Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (857)Council Meeting Regular Session June 6, 2018 1 Town Council Meeting Announcements 2 Upcoming Meetings 3 4 Mercado Del Rio River Walk Trailhead Agreement Town Council June June 6, 2018 5 Good evening… Purpose Agreement for Mercado Del Rio River Walk Trailhead Ongoing maintenance Donation of funds for future improvements Satisfies conditions established on the Final Plat approved in 2005 Cañada Del Oro Wash Pusch View Lane 6 Cañada Del Oro Wash Pusch View Lane Oracle Road Rooney Ranch The Place at Rock Ridge Apartments Mercado Del Rio Commercial Center N Lot 4 7 Mercado Del Rio River Walk Trailhead Completed improvements: Parking Benches Connection to Cañada Del Oro multi-use path Agreement includes: Property owner’s responsibility for maintaining plants until maturity Donation of funds for future drinking fountain and water meter Installation of water line when Lot 4 develops Access to the trailhead in perpetuity Cañada Del Oro Wash 8 Summary and Recommendation Satisfies conditions established on the Final Plat approved in 2005 Staff recommends approval Cañada Del Oro Wash Pusch View Lane 9 10 Previously Approved Plans Final Plat Dedicated trailhead to the Town Established timeline for development Determined connection to the shared use path Master Development and Landscape Plans Defined amenities Depicted landscaping and connection to the Cañada Del Oro path 11 12 Miller Ranch Rezoning Town Council June 6, 2018 13 Good evening My name is ….. Purpose Proposed Rezoning R1-144 (large-lot residential) to R1-10 (medium-lot residential) Flexible Design Options Lot width Lot setbacks Recreation Area Credit Planning and Zoning Commission Our purpose for this item is to consider the proposed rezoning of an approx. 16-acre property known as Miller Ranch The application request’s the use of flexible design options enabled by the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Lastly, the PZC did recommend approval of the increase in density…more details later 14 La Cañada Drive Sunkist Road Tangerine Road Pima County La Cañada Ridge Vistoso Gateway The subject 16 acres is shown in yellow. Immediately west is Leman Academy and Tech Park/Commercial center w/similar size and height Unincorporated Pima County (Purple) to the north and west are large-lot residential East across La Canada Drive is Vistoso Gateway. NE of the site is the La Canada Ridge 15 Vistoso Gateway La Canada Ridge Proposal R1-144 (large-lot residential) to R1-10 (medium-lot residential) Approximately 16.1-acres 27 lots 12,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1.8 du/ac (2.5 du/ac General Plan) Flexible Design Options - Lot width - Lot setbacks Enhanced Buffer yards Access The proposed R1-10 zoning is 27-lots Larger lots (west side) and smaller lots (east side) 1.8 homes per acre (LESS DENSE THAN DU/AC OF GPA) ---again for context Leman Academy Includes FDO’s: Reduction in lot width and lot setbacks The applicant has included a 14 foot wide landscaped buffer along the western border and 60 feet on north Access Current vs. Town required 16 Site Plan Revisions June 6, 2018 Town Council Meeting 27 lots 37 lots 40-45 lots Property has gone thru several iterations over the years, with essentially the same design for the site Site subject of a GPA in 2014 = MDR w/2.5 du/ac Site plan on left (40-45) Primarily focused on density and land use transition between the less intense uses to the west and the higher intensity uses to the east 1st rezoning (2015) Site plan center (37 lots) Current rezoning Site plan right (27 lots) Beige (western lots) have special restrictions Yellow (eastern lots) regular code requirements Again Leman for context 17 Site Plan Revisions continued * per code As you can see a number of components of the plan have changed with each version after the applicant continued to work with the neighbors. 18 La Cañada Drive Tangerine Road Sunkist Drive Open Space Rezoning – 7.0 acres (43%) Critical Resource Areas (CRA) - Washes/Riparian Areas 3.4 acres (95% preservation) Resource Management Area (RMA) 3.7 acres (25% preservation) Includes 1.2 acres wash restoration Saguaro mitigation Recreation Areas Approximately 1 acre Approximately 6.4-acres (40%) is preserved as OS… CRA – these are the most sensitive/significant for wildlife movement the full length of the rezoning area (3.3 acres) RMA – these supplement the CRA and make sure there is continuity of habitat (3.1 acres) Saguaros – will be inventoried as part of future development submittals…in addition to all other code requirements, all +24’ & 2 arms must be PIP Recreation Areas – approximately 1 acresin distributed in 3 areas throughout the development 19 Traffic Sunkist Road: Public road with a paved connection to La Cañada Drive Will entail approximately 500 feet of new paved surface School traffic: School already congested Phase 2 expansion will contribute Mixing subdivision traffic represents a safety concern LA CAÑADA RIDGE 20 Rezoning Request - Review tools Your Voice, Our Future General Plan – vision, guiding principles, goals and policies Zoning Code Neighborhood compatibility View Impacts Access Applicant’s proposal is in conformance with the YV,OF General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies Land Use Map (MDR <2.5du/ac) Lastly, the application was reviewed for conformance with the Zoning Code: Neighborhood compatibility and the land use transition Impacts to neighbors, specifically view impacts Traffic 21 2014 General Plan Amendment Medium Density Residential (MDR) 40-45 lots Max 2.5 homes per acre Significant Public Involvement Lot Size Transitions La Canada Drive Sunkist Road Tangerine Road GPA approved in 2014…again The focus of this amendment was the density for the property and the appropriate land use transition between large-lot (west) and tech park uses (east). Max cap of 2.5 du/ac Proposal meets the GP, in fact goes beyond the criteria established.. 22 Public Participation 5 Neighborhood Meetings Numerous informal meetings Concerns Traffic/Access Building height Compatibility Neighborhood outreach by applicant Between the GPA and rezoning applications (again…all very similar designs) 5 neighborhood meetings have been held Numerous informal meetings Primary concerns included Traffic/access Building heights Compatibility W/ this application, 1 neighborhood NM was held as the issues were the same as previous meetings. Staff asked neighbors if there were any new issues, there being none, it was determined all participants would be best served by the applicant meeting with neighbors 1 vs. 1 Since that meeting leading up to PZC, the applicant has been working with a number of neighbors to try and address their remaining concerns…let them provide additional details 23 Summary and Recommendation Consistent with Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Zoning Code Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Approval, subject to conditions in Attachment 1. Staff condition 6 - Access PZC held a public hearing on 5/1/2018 Commission found the request was: Consistent with: -General Plan -Zoning Code The recommend approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1… However, they were split on the access question (staff condition 6) and did not provide a recommendation on that specific issue.   24 25 Tangerine Road La Canada Drive Sunkist Road R1-36 R1-7 Pima County SR R1-144 R-4 This map shows the zoning of the property as follows: Abutting to the east is the Miller Ranch Commercial Area and Technology Park with C-1 and T-P zoning. R1-36 and R1-20 zoning to the east across La Canada Drive To the south across Tangerine Road is R1-10 and R1-7 zoning And to the west is larger lot zoning for 3.3 or greater lot sizes in both the Town and unincorporated Pima County 26 Site Plan Revisions 2015 Rezoning 2018 Rezoning 27 lots 37 lots La Canada Drive Sunkist Road Tangerine Road La Canada Drive Sunkist Road Tangerine Road Following the GPA, a rezoning application was filed which proposed 37 lots Ultimately it was pulled by the applicant… Since then, the single most important change in the area, was the development of Leman Academy…The Academy, at 34’, established the character of the tech park/commercial area. As discussed previously, the applicant has provided a revised site plan for 27 lots reflecting changes after working with neighbors…again, I’ll let the applicant go into more detail regarding those changes. 27 28 The Residences at Miller Ranch | Oro Valley Rezoning Application Mayor & Council Hearing | 06.06.2018 29 Miller Ranch | Approved GP Amendment General Plan Amendment: General Plan Designation Medium Density Residential Proposed Residential Program Proposed: 40 Lots Proposed Lot Size: West Side: Min. 10,000 SF East Side: Min. 7,000 SF Approved by Mayor & Council Approved February 5, 2014 Maximum Residential Density 2.5 RAC 30 30 Miller Ranch | Previous Rezoning TDP Plan Tentative Development Plan: Proposed Residential Program Proposed: 38 Lots Gross Density: 2.3 RAC Proposed Lot Size: West Side: Min. 10,000 SF East Side: Min. 7,200 SF Access from La Canada Drive Emergency Access to Sunkist Road 31 31 Miller Ranch | Previous Rezoning TDP Plan Tentative Development Plan: Proposed Residential Program Proposed: 37 Lots Gross Density: 2.3 RAC Proposed Lot Size: West Side: Min. 10,000 SF East Side: Min. 8,000 SF Access from Sunkist Road / Improved Sunkist Road Increased Landscape Buffer along the Northern and Western Edge 32 32 Miller Ranch | Previous Rezoning Existing Proposed View 6 Concerns from 2015 Rezoning Effort: Lot sizes Rezone to R1-10 and not R1-7 Increase buffers on North & West Single-story/two-story Access Concern with surrounding County zoning permits livestock 33 33 Miller Ranch | Leman Academy 34 34 Miller Ranch | Concept Plan January 10, 2018 Neighborhood Meeting Total Lots: 30 Gross Density: 1.86 RAC 25% reduction from 2.5 RAC approved Rezone Request: R1-10 Increased buffers on west and north Primary access on La Canada Drive with secondary access on Sunkist Road Combinations of 1- and 2-story homes 35 35 Miller Ranch | West Cross-Sections 36 36 Miller Ranch | North Cross-Section 37 37 Miller Ranch | Viewshed Study – View 1 Existing Proposed View 3 Total Lots: 30 Combination of 1- and 2-story homes 38 38 Miller Ranch | Viewshed Study – View 2 Existing Proposed View 4 Total Lots: 30 Combination of 1- and 2-story homes 39 39 Miller Ranch | Viewshed Study – View 3 Existing Proposed View 6 Total Lots: 30 Combination of 1- and 2-story homes 40 40 Miller Ranch | Outreach with Neighbors Existing Proposed View 6 After January 10th neighborhood meeting: Simulations of viewsheds from neighbors’ properties 41 41 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 30 1- and 2-story homes along western edge 42 42 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 30 1- and 2-story homes along western edge 43 43 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 30 1- and 2-story homes along western edge 44 44 Miller Ranch | Rezoning Submittal Commitments: Total Lots: 29 Gross Density: 1.8 RAC Single-story homes along western edge Enhanced Bufferyards Exceed minimum requirements along west and north property boundaries 50% of the trees to include minimum of 24‐inch box trees or salvaged trees replanted from the site Mature vegetation to be clustered in the bufferyard areas closest to the westernmost and northernmost proposed lots on the site 45 45 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 28 1-story homes along western edge 46 46 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 28 1-story homes along western edge 47 47 Miller Ranch | Photo Simulation Total Lots: 28 1-story homes along western edge 48 48 Miller Ranch | Revised Concept Plan Total Lots: 28 Gross Density: 1.7 RAC Address viewshed concerns of neighbors closest to the project 49 49 Miller Ranch | Revised Concept Plan Current Request: Total Lots: 27 Gross Density: 1.67 RAC Number of lots reduced by 1/3 Additional single-story limitations Lots 1-7 along west side of interior roadway Lots 24-25 at southern end of project Minimum Lot Size West side: 12,000 SF East side: 10,000 SF 50 50 Miller Ranch | Rezoning Request Open Space/Common Area Total Open Space: Approx. 7 AC (43% of the Site) ESL Critical Resource Area (CRA) 95% Open Space Requirement Enhance Wash Corridor Approx. 3.3 AC ESL Resource Management Area (RMA) Approx. 3.7 AC 51 51 Miller Ranch | Rezoning Request Enhanced Bufferyards Exceed minimum requirements along west and north property boundaries West: 14-foot landscape buffer North: min. 60-foot landscape buffer 50% of the trees to include minimum of 24‐inch box trees or salvaged trees replanted from the site Mature vegetation to be clustered in the bufferyard areas closest to the westernmost and northernmost proposed lots on the site “Coming to the Nuisance” Disclosure to future Miller Ranch residents that adjacent properties are permitted to have livestock 52 52 Miller Ranch | Neighborhood Outreach Existing Proposed View 6 Summary of Neighborhood Interaction: 5 neighborhood meetings associated with General Plan Amendment and first Rezoning request Official neighborhood meeting on January 10, 2018 11 small meetings with surrounding neighbors Dozens of phone conversations with neighbors in surrounding area Additional meeting with group of neighbors and follow-up prior to Planning & Zoning Commission meeting 53 53 Miller Ranch | Neighborhood Outreach Existing View 6 54 Support Protest/Concern 54 Questions Thank you Keri Silvyn | Lazarus, Silvyn & Bangs, P. C. ksilvyn@lsblandlaw.com | 520.207.4464 55 56 Utilities/TEP - Zoning Code Amendment Town Council Meeting June 6, 2018 Purpose Define what is a visually significant utility upgrade and appropriate review process Thresholds defined for the following: Pole height and diameter Segment replacement length Number and thickness of wires Pole mounted equipment Planning & Zoning Commission 58 Review Tools Your Voice, Our Future High priority on “Preserving the scenic beauty and environment” Ranked top community value “Develop criteria with other agencies/providers for the responsible siting of utilities…while considering their placement.” Conditional Use Permit Criteria View impacts primary concern View analysis required 59 Summary and Recommendation Conforms with General Plan Balances view conservation and provision of services Establishes appropriate thresholds for utility maintenance Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval 60 61 #1: Pole Height and Diameter Current Code: Conditional Use Permit for new or larger replacement poles Request: Permitted Use: 50% or less height and diameter increase Conditional Use: > 50% 62 #2: Segment Replacement Length Current Code: Conditional Use Permit > 600’ in length, within a 12 month period Request: Conditional Use Permit > 5000’ in length, within a 12 month period 63 #3: Wires Current Code: Conditional Use Permit for new or thicker wires Request: Permitted use: Up to 2” in thickness 25% or less increase in #, not to exceed 10 wires Conditional use: > thickness and number of wires CDO High School New Cable 64 #4: Pole Mounted Equipment Current Code: Conditional Use Permit for any larger or new pole mounted equipment Request: Permitted: 160 or 64 cubic feet depending on road type Conditional Use: > in size 65 Arterials Roads Collector Roads and Residential Streets Circulation Map Your Voice, Our Future 66 Temporary and Emergency Services Current Code: No CUP for new temporary wires and poles, if 4 months or less. Extensions require Town Council approval. Request: Extensions be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Town Engineer New Construction Emergency Power or Telephone Service 67 68 TEP Oro Valley Code Amendment Application Todd Stocksdale, TRAnsmission and distribution supervisor 69 Application Purpose Timely meet capacity and reliability needs to promote economic development Allow for flexibility in meeting current National Electric Safety Code (NESC) standards Provide safe and reliable power Reduce Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for common and standard pole upgrades 70 Considerations Emergency Clause Pole Height Pole Diameter Wire Diameter Above Ground Equipment Pole Segment Replacement Length 71 Emergency Clause Current Code Exception (22.a.ii.b): New utility poles and wires erected for temporary use for periods not in excess of four (4) months for purely temporary purposes such as for providing temporary building construction power or for emergency power or telephone service, or for the furnishing of power to temporary outdoor activities. This four (4)-month period may be extended by the Town Council if good cause is shown. Recommended Exception: “….This four (4)-month period may be extended by the PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND TOWN ENGINEER if good cause is shown.” Purpose: To safely and efficiently repair equipment in case of an emergency. To facilitate temporary construction power for larger projects. 72 Pole Height Current Code (22.a.ii.c): “…new utility poles under the latter clause must be poles of the same or less size, diameter, height and in the same location as the pole or poles being replaced, and in addition, must be of the same classification as to strength and purpose within the utility industry as pole or poles being replaced.” Recommended Exception: FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OR LESS INCREASE TO A POLE HEIGHT AND/OR DIAMETER, PROVIDED THAT THE NEW POLE HAS A TAPERED DESIGN. Purpose: To meet national safety standards which commonly require an increase in pole height. 73 Distribution: La Cholla Blvd Comparison 74 > 50% Height Change 38.5’ Wood Pole 56.5’ Steel Pole 75 Pole Diameter and Self-Supporting Poles Current Code: Current Code (22.a.ii.c): “…new utility poles under the latter clause must be poles of the same or less size, diameter, height and in the same location as the pole or poles being replaced, and in addition, must be of the same classification as to strength and purpose within the utility industry as pole or poles being replaced.” Recommended Exceptions: FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OR LESS INCREASE TO A POLE HEIGHT AND/OR DIAMETER, PROVIDED THAT THE NEW POLE HAS A TAPERED DESIGN. STRUCTURAL SUPPORT POLE(S) USED FOR A CHANGE IN LINE DIRECTION OR LINE TERMINATION ONLY. Purpose: To meet national safety standards which commonly require an increase in pole diameter. To avoid the visual impact of guying. 76 Diameter Exception Self Supporting Structure Guy Wire 77 Wire Diameter Current Code (22.a.ii.c): “It is unlawful to erect, posses or maintain any utility poles or wires above the surface of the ground except after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit…” Recommended Exceptions: CHANGES TO WIRE DIAMETER NOT TO EXCEED TWO (2”) INCHES IN THICKNESS. TWENTY FIVE (25%) PERCENT OR LESS INCREASE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WIRES, NOT TO EXCEED TEN (10) WIRES. Purpose: To meet engineering standards and to provide commonly required additional load capacity for residential and commercial development. 78 Pole Mounted Equipment Current Code (22.a.ii.c): “It is unlawful to erect, posses or maintain any utility poles or wires above the surface of the ground except after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit…” Recommended Exception: POLE MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, EXCLUDING WIRES, INSULATORS, AND ATTACHMENT DEVICES, WITH A SIZE OF 160 CUBIC FEET OR LESS ON MAJOR OR MINOR ARTERIAL ROADS AS DEPICTED IN THE YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE, GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP. POLE MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCLUDING WIRES, INSULATORS, AND ATTACHMENT DEVICES, WITH A SIZE OF 64 CUBIC FEET OR LESS ON MAJOR COLLECTOR, MINOR COLLECTOR OR LOCAL ROADS AS DEPICTED IN THE YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE, GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP. Purpose: To allow flexibility when adding equipment to poles in order to provide new service to customers and maintain system reliability. 79 Major/Minor Collector and Local Roads < 64 ft³ 80 Major or Minor Arterial Roads < 160 ft³ 81 Conditional Use Permit Required > 160 ft³ 82 82 Pole Segment Replacement Length Current Code (22.a.ii.c): Related to exceptions requiring CUP: “Replacements involving less than 600 hundred feet of continuous poles and wires on any transmission or distribution line in any 12 month period…” Recommended Exception: ALL PROJECTS INVOLVING 5,000 FEET OR LESS OF CONTINOUS POLES AND WIRES WITHIN A TWELVE (12) MONTH PERIOD. Purpose: To provide flexibility for TEP to perform standard maintenance in a timely and cost effective manner. 83 Pole Segment Replacement Length 84 Conclusion CUP Exceptions Requested: Extension of temporary use period by Planning and Zoning Administrator and Town Engineer. Fifty (50%) percent or less increase to a pole height and/or diameter, provided pole(s) taper. Structural support pole(s) used for a change in line direction or line termination. Wire diameter not to exceed two (2”) inches in thickness. Twenty five (25%) percent or less increase to the total number of wires, wires not to exceed ten (10). Pole mounted equipment with a size of 160 cubic feet or less on major or minor arterial roads, or 64 cubic feet or less on major collector, minor collector or local roads. All projects involving 5,000 feet or less of continuous poles and wires within a twelve (12) month period. Allow for “utility services that serve the current and future needs of the community” while protecting the “scenic value and appeal” of the town as part of the general plan. 85 Questions? 86 87 Transmission vs. Distribution 88 Grading Considerations 89 >50% Height Change 29’ Wood Pole 43’ Steel Pole 6 FT 90 Pole Mounted Equipment < 160 ft³ Three Phase Transformer Bank Approx. 160 ft³ 91 Pole Mounted Equipment < 160 ft³ Single Phase Transformer 92 Pole Mounted Equipment < 160 ft³ Recloser 93 Pole Mounted Equipment < 160 ft³ Capacitor 94 Pole Mounted Equipment < 160 ft³ Riser 95 Pole Mounted Equipment > 160 ft³ CUP Required: Regulator Bank 96 Pole Mounted Equipment > 160 ft³ CUP Required: Conversion Bank 97 Rules and Regulations: Undergrounding Tucson Electric Power Company Arizona Corporation Commission Rules and Regulations Section 7 (original sheet no. 907-11) Replacement of Overhead with Underground Distribution Facilities: Where a Customer has requested that existing overhead distribution facilities be replaced with underground distribution facilities, the total cost of such replacement will be paid by the Customer. 98 >30% Height Change 34’ Wood Pole 43’ Steel Pole 6 FT 6 FT 99 100 Five-Year Forecast General Fund and Highway Fund June 6, 2018 101 Forecast Overview Required per adopted financial policies Snapshot based upon current known information Serves as foundation for future budgets Sources: University of Arizona, AZ Dept. of Revenue, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, State Finance Advisory Committee and AZ Dept. of Transportation Forecast does NOT include County property tax for roads to fund pavement preservation Forecast not prepared for the Community Center Fund due to planned capital improvements Pleased to present the 5-year financial forecast this evening – specifically focusing on the General, Highway, Bed Tax Funds. We did not prepare a forecast for the Community Center Fund this year due to the pending results from the feasibility study being conducted on the golf and food & bev operations. Our adopted financial policies require the preparation of this forecast, and we typically present this in conjunction with the adoption of the budget so that you can see how budget decisions for next fiscal year impact the future years’ financial picture. Also, since Town does not adopt a multi-year budget, a key benefit of forecast is our ability to use it as a foundation or baseline target for future year budgets. The forecast presented this evening reflects continued economic growth, both locally and statewide, and in the residential and commercial sectors in our community. This growth translates to modest, but steady, increases in our local sales tax categories and in our state shared revenues projected over the next 5 years. It is a snapshot of how the future may look based on the current set of assumptions that I will cover over the next few slides. The forecast assumptions were compiled by referencing several sources of data, including the AZ Dept of Revenue, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, State Finance Advisory Committee and AZ Dept. of Transportation. Also, in light of a recent proposal by Pima County to allocate a portion of their proposed 25-cent property tax increase to local jurisdictions for pavement preservation, we’ve prepared 2 forecast scenarios for the General and Highway Funds to estimate the impacts both with and without these roadway funds on our budgets. 102 General Fund Revenues Local sales tax forecast includes 2% – 6% growth per year for retail, restaurant and utility categories Construction sales tax forecast includes projected decline in single family residential (SFR) construction after a peak in FY 20/21 1% – 4% growth per year in state shared revenues 227 – 415 SFR permits per year Commercial permit revenues at $300K - $500K per year Risk of mild recession in FY 19/20 and FY 20/21 No annexations included Start off with the General Fund - Overall, the General Fund remains stable over the 5-year horizon with modest, steady growth in our local revenue sources and State shared revenue sources. The forecast shows steady 1 – 6% growth in our local sales tax revenues, and based on projections from the State, State shared revenues are expected to increase from 1-5% annually. Construction sales taxes are projected to take a dip in FY 19/20 due to the anticipated completion of specifically the Nakoma Sky project and decline in residential construction as we near completion on several of the areas currently under development. The forecast assumes a steady pace in residential construction activity over the next several years, and that single family residential permits peak in FY 17/18 and 18/19 with 300 permits in each of those years and decline to 140 permits in FY 21/22, the final year in the forecast. Commercial construction revenues range from $250K - $500K per year, with Nakoma Sky being the main notable project included the early years of the forecast and the self-storage facility at Steam Pump Village also included in the forecast. 1-4% annual growth in charges for services is assumed based on observed trends in revenues from the Aquatics center and parks & recreation programs and plan review fees, with a continued emphasis on sports tourism and special events. There is no revenue growth due to the completion of any annexation included in the forecast. And the forecast does not include any impacts from the $17M Naranja Park bond proposal to be placed before the voters in November. 103 General Fund Expenditures Merit increases of 3% per year and step increases per year Steady public safety pension rates per year, following considerable increase in FY 17/18 5% health insurance premium increases per year Roughly two FTE staff increases per year in near-term; no increases in FY 21/22 or FY 22/23 Downward pressure on operating costs with low to moderate inflation Utilizing vehicle reserve/set-aside balances for replacements Transfer of funds to Highway Fund ranges from $550K to $1.2 million (without County property tax for roads) Forecast includes significant commitment to capital investment and planning for the future The expenditure projections reflect the continued commitment to providing fair employee compensation with merit increases of 3.5% per year and step increases for sworn police personnel. Also included are public safety pension contributions averaging around 35% each year consistent with recent actuarial assumptions, as well as 8% health insurance premium increases annually. No capacity has been included to add new staff positions, and operations & maintenance costs are projected to increase slightly with inflation, and the forecast includes continued funding of our fleet and computer replacement programs. As part of our vehicle replacement program, we’ve been funding the replacement of vehicles that are at the end of their useful lives each year, and at the same time, we’ve been proportionately setting aside funds to replace those vehicles when they reach the end of their useful lives in the future. The forecast includes being able to use those set-aside funds for replacements in FY 17/18, which lowers our budget burden for vehicle replacement for the years to follow. The transfer of General Funds to subsidize the Highway Fund reaches more than $1.6M by FY 21/22 without the County property tax for roadway maintenance. This level of transfer of funds to the Highway Fund will certainly have an impact on the resources available for CIP funding in the future years. Finally, the expenditure forecast does not include the impact of the Naranja Park bond proposal. 104 General Fund Forecast Here is the chart of the General Fund WITHOUT the County property tax depicting the 5-year forecast trends with the blue line representing Revenues ranging from $36M to about $37.5M, and the red line representing Expenditures very closely following the revenue trend line through FY 19/20, and then you begin to see expenditures outpace revenues and the resulting decline in our fund balance. The fund balance still remains stable and above our 25% policy threshold through FY 20/21, ranging from $10 – 12M, and then dips to about $7.3M in the 5th year. It important to remember, however, that the forecasted data in the outer years is obviously more difficult to predict… and with the job growth that is happening in our region that will likely continue over this timeframe, it’s quite possible that we could continue seeing sustained residential growth, assuming we have available land to develop, either within our existing boundaries or through annexations. 105 Highway Fund Revenues 3% - 4% growth per year in HURF gas taxes Reimbursement from Pima Association of Governments and Regional Transportation Authority for contract administration of roadway widening projects Road permits steady at roughly $60K per year Required annual General Fund subsidy transfer would drop by about $600K with approval of the County property tax for roads Moving on to the Highway Fund. Highway Fund revenues are primarily comprised of State shared highway gas taxes. The forecast assumes 3-4% growth in HURF gas taxes as projected by the AZ Dept of Transportation. Also included are reimbursements from PAG and the RTA for our staff who perform construction administration and inspection on the major road widening projects that are planned over the next 5 years for Lambert Lane, Tangerine and La Cholla Blvd. Road permits fees are held steady at about $60,000 per year. As mentioned earlier, the GF subsidy transfer would drop significantly under the scenario with the Pima County tax revenues dedicated to pvmt preservation. 106 Highway Fund Expenditures Personnel budget increases consistent with General Fund O&M increases limited to 2% inflation Utilizing vehicle reserve/set-aside balances for replacements Pavement preservation funding of roughly $1.4 million per year maintains current overall condition index (OCI) rating Fund balance ranges from $153K - $287K Expenditures in the Hwy Fund reflect similar assumptions as those included in the General Fund relating to personnel and O&M costs. We will be able to utilize the vehicle reserves for replacing vehicles starting in FY 18/19 in this fund. Funds for pavement preservation are included at $1.4 – 1.5M per year to maintain our overall condition index rating. Finally, the fund balance ranges from $29K - $136K in the scenario without the County tax revenue. 107 Highway Fund Forecast Here is the Hwy Fund chart WITHOUT the County tax revenue showing expenditures with the red line, and revenues shown with the blue line. In this scenario, the General Fund transfer to subsidize Highway Fund operations ranges from $275K - $1.6 M, and the fund balance remains positive throughout the 5 years. 108 Questions? 109 110 FY 2018/19 Final Budget Adoption June 6, 2018 111 FY 2018/19 Budget Timeline MARCH 2 Department budget requests due to Finance JANUARY One-on-one meetings with Councilmembers to outline budget priorities 112 FY 18/19 Final Budget Tentative Budget adopted May 16, 2018 Maximum spending limit set at $142,906,231 No other changes proposed at this time Final HURF funding approved in the State budget estimated to bring $175K additional to the Town for FY 18/19 Future year revisions made to the CIP are consistent with the updated five-year forecast Council has authority to amend budget throughout the fiscal year At the last Council meeting on May 17th, the adoption of the tentative budget set the maximum spending limit for FY 2017/18 at $128.6 million. We have included the changes discussed at the last meeting by Council into the Final Budget to include renaming the CIP project previously titled “Procter Leiber House Rehabilitation” to “Steam Pump Ranch Improvements” while maintaining the same budget amount of $55,120 in the CIP Fund. A few adjustments were also made in the outer years of the CIP document to include listing the future funding amounts from PAG and RTA for the La Cholla widening project to mirror what is in the PAG Transportation Improvement Plan; and we also moved the funding for the La Canada/Moore intersection improvements of $900,000 to FY 18/19 from FY 19/20 in the Roadway Impact Fee Fund to better align with anticipated timing of those improvements. The Council may propose changes to the budget this evening or you also have the authority to amend the budget throughout the fiscal year. 113 Budget vs. Actual Comparison – All Funds We update this slide each year with the new budget amount for the coming year to show how it compares with prior year budgets over the past 10 years. As you know, our budget amounts (shown in blue) are set based on our estimated revenues plus the amounts that we have in our fund balance reserves. The adopted budget amounts have fluctuated and not only reflect the impact of the Great Recession when we saw budgets dip below the $100M mark from FY 11/12 through 13/14, but also the rebound of the local construction activity in the single-family and multi-family housing markets and the dedication of those one-time revenues to capital infrastructure projects within the budget. You will also notice that actual annual spending (shown in orange) trends far below the adopted budget amounts each year, showing that we don’t spend up to the adopted budget amounts. For FY 17/18, the estimated annual budget for operations and capital is approximately $93M, while fund balance reserves of about $36M make up the balance of the Final Budget total of $128.6M. 114 FY 18/19 CIP Budget = $33,242,192 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Includes funding for: Streets/Roads $15,534,000 Public Safety $5,516,342 Water System $4,818,000 Parks & Rec Facilities $3,495,000 * Stormwater System $2,250,000 Vehicle Replacements $816,750 Other Public Facilities $532,000 Technology $280,100 * Includes $3 million Community Center bond-funded projects Also submitted for your approval this evening is the 15-Year Capital Improvement Plan. The 15-Year CIP totals nearly $229M, while the FY 2017/18 CIP budget totals $24.7M and includes funding for a wide variety of public facility improvements and infrastructure. 115 Questions? 116 117