „.. ._. i, s .,,•,•_.,,,,...:::,. • •,...,..,.,,,:,,,,..,,,.,' ,.:.... ..„ .„ , ,,...li,', ,... ._ 4„..,..,. . ....,.....„ ....._ ,. - ..,...,...,,..---.,:. .:: - ---- .......,,ciii,;.'4,,,,16,2-%.-;-tt,:,.,,... :.,.•,.-... ...,„. -......,, . ,..„. - .. - -%,..... . . .-.7-..,,,, -4. -, - . ;-,,,,,?.4.-t.,:i.-!,---i-,-:-'-',,,,-..,:,--•-....---------..--,, ,•-,, . • - . ..,,. .,-'-,....k., ,,,......._.. -................. s' ............,..:;:,.L....,...:,:,,..,„--"-'"' , ,....,-,..„..„,....„, '•'.-':-.-..''''."';'Z'.".' ... •••.:, ' .'•''.•,24.'''';':....:7'.'.''-'...'''' '.'...2 t .- :.. . , tort, ----...-. —' •'• .-- --—-'' '''-••,,, ,ii..-..:-...•:',:,:*,7•••••-, --,..„-•„,p. .. - ,,,A;:s.„ ,,., ,Ai,.,,,.,-,,,,,,,4,,z',,:.•;•„;Z,•,,,,,7",.1 ....:--,-.•' •------ '''*-14., '•- .-•• • '*., '''i.,1 ;11"-":1 '':.,,,„'-.••,,,4*-# ,,,,,,-r' -.,,...7.,..,-............„,„,,...„-..,„-,..,„s„ 3; ,,,.„,, --... .....------:-.......................„--- '\• ._ _ .f. . ,...: 7 ' , , , _77'7-.6,..i!". .,,,:.,..04,...,,......_,•. -------7--— _ f..-,/'.;-'•-:', '., •.41s,-.'' ,:„...„.„,.„,..,„ :4,----„z„;,: •.,''' •-;'.••,•••,'," ,,t4tItft,•.,..•. ,,,,, -• - ,, .,,,.J • • ••.. ,,,,„ 0.4,-... .11'•'4-,•- •'.., , ' --.'-',...i.••••'•'7 ..64,i".„ ' - . , , . , .... .. ,•.„ • . , - •,... „ • : •' •.":,'.. .„, „, . ' ',::ff..,........:',.......77,,,..'.,„..::•'..„.,.,:,,,,,,,,',..i.e.:',6:,,,,.,,,,,1„,:ik;:,:,.....,,,,:,.•...,',,,,v.i*„....'1.,,.i,....,,,_., 7___.,..,,,,,,,..„ .,,,..‘„,,.,,,,,.,_.„„,....,,„...-,._..•.....126-.11::•':::'.''' . .„-.,,.„..,„, •, •,....,"•,:r„i•41i1;14.111 -7.1tX,•i(:„.,,,..,,i,,.:.•,''...'". . '''''''-•-••••• ‘.1.''' 8 ',.„_.,,,•,..—..-,••,. „•,-...,..., , -, •,_:" -,,,,,,,..• • 1,00 .:„..„ ,,,,,,,,..„_,:,,,,„,..,........,,..,,.,,.,.:')..,....•,T.,,'';',..:;.:.,:.,...,••,'..,•••,,•,...,..,,,,,•:ii-.,,..„. ..,., ..' .• •-, "..'',•••-•:7;,-...-,I'ilk pi 1,.:7:\, •,,,,44.e' , . ' L':.,'...,;;:,..,.1.,''14..,'•',"..-,•••,. .,t ...• '-• itliplow..o.4,-..„.„,.•••,.;..,,-,,,„,,, ' ,",....t.•.:''''''* ':'•4‘,..V.•. - :)i,„,z'il-'..,C....., " 7',4't-..:,,•••,,---• --, '..-- , - ---t„ ., ...•1. ". ..,—, ,„,,-,,,,....., , , „,...., ''''!... ......-:, ..,,,, -,•,,,,.,•.• •t,,....,„....,•6-,•......,.7stis,„,:•),..,,,,„,,,,,,,.,,,-..;;;,7„.,...,,,..:.„•••,,,:, , • ",,,:a.,...„,•,...Yk.',... ,,...„.,,,,, ,.• .•_4., -.,_.,.... •,, •,..•••..,••,-..,,. .- ,........,.•------- .......,,,,,,; •,.,•••.,..., , ...,.,., ..,. . . •.,..,.--•.•K• , ..„ ,.,...,...„„ . . ....),.••••-•„,--.‘'..-••,..„---,....,,..- . f.:•,,. .;.,,,,J,.,...,, .,...,..,,,. .4,„,„.., , ,. . . ... ,• , .3.•..,',,,,i' tii. _, r, ..,„ , .jA.,,;.,„:'' ,1/4,'7.1,""..',,,,,,•41. -,,,,:,:."!,' - ,•,,t! . ;,' "7 .,:iifisfo'-'‘,.-,4,61*,,. ••••727, ..*: •••1:,1".t.;.,. .,,,,.;- ,... •,-1-',. "7,„y•••••:"•-•;•-•,'•' ...„,•,•.„••,,,,,,,„,•,„„•„•„,•,•„,•.„,,-.,„,-,-„,-,-.•,,,,•••-••-----•,•,,,•••..,,••,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,----•-•-,.., ,i • •,:-,,,,..J: ,., ,. .4,„.i.,„1,,,,,,2,..,,,,,,,,,,,,..,„,„",.,,,, ,„ .4..•. ,, .‘, 71............... . .44*...''''.• . . ),k / '2,..... \ , .. V 73 Ci3 ci) 0 In C CU CD ,.._ a) 1.-- N NM= 0 C 0 C CO 0 ) " p o co 0_ 4.) D a -o ...c c = > - 00 0 (3) Et cio co E ...... ca -c c 4_, 0 ct as -0 ._ cy) > c 0c 0 0 as o >,,, •...... 2 2 Cl) 0 a) 0 (/) 0 0 ce i• • I, 1 . -••'••,••:-"'";':72-'1".;,:".,....i`,:' • P 1ws♦r•..;' <;',.,as • 't'a. ,.. .+ i, -::::e..: t' 44grit,.:::ii4'. ., .• yam, -�:, ,. •,,,,4,4,0'' •'�.4"'•Ica. �i .#s M.k r , It=.,., I 4 .. a ' MI_ . ifW t ,..„...,......., .'. S'I''',‘,1f,..;:,4i.,,i-1-,;,..:1:'' :,:''''' :„..,,,. ‘,...,,-::*, ;4111F'\ .1 gyp." 1 ,,,,,,,,::i... .�.. �y - ..\\i\\\k •l'.-..--,''' ,a caw° ' .i. y ,:, ,,.rte V`A... :, tr „. ::;. .s......,.,,,,,,,,,,,..„, .. .„,.....,,,,t, „,...„,,„,,„.,„ 1 ,, „,,, 00,, ,, , , ,, , „ ,,, ,,„ . ,...,,.,..,,..., ,,, _, „:..„..„,,,,,,„...,,,,,„,„.„...„.,,,,,,,,„„..„ . .„,, . :.:„....„ , ,,,,,...,,„....,..: a !ems.,rZ's�"'n+l. '” �w .. . - rs s:'� .-wY •- i•.,.,.- . ..: i*,, ,�c�y�..j y��4. . R ,µ . , + s 1, ', r'C, R<' < 4 - 7 ,yi� 1.0. . :17S �i a • ..� Y r , w \ _\ k 3 S Ar � ro u? 1 Wb .« "fib. �" ,4 r„..„4,„:.,,T..„ ,..,,...:2; yy/�' fa. 0.+C .+s. �,,.. ,y,:',;; <.^ i..w x.,a,,F•A ak,� +<.„` `V L l.„+ {° Y, '�...,....., ......„,. .„4,,,....y.,,,,,,„,,,..,„,,,i,,,,L,:„....,. ....• ... ..2,.....„„,,,,,,,:„....:•,,,, .„,,,..,_, :,„,,,,,.,, ::.,..„_ , .,.. ' s „,. . _ ,..„4,,, . .. ., "411''.\4444°'' 4' '' .: ” a tikit � 'M+y�f,.' ,`kyr R p♦: + ,,,,:,',:,.' •. . . ,' :4f...4" ,. /7-#7.'2, •.-,2,1::— 4k,,,,‘,,•!•,.7,v-r.,.:,,,,,,,,,,,--.....,•„-: r, •,,..., *}3+ .,► sC: f". may ,. .�^ < it .. } a , x a •{ er?. W;+•, srr , , '�,• ,:''.1�,s , ..fir.,. rr y r 1}.,l f ,. .. '• YID, - .•R Com. IA4; 4•s b1 * .!a. .i: tam ± _ s �,.x .� '4 .:& ,..2' ay. p •V.. ir ' X ,4 ..- ..f'.''''''* ' T Tc T �: b $,y � r s , ,,,,,,;-1,: '7 ' '31.7.;;."'-. ( '''y 1, +4.a,>R„ \ -7; , R •it 1< 4, . • t ,•,'lk, ,,,,i,i4,0 • :/. ' f } .,10♦ ry,•. i•.r. 1. , -4;;;;,,' Y45 c z.-0',.0 ~ „ 'd rn• M 1 .1 4 ^ ' •_ '- , , ..1... •}qs x", . • • 1:N' 'f ' 4 .. S ! . ` 1 —p ." I 4 F�IR " ` '- NI m �. , aC.. iw y P.t. N. l .. f • v .w ..r ,9„w 's� sx. �#is *" ` _'.114•.:::‘::;...,••,.?:;',-,..;.,77.„.. d;s' .<QA �1' i7 1 ' i"" r . , .,r#atp '1,',. i'c. ' « • r � , r. :lu, o .` 'S. ' '..ej ,' ''' „ , ..^ a . > y:F Al ► ��' •44 $t+Y'' �;• } .7..... *!- L+ ,�,y..,:r a : '-',•,-,.:::::‘,:.,..n7_ 77-.•-•‘-...,,,.Er ,.,,,,.7-',.:**,- s •f aw+ v.,:calls r.,7"".._..' _ w <r, a ,i,.,,,,,,.: ` x }a, �:**, ..+ r , r . __+a fir'.•>. -. .x r e s .y .y .� P ' •r . •k "ry,,, } e° 414:. '"•' ; � t J, ;ft'. 4. I c w � cf) co ..— E oL_H � coo o c c or- c cm co_ •_as co o•_•c � C 7:3 1-5 C O D 2 •_. ow •_. u_ a b U Q � 'v > C (1) � Cl)CD o c co co c •...... = (1) ° ami O oL._ cm p o 13 E o TD u÷3 c -0 co mc o a) %,, 0") U C 13.) caj •_ L_>6c = E 0 C 2 .__. = 0,) a) E w ...c o ..c -o 0 ccis M L.- w H .-I-I C lit ('3m a.) cc ._ o >, .4..... CC (13 0 C •_ o -o 0) -C = E 2 uu ci) J 0 2 ct 2 N ...c � C Cl) o Co O O o C H C aO I CO (0 c E c co c cf) = 0 aCOo 0 ,.. co C L... a.. LL 0) c CII) 0 o -0 L... CD E -0 _. ._ (..) c co 0_ ._ as ._ 0 E co c C = Cn Cf) C (10 0 O 002ci 0E5 cii.) ._ 0 cr, •_... co 0 2 0.) D E 0 1— w c a) IX o cf) ,.._ •_ = -0 "c) -0 a) 0 w LLI (1U a3 W cK I— 00 ...c cm c ci) aii) +.0 � c p N viima ......•••••• 0_ ca co F__ >N C E 0 a) " . >t E ...... o o 0) 0 a 0 E > Q D ci 0 ...... a.) ci, •_ — > 12) E (.) •_ 13.) E W � D W S V 0 0 CI) C 0 ...c •_ U (75 � co ._ c L o o w ._ 0 mci) CU f+ 0cl) 'te—., C13 O C 'V TD (I) CD c ,,,> g • 0 cu w ,... (1) L..... E E a o c,,, w 0 (,) E E/2 o N wE •_ cin C .0 O ._ U Cl)co O V EIc ....... 0 O w 0 _ccy) _c Ce 2 . 0 c . p w a) 1-- _ c w 0 (I) m" •...... co 4-1P -1-0 E - w ,,__,„:,_, -1-1. CD ..0 ,,,,,,„,_ H-E E 2 o,„,„,,,,,_ az a) vi.. i 0 0 0 0 , cm E D c O Q Y Cl) '_ 2 o mu) ,_ c.-. a) 0) cn 0) ..cp c co C o.. a) E ._ 0 as c L_. 0 co 4- (1) CO 01) 2 = 2 co L.- ° C13 C � O O (1)C •NIMII CD "0M0co � (l) L- C c c CD CO 0 a) E NNI D E E o _0 (/) __1 •_ E (/) o 2 E a) 0 c o 0 0 E c � Q � ci2 o c = (13 ._ o p _ D > D t° •_ 0 ._ CO 0 " ._ 0) o 0 ". p < 0 .0 0 ,cm cu a) _ E .,...,.., *a a) ci) D (1) L_ :11.. 2 D ..e C p c ---, 2 — a.E z •_ 5 •_ L (i) E c 0 0 0 0 _c c y) &.... o o 0 cUo cn c 0 o 0 V 0 0 0 0 V C 111 1111 (1111) 110 0 (1113 }. 0 � U � Q N Cla � D Non-Native Invasive Grass Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass Action Plan GOAL: Eradicate Buffelgrass &Fountain Grass in Oro Valley Town Limits II. APPROACH: Two major components - - Education and control-removal A. Education General Description—explain how Buffelgrass and Fountain Grass are problems,how to identify, removal approaches, and cost for eradicating the plants. 1. Mayor/Town Council a. Hold a Work/Study session for mayor/council i. Why a problem a. Spreads rapidly—Buffelgrass and Fountain Grass b. Fire danger—Buffelgrass burns hot and comes back strong c. Loss of native desert—Buffelgrass out competes native plants ii. Identification—illustrate a. ID with an available plant b. Videos iii. Removal a. Pull and bag b. Cut down and spray when green and growing iv. Need for funding source for cost to eradicate plants, program to work with public, seminars, re-seeding, posters, give a-ways, etc v. Annual Cost vi. Recommended solutions to council vii.Input and direction from council b. Develop a Resolution and Ordinance for the Mayor/Town Council to pass for eliminating Buffelgrass &Fountain Grass in TOV limits i. Develop council resolutions and ordinance c. Funding Source to eliminate Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass - Budget i. Volunteers ii. Public Works iii. General Funds B. Control and Removal—explain how Buffelgrass and Fountain Grass is controlled, removed(eradicate) and disposed off. 1. Town Staff a. Present educational information- Determine what type of training is needed within each department i. Training in Identification of Buffelgrass and Fountain Grass: necessary for all departments for mapping and overall education ii. Removal: not necessary for all departments iii. Eradication: management and supervisory b. Mapping—Establish mapping techniques for workers in the field i. Need a simple mapping system such as data forms with reference questions that could be turned into department contact on a weekly basis 11. GPS is an option but would be costly and require more training c. Eradication plans i. Town ROWs ii. New Development (P&Z Dept) a. ID before development b. Developer responsible for treatment/removal c. See Outreach section iii. Washes d. Prioritize Areas e. Restoration i. Re-seeding schedule after all areas that are disturbed by eradication 2. Training a. Train Town Staff i. Contract organizations to train staff: a. Sonoran Weedwackers—Marilyn, 579-6525 b. Arizona Sonora Desert Museum—Elise, 883-1380 c. Environmental Educator w/Pima County Natural Resources (Parks & Rec) Meg Quinn, 615-7855 —meg.quinngpima.gov Wendy Borroughs, 615-7855, cell 240-4825 wendy.bourroughs gpima.gov ii. Or Training in house can be fairly simple—It may be possible for a few employees to train staff with a power point presentation or show purchased video, supplemented with a short field session for identification purposes b. Train Volunteers i. Let volunteers secure their own training or contract Sonoran Weedwackers or Environmental Educators ii. Hold training secessions in Library for residents, HOA's, etc iii. Form ORO VALLEY Weedwackers organization Marilyn with Sonoran Weedwackers would come in and and talk with committee about how to start an organization. c. Eradication in Town right of ways and property i. Volunteers—schedule days for mechanical removal ii. Staff—Use combination spray/mechanical removal methods (Concerned about killing untargeted native vegetation and disturbing soil. **Consider restoration practices to reduce erosion and reduce potential for invasive species to take over) d. Eradication on private land i. Design educational website on Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass a. Every department concerned can place on their own webpage b. Website can include photos, training video, etc. ii. Educate homeowners a. Mailouts (water utility bill) b. Community meetings c. Neighborhood Clean-up f. Feedback to Town regarding removal and location i. Monitoring may be accomplished by volunteer efforts. Areas could be broken down into sections and each individual volunteer or group is assigned a section. Monitoring data could be gathered on a scheduled basis. ii. Feedback by DPW Street Crew when spraying and removal iii. Feedback by Town employees on location iv. Mapping new locations, spraying and removal g. Accomplishments C. Town Codes, Ordinance & Zoning Codes 1. Review existing regulations regarding occurrence/control of Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass 2. Revise to discourage/outlaw Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass III. OUTREACH: A. Develop educational materials for staff, schools and public (See Training II-3) 1. Provide brochures in town buildings 2. Send information through Vista—town newsletter—sent out monthly B. Groups to consider for education (II.A.3) 1. HOAs a. Send letters or flyers out and/or offer an on-site presentation b. Create program for incentive 2. Commercial - Builders a. Send letters or flyers out and/or offer an on-site presentation b. Create program for incentive 3. Adopt-a-Road/Adopt-a-Wash Sponsors a. Send letters or flyers out and/or offer an on-site presentation b. Create program for incentive 4. Schools and Churches a. Send letters or flyers out and/or offer an on-site presentation b. Create program for incentive 5. Landscape Professional and Nursery's a. Send letter or flyers out and/or offer an on-site presentation b. List alternative plants IV. MAPPING: Locate areas on Town ROW, ADOT ROW, & Private Lands within Town A. Locate and map by area existing plant communities 1. data input from Town Staff—inspectors, etc B. Track success of eradication efforts C. On-going project—updating D. Place map to Town Website E. Place map at some Town Buildings V. INFORMATIONAL PRODUCTS A. Maps showing Buffelgrass & Fountain Grass locations—pre/post treatment 1. Posters 2. Internet B. Summaries of what's been done 1. Internet 2. Brochures Updated March 5,2008