HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (808) *AMENDED (9/19/08, 3:00 p.m.)
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
*STUDY/SPECIAL SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Discussion regarding Development Review Fees recommended changes
2. Discussion regarding Parks and Recreation Department Revenue and Fee
Policy
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION
*SPECIAL SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
*EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 P.M.
Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03A(1) Consideration of Town Manager's Employment
Agreement
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 09/17/08 AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 9/24/08
12:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m.
cp cp
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person
with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at
(520)229-4700.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 1 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: STACEY LEMOS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES RECOMMENDED CHANGES
SUMMARY:
This item last came before the Mayor and Council at a study session held on April 30, 2008. At that
meeting, staff presented information on the comparison of development review fees charged in other
Pima County jurisdictions for various-sized residential developments and commercial developments.
Recommended changes to the Town's development review fees were presented to achieve a number
of goals as follows: (1) to increase the cost recovery associated with the development review process
and; (2) to provide an incentive for development plans to be turned in correctly at the beginning of the
process, thus reducing the frequency of 3rd and 4th review submittals. Additionally, the Council has
made the routine review of development fees and user fees a priority in the Town Manager's annual
performance goals and the Town's adopted Strategic Plan in an effort to ensure the Town's financial
sustainability.
At the conclusion of that study session, the Mayor and Council requested additional information
detailing the development review process and information addressing how the proposed increased
fees would affect the cost of a home.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Fee Changes
Attachment A to this communication provides a summary table of the Town's current development
review fees and the proposed, updated fees. The proposed fees are recommended by staff based
upon a comparison of what other surrounding Pima County jurisdictions are charging, as well as a
determination of what fee levels are required to improve the Town's cost recovery of the development
review process. Town Planning & Zoning staff have also proposed several updates to the fees
charged for plan reviews in their area. The changes to the updated fees are outlined below:
1. The proposed fee for a Grading Permit has been changed to 1/2% of the project construction
cost or $500, whichever is greater from the originally proposed amount of 1% of the project
construction cost or $500, whichever is greater.
2. New addition — implementation of new fee charged for Administrative Review of plans by
Planning Staff. Currently, the Town does not charge a fee for Administrative Review, and the
proposed fee is $40.00 per hour (based on a Senior Planner pay rate).
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
3. New addition — implementation of new fee charged for Final Plat Scriveners Error of $30.00
per hour (based on Zoning Inspector pay rate). Currently, no fee is charged in this area.
4. New addition — implementation of new fee charged for Minor Land Division of 50% of cost
of preliminary plat. Currently, no fee is charged in this area.
5. New addition — implementation of new fee charged for Minor Revisions to Plans previously
approved by Board, Commission and/or Town Council of 50% of the original fee of that plan.
Currently, no fee is charged in this area.
Development Review Process
The attached flowchart in Attachment B outlines the Town's development review process and the
stages at which fees are collected, up to and through the issuance of a building permit. Public Works
staff will be present to explain this process and answer questions at the study session.
Fee Comparisons with Surrounding Jurisdictions
As you will recall when this item was last presented in April, the total development review fees
charged by the Town were calculated and compared with the other surrounding jurisdictions for three
(3) different residential scenarios and three (3) different commercial scenarios. As development has
tapered off in Town, shown in Attachments C and D are the fees charged for the submittals that are
now most common in our stage of build-out.
Attachment C is the Residential Scenario that encompasses a 100-lot subdivision of approximately
30 acres. This attachment shows the current fees that would be charged by the Town under our
existing fee schedule, the proposed new fee amounts, and the fees that are charged by the Towns of
Marana, Sahuarita, City of Tucson and Pima County. In this 100-lot scenario, the Town's current total
fee amount of $19,945 divided by 100 residential lots results in a cost impact per home of
approximately $200. If the proposed review fees were adopted, the resulting cost impact per home
would be approximately $733. Again, these fee charges can be controlled and reduced to a certain
extent if the
are lans prepared to conform with Town standards and 3rd and 4th reviews can be
p
avoided.
Attachment D is the comparison of fees for the Commercial Scenario of 100,000 square feet and 10
acres in size. You will note in these comparison tables that the revised fees bring the Town more in
line with what the other surrounding jurisdictions charge for these services. Within this fee structure,
the developer consultants who are submitting plans still have opportunities to reduce these costs from
the totals shown by ensuring that plans conform to Town standards by the first and second submittal
stages, thereby eliminating the need for third and fourth submittal fees.
Based on direction received by the Town Council, a resolution to amend the Town's Development
Services Fee schedule could be brought back for Council consideration at a regular meeting in early
November.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 3 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment A — Residential and Commercial Development Fees — Current and Proposed
2. Attachment B — Development Review Submittal Schedule
3. Attachment C — Residential Scenario — Jurisdictional Comparison of Fees Charged
4. Attachment D — Commercial Scenario —Jurisdictional Comparison of Fees Charged
/keyYlds
Stacey Lem y
Finance Director
0,4 bt.,
David Andrews, Town Manager
Residential and Commercial Development Fees ATTACHMENT A
Town of Oro Valley Town of Oro Valley
IPlan Sets Current Proposed
.c4-6 $3,000.00 up to 10 lots+$40.00/ $3,500.00 up to 2 ac+
1st Submittal ea addtl lot
EL 1st addtl ac
> Title Report Review Fee $0.00 $200.00
tTi
c Drainage Report Review $0.00 $650.00+$20/ac
a)
I-
- Archaeology Report Review $0.00 $100.00
L
co
c Ph. I Environmental Assessment Review $0.00 $100.00
E
- Traffic Impact Analysis Review $0.00
a_
Geological Technical Reports Review $0.00 $100.00
c
4' 2nd Submittal No fees No fees
a)
E
o 3rd Submittal Flat Fee 50%of Original Plan Review
TD $100.00 Fee
>
a) Flat Fee 50%of Original Plan Review
Q 4th Submittal
$100.00 Fee
1st Submittal $1,000.00 up to 2 ac+$60.00
u) Included with Tentative Plat Fee each addtl ac
C
2nd Submittal No fees No fees
No fees 50%of Original Plan Review
co 3rd Submittal Fee
73
CNo fees 50%of Original Plan Review
J 4th Submittal Fee
$1,000.00 up to 2 ac+$60.00
1st Submittal Included with Tentative Plat Fee each addtl ac
0
a_ 2nd Submittal No fees No fees
a.z 50%of Original Plan Review
0_ No
3rd Submittal fees Fee
a.
z 50%of Original Plan Review
4th Submittal No fees Fee
$1,000.00 up to 10 lots+$20.00/
1st Submittal ea. addlt lot $1,000.00+$30.00/ac
Title Report Review $0.00 $200.00
CC&R Review $0.00 $500.00
c1i
• Assurance Agreement Review $0.00 $500.00
Tu 2nd Submittal No fees No fees
C
LT_ 50%of Original Plan Review
3rd Submittal Flat Fee
Fee
$100.00
No fees 50%of Original Plan Review
4th Submittal Fee
1
Residential and Commercial Development Fees ATTACHMENT A
Town of Oro Valley Town of Oro Valley
Plan Sets Current Proposed
C
cu
CI
sci) 1st Submittal $130/sheet $500.00+$200.00/sheet
a)
V)
co
cm
c 2nd Submittal No fees No fees
c�
L 50%of Original Plan Review
0 3rd Submittal $100/sheet Fee
di
C
$100/sheet 50%of Original Plan Review
(0 4th Submittal
CI
1st Submittal $130/sheet $500.00+$200.00/sheet
_� 2nd Submittal No fees No fees
$100/sheet
3rd Submittal
50%of Original Plan Review
cm Fee
Tc6
$100/sheet 50%of Original Plan Review
04th Submittal Fee
1st Submittal $130/sheet $100.00+$100.00/sheet
C
2nd Submittal No fees No fees
0
Cl $100/sheet 50%of Original Plan Review
a. 3rd Submittal Fee
a_
50%of Original Plan Review
U) $100/sheet g
4th Submittal Fee
7 E $720.00 for 1st 100,000 CY+ 1/2%of construction cost or
aw $50.00 ea addtl 10,000 CY $500.00,Whichever is Greater
Planning &Zoning Fee Updates
'Administrative Review No Charge $40.00 per hour
'Final Plat Scriveners Error No Charge $30.00 per hour
Minor Land Division No Charge 50%of Preliminary Plat
Charge
Minor Revisions to Previously Approved No Charge 50%of Original Plan Fee
Plans g
2
m panssI iCouedn000
—I— Jo aleop.iao
W
CO2 _.
I _.
5 o:-
E cTU
Qc a) Q a. aW
uoTsa1�
o O b }uawdoIanaa
m o >CD L-
•O
v0 .a, = t a.
cn 0 w cn :471,
G
VI
z
: E c3)
O ca
U
oo � te
13 a'
> 0") � Q
_
x U o
a) m co
a.
Q o .0 a)
LL c .5 CD
CO a) _
E c o
0
a) `� a'
CL CL — panssI
— a'c ' c' o l! t_wad 6uiplin8
�� o u
_ a)
RS •a 10 O U) OU m m u_ cn
> C CD - "a: 2 12 a)
V
— o -- � 2 --E= � a?
00 c6 c-8a- � o c �
O W0 0 C
O a) o, a)
� — O I 0 u_ 0) c'
CU N . ca.—
a.)
Ore
W =._ c m < 0 °' o2
a-+ E .=
. a) o
_ COW
- 0
L y
Q) (z L
1 ,Cs E (n — o d Io lenoaddy panssi 0,a 7-/)
Q CD N �iouno�'8 ao�(ew 4ivaaad fiuip�a� '5 a U
O A � E c Ova_
4� a) g co U)
W coa)
C0 .� C 0 C`7 LL
a.
C C a)
§ U N n- U N : c 0
a) R3 > a. O o a) o
— m -0 oa. O Oa. L. Eu_ -0 c i-
cu 0 2 a_> a_ > , CO
o L — — U) a� o c > 0
(f.-)
o W
— as a)
U
a. a a) dd/da 40 Ienoaddy
— <W _ Iiounoa'2 aoiCew .0
— -.0� "a m
vU
— _
C
a) .� c o U a O
c _ L. cn V O a_ — O a. -
J a. a. 0- w -a cn
E — . O a Q z a U) C a)
cn N E C co 0 O
I. — a o a) Q•— c) a. a 0 o -° 0
0O a_ c cn N
L C 0 c a) o c o
— a) o 0 0 cncC0cn L
2 eL-0 o
a)
CL — o v O O
U a) — U) u0480!Iddy Z
`o— a Q
0 Q -aa d
>+
C O O O O O O 0
C O O O O O o 0
O a) CO M c c O
U ca oz
O d^ N O O N
CD } Ln Li) r E EA r' X
in EA EAEA Erk i)Q. E O
LLJ Ccz
O O au
U) O O O O 0
O
N: O O ti O O O M N
O w.. °) o o o o CO C 0
Q o E� in .cra) Ef}
.> EA E L N
CC
U)
Q
.ca
= o O O O O o
o O O O O O O o >
c
co c oo O o 0 0 c o o
O Tr O Oa M
cC
O d)1.6 CDin ti CD CO N v' +'
co
CV
C
E�4 M tD N N N
C to to to U> in 1` E
EftEa 0_
o 0
H
�— >
a)
C C)
oo O O O O O O o
CO O O O O O O o
E cisO O O O O O cis 0
O O O O cis O CO
O CO O M M ti
C ,- v- 00 1� N EA N O
to to to to Eft EftEft O) LL
O to
F- �
>1
C
L
G
O O O O O O O
• C) O O O O O O O 0
O (I) -aO O O O O O O OO E
O O O O CO CO O O O O O
,� .>Cl) N.a)
M N ..r N 0 G M F-
O O N (f) 1n O N d' .,- O M
C a. ot> EA E!} EA Ef} EA Eft m
3to c
O
'Cr)
73
(a O
OOOG O
0 GOtO OO OO -Q WQ c)
M 00 tt N O T' Z J
CO O Oa) N CO M ti O J
4.O CO- EA EA N Ln N N- to O
3 to to EA EA EA r EA
- 0
0 O
ci) Vi
W U E
N u_LLIo�
O J W W W W W
C Cl. W W u_ W W u_ W ILI al
CD W Z W W LL W LL.
O � J LL LL LU Z Z H CZ
ie
— o Q a O I J Q Z -0 ca
�= o H a Q J W W a w
a�
N (S Z W f1 J cn a 0_ 0_
Q o H Q a J °� Z Q. Q a)
Q O (Ni C U Q (. a Z c
O o >,lr) ca U a Z Z a D W U 0
co V } Q Q O
cu• II II a z Z J J Q fncc W
> (n U J J J Q I•- J J
OO
WQI OI-M C i c I- I- I- Q E
pF-O I- O I- 0_
a O O
o o },
N >"t C 0 Q
0
Ct o D w U ~
c'3
CL
c
_C
(13 CL CL
(13 a) c13 a3
CO co
soo
-Z3 CN
C C 0_ E 0 U)E CO >
a 0)
J
Z a.
0
A
C o O 0 0
O0
O CO N 0 0 0 CO
V ch N O CO 0 N
0 N. O O 0 0 0 gi
in 1.6ta
h X
d. } E �} .
c
Z
cz
W — — 1— 1—..... .....-1 1—. C
= a)
0 0 o
Ca U) O
0 O N
0 0 0 O CNA in
N
0
�«- CNA ciO O pp O pp O
Q O N ta 4d) CN
I rte', U, ta V>
U a)
< o
cu
a)
Co o
.c o O 0 0 0 0 O N
ca Lri 00 CC
a) O 0 Oa
ti U v- in C)
O cisNI-
co toiris
1.6
E
te
o a)
i— a
co Q
= Y
G O O 0 O as a 0 o J
E 0 O O G O ci o
�.
in o O Co o o M a)
p O O 0 N T' N
o O CO Tt 1
0 to to to U, c
F- a)
a)
�. �. �� C
L
o
0 O 0 Q
O
> a) U. O 0 0 O 0 0 0 E
2 N .0 O O O Oa O0 (1)
0HQ O O CoCG CO 0 O O
CD
w- Q- V) CD O 0 0 � N U)
Q — 0 ta
N N Co N �'
U, UFS t te ME) :4=,CC2 V?
46
O U)
F- 76
....--1 .---- �� 1--, —. — 1.--. U
>.% O
N J
CW
O
0 0 0 0 0 M _J
o Lti o
0 0
0 0 O 0 •• Q
0 0
.z) >
LI) c 0 0 Co
M co Ls) gct 0
to to co
_ to to �' 0
0
N 0 •• ui
o
*k F_ ca
EO
N x �. —1 O a)
It w 0
O_ = w c0i u)
L (T) W LL OO cm
cu O c r: w w w
IL W W W }•
0 C }. z `l W W �n
U) Q Z w w L F_ N -0
c. Q LL. CO H
' v = o a. -� O Z Z co ca
`�_ ~ a. a. 0 J W W
E o ,, 0 cz o a Z a a. z a. a. co a
Q— > Q
0 o 0 > = a U a Q a. 0 0 s2 n
> N 11 o co 0J U) Q. 0 a. 0 W0
o
Q �_ N o a. LU Z Z Q D
p C Cn 0 0 > Q 0 J 0 W Li! 0
CD CL -CD Ln U w J H Z Q 0
•L O O JQ > F- Q J a)
� 2 u)
(I) t Q F- ~ a. F- H
E cu O
J F- Ooo p Q 0ELEo > 2 F- F-
oO0 0a (CO
U U r- w U F-
C ) 06
Co c -�
01 C
p
LCD
C a)
CD Z
L a- Lf)
a) D El t6
— u) ,^ L
p J CL
i
i
Development Review Fees
Study Session
September 24t", 2008
Fee Update Considerations
GFOA Recommended "Best Practices" and
Strategic Plan goal
Fees last reviewed in 2003
Increase cost recovery percentage in
development review process
Provide incentive for correct 1st plan
submittals
___.
Remain competitive with surrounding
jurisdictions
•
1
HighlightsPro osed Fee
p
Performed man-hour analysis to determine
cost of service
Increased cost recovery percentages for
development review fees
New fees for 3rd and 4th plan submittals
Town remains competitive with surrounding
jurisdictions
Proposed fees modeled after Town of
Marana fee structure
Current vs. Proposed Fees
Plan Current Proposed
Sheets Oro Valley Fees Oro Valley Fees
1st Submittal $3,000 up to 10 lots+ $3,500 up to 2 acres+
$40/each additional lot $90/each additional acre
Title Report Review Fee $0.00 $200
Drainage Report Review $0.00 $650+$20/acre
Archaeology Report
Review $0.00 $100
Ph.I Environmental $0.00 $100
Preliminary/Tentative Assessment Review
Plat/Development Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Review $0.00 $100+$30/acre
1111111111111
Geological Technical $0.00
Reports Review $100
2nd Submittal No fees No fees
3rd Submittal $100 Flat Fee 50%of Original Plan
Review Fee
4th Submittal No fees 50%of Original Plan
Review Fee
2
Current vs. Proposed Fees
Current Proposed Current Proposed
Plan Oro Valley Oro Valley Plan Oro Valley Oro Valley
Sheets Fees Fees Sheets Fees Fees
Included $1000 up Included $1000 up to
to 2 acres 2 acres+
1st with 1st with $60/each
+$60/each
Submittal Tentative additional Submittal Tentative additional
Plat Fee Plat Fee
acre acre
2nd
Submittal No fees No fees 2nd No fees No fees
Submittal
Landscape NPPP&
Plans NPPO
50%of
Original 50%of
, .........=. 3rd 3rd Original
Submittal No fees Plan Submittal No fees Plan
Review
Fee Review Fee
50%of
Original 50%of
4th 4th Original
Submittal No fees Plan Submittal No fees Plan
Review
Fee Review Fee
Current vs. Proposed Fees
Proposed Current Proposed
Current Oro Oro Valley Plan Oro Valley Oro Valley
Plan Sheets Valley Fees Fees Sheets Fees Fees
$1,000 up to
1st 10 lots+ $1000+
Submittal $20/each $30/acre 1st $500+
additional Submittal $130/sheet $200/sheet
lot
Title Report
Review $0.00 $200.00
CC&R 2nd
Review $0.00 $500.00 Submittal No fees No fees
Assurance Paving,
Final Plat Agreement $0.00 $500.00 Grading&
Review Sewer Plan 50%of
� ........ 2nd No fees No fees Original
Submittal 3rd $100/sheet Plan
Submittal
Review
50%of Fee
3rd $100 Original
Submittal Flat Fee Plan
Review Fee 50%of
50%of 4th Original
4th Original Submittal $100/sheet Plan
Submittal No fees Plan Review
Review Fee Fee
3
Current vs. Proposed Fees
Plan Current Proposed Current Proposed
Sheets Oro Valley Oro Valley Plan Oro Valley Oro Valley
Fees Fees Sheets Fees Fees
1st $100+
Submittal $130/sheet $100/sheet
2nd No fees No fees
Submittal $720(Res.)
$250(Com.) 1/2%of
50%of for 1st const.cost
SWPPPGrading
3rd $100/sheet Original Permit N/A 10,000 CY+ or$500,
Plan Submittal Plan $50 each whichever
Review Fee additional is greater
10,000 CY
50%of
4th $100/sheet Original
Submittal Plan
Review Fee
Planning & Zoning Fee Updates
Current Proposed
Plan Sheets Oro Valley Fees Oro Valley Fees
Administrative Review No Charge $40.00 per hour
Final Plat Scriveners Error No Charge $30.00 per hour
Minor Land Division No Charge 50%of Preliminary Plat Charge
Minor Revisions to Previously No Charge 50%of Original Plan Fee
Approved Plans
4
100 Lot Residential Subdivision
Fee Comparison
Town of Oro
Town of Valley Town Town City Pima
Plan Sets Oro Valley Proposed of Manana of Sahuarita of Tucson County
Revised Fee
TOTAL PRELIMINARY/TENTATIVE
Preliminary/Tentative Plat PLAT FEE $6,800 $14,790 $16,490 $5,905 $4,798 $6,059
Landscape Plans TOTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FEE $0 $5,360 $1,850 $650 $0 $1,586
NPPP,NPPO Plans TOTAL NPPP/NPPO FEE $0 $5,360 $1,000 $75 $0 $881
Final Plat TOTAL FINAL PLAT FEE $2,935 $9,200 $8,300 $3,500 $4,798 $5,995
Paving&Sewer Plan TOTAL PAVING 8.SEWER FEE $5,280 $7,400 $7,300 $6,840 $0 $5,401
Grading Plan TOTAL GRADING PLAN FEE $2,640 $4,200 $2,700 $2,250 $915 $1,283
SWPPP Plan TOTAL SWPPP PLAN FEE $1,320 $1,000 $420 $210 $0 $0
Grading Permit TOTAL GRADING PERMIT FEE $970 $26,000 $52,100 $52,100 $4,820 $0
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES $19,945 $73,310 $90,160 $71,530 $15,330 $21,205
100 000 SF Commercial Development
Fee Comparison
Town of
Town of Oro Valley Town of Town of City of Pima
Plan Sets Oro Valley Proposed Manana Sahuarita Tucson County
Revised Fee
Development Plan TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FEE $4,055 $10,190 $10,150 $3,155 $2,273 $10,738
Landscape Plans TOTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FEE $0 $2,960 $900 $450 $0 $1,022
NPPP NPPO TOTAL NPPP/NPPO FEE $0 $2,960 $600 $75 $0 $599
Paving,Grading& TOTAL PAVING,GRADING 8.SEWER
Sewer Plan FEE $3,300 $5,000 $7,060 $6,550 $1,830 $5,064
SWPPP Plan TOTAL SWPPP PLAN FEE $660 $600 $420 $210 $0 $0
Grading Permit TOTAL GRADING PERMIT FEE $450 $12,500 $25,100 $25,100 $1,820 $0
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES $8,465 $34,210 $44,230 $35,540 $5,923 $17,423
5
Development Services Cost Recovery
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals
FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08
Total Revenues $2,541,853 $2,450,113 $2,361,799 $2,749,675
Total Expenditures $2,501,950 $2,863,119 $3,163,404 $3,201,630
Surplus/(Deficit) $39,903 ($413,006) ($801,605) ($451,955)
Cost Recovery(%) 102% 86% 75% 86%
Cost
Impact to Homeowner
Based on fees for 100 Residential Lot Scenario
Current Fees Proposed Fees
$19,945/100 lots $73,310/100 lots
= $199 per lot = $733 per lot
........_.
6
Flat Fees vs. Per Hour Fees
Two billing methods are related — man-hour
analysis used
More expensive to administer on per hour
basis
Flat fee method more predictable for
developers
Flat fee method consistent with other
_____ jurisdictions
Flat fee method provides fees to Town up
front
Next Steps
Council Feedback
Resolution with amended fee schedule for
adoption
7
Questions or Comments
8
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2
Page 1 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: STACEY LEMOS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
AINSLEY ANNE LEGNER, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT REVENUE AND FEE POLICY
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 2008, this issue came before Town Council for consideration. Staff was directed to refine the
information provided and bring the issue back to Town Council for further discussion at a Study Session. The
following data is provided for your review.
During the Parks and Recreation budget review for fiscal year 2007 — 2008, the Town Council directed staff
to evaluate the Department's revenue and fees and to look for opportunities to maximize cost recovery.
The Finance Department worked with Parks and Recreation staff to research cost recovery models and policies
from other jurisdictions, both statewide and nationwide. The research showed that communities largely set their
cost recovery policies based on the level of benefit that the parks and recreation programs and facilities offer
both the community as a whole and individuals on a more personal basis. Facilities and programs that offer
more community-wide benefit are subsidized more by tax dollars, while programs that offer a more personal,
individualized benefit are less subsidized by tax dollars and have a higher cost recovery percentage from user
fees. The research did not reflect, however, any instances in which the full cost of an entire parks and
recreation department was fully recovered by user fees.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Revenue and Fee Policy
Based on the data gathered, staff prepared a proposed cost recovery policy based on a cost recovery pyramid
methodology. This methodology is fully explained in the attached document entitled "Town of Oro Valley
Parks and Recreation Revenue and Fee Policy."
Essentially, this recommended policy serves as a subsidy/cost recovery philosophy for the Parks and Recreation
programs and facility usage. This philosophy refers to the justification for the degree to which programs and
services are supported by tax subsidy as compared to user fees. Typically, park development, maintenance and
operations and departmental administrative costs are heavily subsidized through tax dollars and supplemented
by some incidental revenues. On the other hand, recreation programs and services are generally supported with
a mix of revenue from taxes and user fees.
This policy was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) at their March 11, 2008
meeting. PRAB voted unanimously to recommend this policy for approval to the Mayor and Town Council.
The policy was also reviewed by the Finance and Bond Committee on April 28, 2008.
As prescribed in Town Code, the Council has the authority to set facility usage fees, and the Parks and
Recreation Director is authorized to set fees for recreation/education activities and special events. Approval of
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24,2008
this Revenue and Fee Policy will complement the existing code, providinga framework for settingfees that
. .
evaluates all facility usage and programs using the same assumptions and criteria.
Options and Considerations
The Town Council may wish to have additional philosophical priorities incorporated into the Revenue and Fee
Policy. Other options to consider are discounts for residents, senior and/oryouth; revenue goals; and/or fee
. . .
differentials for peak time facility usage vs. non-peak time usage.
Ballard King and Associates completed an operations pro-forma for the Parks and Recreation Department in
2007 which identified a number of recommendations regarding parks and recreation fees. Although this report
g p
primarily focused on the operation of the proposed Naranja Town Site Park, the report offers valuable
suggestions which are applicable in this discussion. One recommendation was the implementation of resident
discounts. The report proposes that the Town charge non-residents an established "regular" fee, which would
o
be up to 25%more that the discounted resident fee.
If desired, Town Council may also wish to consider fee discounts for seniors and/orouth. Industry-wide, the
y y ,
use of these types of discounts is generally a reflection of community expectations. Ballard King suggested ested that
these discounts be used as a marketing tool rather than a discount based on need.
Finally, some Departments structure fees to provide a discount for facility use duringnon-peak hours. This may
facilitate additional income during times when the parks are either not used or have very little use.
Targets for Revenue
Many Parks and Recreation Departments across the country have target revenue goals for their Departments.
Currently, 15%. p
the Department is seeing a department-wide cost recovery rate of (See attached Cost Recovery
Analysis.) The Ballard King document suggests that the Department have a goal of consistentlycovering50%
of the
operational expenses of Naranja Town Site, although the document emphasizes that there is "little to no
possibility of recovering all of the operating expenses through facility revenues." This idea of a target revenue
goal could be translated to the entire Department, with incremental goals established for gm on oin improvement
g p
in the Department's cost recovery.
THE NEXT STEP
Staff will take the feedback from this Study Session and adjust the draft policy accordingly. The final draft of
the User Fee and Revenue Policy will be brought back to the Town Council for approval in October.
If approved, staff will utilize the policy to develop an updated fee schedule. Additionally, an assessment of the
fiscal impacts that can be expected will be included. Tentatively, this will come forward for Council
consideration and approval in December.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 3 of 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 24,2008
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department Revenue and Fee Policy
2. Parks and Recreation General Fund Cost Recovery Analysis
L/A44-6,5
Stacey Le o , Finance Director
Ainsley Legner, Parks and Recreation Director
t1 o' _
_ -i - L/_. .
ere e Watson, Assistant Town Manager
ai4,-.4,01---
David Andrews, Town Manager
Town of Oro Valley
Parks and Recreation Department
Proposed Revenue and Fee Structure
Philosophy
The Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department's philosophy for the setting of
fees will be based on a Cost Recovery Pyramid model. The base level of the
pyramid represents the mainstay of the Parks and Recreation Department. The
programs and services offered in the base level are fully subsidized by the Town.
As you progress up the pyramid the level of subsidy decreases as the programs
and services move from a community benefit to a more individual benefit. This
foundation and upward progression is intended to represent the Parks and
Recreation core mission while also reflecting the growth and maturity of the Town
as it attempts to enhance its program and facility offerings.
The following represent the five benefit levels (beginning with the peak level) of
the pyramid and the Town's desired cost recovery percentages for each level:
Highly Individual benefit — 75 — 100% Cost Recovery —The Town will recover 75
— 100% of the total costs to manage and operate the facility, program or service
in this level.
Mostly Individual benefit — 50 — 75% of Total Costs (Direct and Indirect) — The
Town will seek to recover 50 - 75% of the total costs for facilities, programs and
services that fall in this level.
Individual/Community benefit — 25 — 50% Cost Recovery — The Town will seek
to recover 25 — 50% of the total costs for facilities, programs and services that fall
in this level.
Community/Individual benefit — 0 — 25% Cost Recovery - The Town will seek to
recover 0 — 25% of the total costs for facilities, programs and services that fall in
this level.
Community benefit — 0% Cost Recovery — The Town will not charge a fee to
residents and the general public for this category because they provide a benefit
to the community as a whole. Tax dollars and General Fund appropriations will
subsidize 100 % of the costs to operate these facilities, programs and services.
The cost recovery percentages above, levels of benefits and a list indicating
where Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation programs fall in this continuum are
shown, in greater detail, in the attached documents. Definitions for the five
benefits are listed below.
Definitions
Direct Cost — A cost that can be traced to a single cost object. The entire cost
can be tied directly to one purpose without the need for cost allocation.
1
Town of Oro Valley
Parks and Recreation Department
Proposed Revenue and Fee Structure
Indirect Cost — A cost that can not easily be traced to a single cost object. It is
the cost of a resource that is used for more than one purpose.
Full Cost Recovery — This is achieved when all costs (direct and indirect) are
recovered through the collection of fees for a specific program or service.
Cost Recovery Percentage — A percent of the total costs (direct and indirect)
recovered by fees and charges; while the remainder is subsidized through tax
dollars.
Highly Individual benefit — These are facilities, services and programs which
g Y
respond to the needs and desires of consumers for particular activities. Their
benefit is primarily to the individual user. In this category, programs and services
should be priced to recover full cost.
Mostly Individual benefit — These are specialized services generally for specific
groups and may have a competitive focus. In this category, programs and
services may be priced to recover a portion of the full cost, including all direct
and indirect costs.
Individual/Community benefit — These are facilities, services and programs that
promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide an intermediate
level of recreational skill development. This category provides more individual
benefit and less community benefit and should be priced to reflect this.
Community/Individual benefit —These are facilities, services and programs which
promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide recreation skill
development. The focus of these services remain geared toward the community
but also provide increased one on one learning opportunities for individuals.
Facilities, services and programs in this category are typically assigned fees
based on a specified percent of direct and indirect costs.
Community benefit — These are facilities, services and programs which benefit
the community as a whole. These facilities, services and programs can increase
values, provide safety, address social needs and enhance the quality of
property
life for residents. These services are offered to residents at minimal or no fee.
Activity Fees — Fees charged to participate in an activity, program or class.
Event Fees — Fees charged to enter or participate in an event.
Facility Usage Fee — Per unit fees charged for use of the facilities.
2
Town of Oro Valley
Parks and Recreation Department
Proposed Revenue and Fee Structure
Responsibility and Authority
There are three types of Parks and Recreation fees. There are (1) Activity Fees,
(2) Event Fees, and (3) Facility Usage Fees. Each type of fee is established and
approved in a slightly different way. However, each fee is established using the
criteria as set forth in the Cost Recovery Pyramid as described below.
Parks and Recreation facility usage fees are set forth by the Town Council.
Parks and Recreation activity and event fees are set forth by the Parks and
Recreation Director as established in the Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 16,
Section 1-7.
All fees will be reviewed annually by Parks and Recreation and Finance staff.
completion Upon of the analysis, staff will present results to the Parks and
p
Recreation Advisory Board. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have the
option of forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council, if desired. Staff will
thenp resent recommendations for facility usage fee increases or changes to the
Town Council and report any increases or changes in the activity or event fees.
Establishment Criteria
In determining the fees and charges for Parks and Recreation programs and
services, the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department uses the following
criteria:
1. Cost of Service — Which will include both direct costs and indirect
costs
2. Beneficiaries of the Service — Cost recovery should be higher for
facilities, services, and programs that benefit the individual; while
taxes should subsidize facilities, services and programs that
provide a community benefit.
3. Comparable pricing from both local and non local jurisdictions and
similar service providers in the state.
The Parks and Recreation Director, at their discretion, may not seek to recover
any of the costs for programs, services, facilities and events deemed essential to
the enhancement of the quality of life for all Oro Valley residents. The Director
may also, at their discretion, seek to recover the full cost of the programs and
services that provide a greater benefit to specific groups or individuals.
3
00cfl1- DWUO > Wt1 >- JW > W _Ju
0
0
0
in
N
O
O
N
— 6
C N
w
E
vit to
N.
is
Q 0
w in
Q ■a
coE 0 vs O
,-.
..--1 , . >,
as ›, in :.--• is
SO.. to = Z3
1
W• 0 �> E c
co w . >, co c EO
E 0
co o 2 '5 o
CL U c 0
a)
Ta
>
o A
0
•
1 \N
t\N\
JW > WJ Oil. DWZWu_ - I-
COCO
(0 COOO N 0 0
v N 6Ni
v N_(0\ :1;
LU 0)O) Cfl
0)
CU
•— Cfl •— I- N- CO
,tLO
N N O Lf) CD
(0crl
o
Lf) CO O)
Q Q CO N CO
(ft 69- 69- Eft 6f} Eft Ef} 6f}
0 0 N. N. a-
O O CO 0 -
t/1 1 O O VoM N cis
CO
O 0) ._ L) O 0
�i6 ' CU r- - N. LU N
N
I- H 00 00 Ln
N- CO O
RS 6f} (ft EAEA- CU el- 09- 6f 6F}
i L
Q Q
CO CO VO 0
E = 0 0 E = N- N- LU
2 O O 2 .O 00 I: ' CO
i
O) as V' a) C� N N 0 0
N i L O O U.O i N CO CO M
d. v N N O. C.) N .i- �'
O >+ >+ N N a N N in
_at -a � 00 Eft t Ef} £ft '0 (309- 69 6F} (g
Ch 0
i = O C) C)
V a N = O 0 0 = O) CO N 0)
CD u- i . CD
O O O C) ti N N. N-
f . > O CO CO Q. O CO Ni CO
ca L oCO
(0 0 CO CO W N ti N c
c CDctS O O o
= v N c N LU � c ti O L v. O) N
• ('
�C LL
L U) U
CU O i Ef }EaEa 69 - 69- 69- 6f- 6F}
a 0 a) a)
Ce CO— co O co fX — co co N CO
_ Is CO 0 (0 = O LU N- COU) F- N (0 CO N (13 H 0) 0 N- CO o 6 CO CON-
M ♦.+ N- in in co N co N 0) 0
,CN �t N _ T- (V 'j' O)
tti w _ (0 a) CO 0) CO L in
a. E N CO d. E �- O N V'
;FS i.. r- N
CU
0 69- (A} 69- (f} 0 Ef- Ef} Ef} (1)-
U)
N
L
a) >> •- L
oci '0 C)
C C C a) — 5 a) O
> O >> > > O O Q O V
• cn - O �. c x O a)
O ca U o c O W
O a) � a o (arI