Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (879) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 1, 2007 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS —TOWN MANAGER COUNCIL REPORTS DEPARTMENT REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING CALL TO AUDIENCE —At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today's agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience" please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes - July 11, 2007 B. Police Report - June 2007 C. Resolution No. (R)07- 87 Vacating portions of a 10-foot equestrian trail pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between Stephen and Kay Fake and the Town of Oro Valley regarding the acquisition of the Logan's Crossing Multi-Use Trail D. Resolution No. (R)07- 88 Declaring as a public record that certain document entitled "The revised Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code" Chapter, 18 of the Oro Valley Town Code (This revision brings the current Code into compliance with the Pima County Animal Control Code) 8/01/07 Agenda, Council Regular Session 2 E. Resolution No. (R)07- 89 Declaring as a public record that certain document filed with the Town Clerk and entitled Article 12-17, "Cable Franchise" of the Oro Valley Town Code F. Resolution No. (R)07- 90 Authorizing and Approving the Contract with TischlerBise, Inc. in the amount of $9,700.00 to study the feasibility of enacting new Development Impact Fees in the Town G. OV12-06-14A, Approval of a Final Plat for Lots 1-37, Block 1 of Innovation Corporate Center, located on the northeast corner of Tangerine Road and Innovation Park Drive, 223-02-021B H. OV12-06-14B Approval of a Final Plat for Blocks 1 - 6, Innovation Corporate Center, located on the northeast corner of Tangerine Road and Innovation Park Drive, Parcel #223-02-021B I. OV5-07-06 Approval of public art for the Oracle and Hardy Office Building located at 8950 N. Oracle Road J. Report on Emergency Repairs to 16-inch E-Zone Water Main located on 1st Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Naranja Drive K. Appointment of Mary Caswell and Ray Shelton with terms to expire June 30, 2008 and Mike Schoppach with term to expire June 30, 2009 to the Development Review Board L. Appointment of Marilyn Cook to the Historic Preservation Commission with term to expire June 30, 2009 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. (R)07-59 APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF NEW POWER POLES AND ELECTRIC UTILITY WIRES, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD BETWEEN LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND LA CANADA DRIVE - Explanation: This public hearing was continued from the May 16, 2007 and the June 20, 2007 Town Council meetings. 3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS 4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ADOPTING A RECRUITMENT PROCESS TO FILL THE TOWN ATTORNEY POSITION 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H) CALL TO AUDIENCE —At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today's agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the 8/01/07 Agenda, Council Regular Session 3 Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience" please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 07 18 07 4:00 p.m. cp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. — 5:00p.m. 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 least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229- 4700. 8/01/07 Agenda, Council Regular Session 4 INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of thep ublic have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for g consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. IfY ou wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room p p andgive it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item you and topic wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during"Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please stepforward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. Please state your name and address for the record. 2. Speak onlyon the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please p organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish. Anymember of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and 5. respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. . . A DRAFT • MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2007 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Helen Dankwerth, Vice Mayor Paula Abbott, Council Member Kenneth Carter, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Council Member (arrived at 6:05 P.m.) Al Kunisch, Council Member Terry Parish, Council Member 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC UTILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS Chief Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews gave a power point presentation regarding Public Utility Franchise Agreements explaining that in Arizona, municipalities are authorized to grant franchises to public utilities for use of municipal rights-of-way for utility location per ARS 9-501 and 9-502. He then explained the adoption process: By resolution the Town may enter into a franchise agreement if the Town Council believes that doing so is beneficial to the Town. The franchise agreement and resolution are then presented to the voters at the following regular election. -Statute requires franchise agreements to be placed on the next election after adoption by the Town. -State law also requires that for at least thirty consecutive days prior to the election, the entire franchise agreement be published in some newspaper of general circulation. The vote will determine if the franchise agreement will be granted. Franchise Agreement Benefits: The Town can receive money from utilities to allow continued operation in Town rights-of-way. Franchise agreement will spell out the rights of both the Town and utility for use of the rights-of-way. (Important to note that the Town's leverage is limited in that the Town cannot force existing utility infrastructures out of the right-of-way). 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 2 Mr. Andrews explained that his presentation is centered on fees and how each franchise agreement allocates the money while touching on a few other topics. Mr. Andrews explained that there are many examples of franchise agreements to work from. He assured the Council that staff will negotiate the best possible franchise agreement to bring back for possible Council adoption. He pointed out that some of the more routine topics are: - Pavement cuts (in consultation with Public Works). - Submittal of plans to Public Works for review. - Notice for relocation etc.... Mr. Andrews explained that the purpose of this meeting is for staff to get direction on core negotiation terms from Council. Tucson Electric Power(TEP) Franchise - Undergrounding Issues: - A desire has been expressed that TEP pay the full cost of relocation and under roundin . TEP has expressly stated that this is unacceptable. This will be g g a key negotiation point. - Many franchise agreements contemplate the generation of electricity in addition to use of the rights-of-way. - If negotiations uncover that TEP means for this clause to include development of a power generating station on Town property, staff recommends that generation not be included in the adopted franchise agreement. - Most franchise agreements provide that the utility remains responsible for relocating power lines under certain circumstances. TEP Franchise Fee Recommendation: - TEP's rates are based on overhead lines and overhead line relocation. - TEP has always been responsible for the cost of overhead relocation. At a minimum, TEP should be directly responsible to pay the cost of overhead relocation and any fee used to offset the additional cost of undergrounding. TEP Franchise Fee Offset Issues: - Many franchise agreements require municipalities to offset other fees, taxes and permit costs against the franchise fee: - This will be a key negotiation point. Specifically, do we offset these costs against the franchise fee or should the Town reduce the fee and force TEP to pay these additional costs? Mr. Andrews noted that if the proposed franchise fee isp erceived as "too high" that could well reduce the likelihood of voter approval. Southwest Gas (SWG)/TEP Differences: - SWG lines are already underground. - SWG proposed a complex franchise agreement requiring the Town to essentially serve as a bank for SWG and the Town would gain no economic benefit from the franchise agreement. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 3 TOV Staff Perspective on the proposed Southwest Gas Franchise Approach: What SWG proposed is unacceptable in its current form. - Staff will work with SWG to bring back a franchise agreement that is mutually beneficial. Southwest Gas (SWG) and Government Function: - SWG desires to very narrowly define what "Governmental Function" entails. Staff recommends that we negotiate this term to be a broader legal definition of Governmental Function. Southwest Gas Fee issues: - SWGp roposes a fee where 2% of the fee is offset by the Town's 2% utility tax, basically zeroing out any Town benefit. - Staff recommends negotiating a fee resulting in a benefit to the Town. Southwest Gas Relocation Issue: - SWGro oses something similar to TEP where the Town creates an account p p for SWG to use for relocation and other costs. - The Account is setup for funds to be drawn on by SWG for utility relocation even if removal is required by a "Governmental Function". - Staff recommends that SWG be responsible for relocation costs out of its rate structure the way it has historically been done. This will likely require fee negotiations since all of the SWG's lines are underground already. - SWG also proposes that the Town offset almost all other taxes and fees against the franchise fee. - Staff recommends negotiating how this may work against the amount of the fee. Joe Andrews reviewed the following observations: - There appears to be a common thread that franchisee's are asking municipalities to administer some form of retention account for relocation and other costs. Consequently, this will be a major negotiation point. - All of the presented franchise agreements pay out quarterly. - The utilities appear to use franchise agreements to work around the ACC's rate setting structure. - All of the franchise agreements are quite similar in function although the forms are different. Finance Director Stacey Lemos reviewed the financial implications. Estimated Annual Revenue: $475K each 1% fee per year. $1.1 million Dedicate franchise to highway fund for road improvements would be substantial. Other cities have franchise fees going to the General Fund for general purposes as an option. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 4 Undergrounding costs - $24M cost $1 to $2 million per mile. Revenue Policy Implications: Utility taxes and franchise fees are both excellent long-term, sustainable revenue sources. 2% utility tax sunsets in April 1, 2009 unless renewed before then. Council may be able to accomplish local control in rights of ways with license agreements which would exclude charging a franchise fee. Strategy asking voters to approve with a franchise fee. Work with Council to come up with strong and earmarking strategies for revenues that Council supports so that it is reasonable and clear where revenues would go so that voters could vote on this in November 2008. Ms. Lemos stated that should the November election fail, and if the Council does not fully support the agreement, it will be more difficult for Council to come back and renew a utility tax in spring 2009. In response to a question by Council Member Abbott, Ms. Lemos pointed out that the average life of franchise is 20 to 30 years. Vice Mayor Dankwerth stated that the Franchise Agreement needs to be prepared in the best interest of the Town and the electorate. Secondary interest is the utility companies. In response to a question by Mayor Loomis, Mr. Andrews explained that the cable franchise agreement enabled by cable law. Because enacted by Congress, cable franchise does not go to the voters - it is a license agreement that has a different adoption structure, which does not require voter approval. In answer to a question by Council Member Parish, Mr. Andrews stated yes, we could have a license agreement and require undergrounding, but would have to negotiate with TEP for this. Mayor Loomis stated if the Town establishes terms and conditions for use of rights of ways and establishes a contract between the town and utility to do certain things, could we look at a combination of utility tax vs. earmark vs. franchise fee. Is it possible to identify earmarks in utility tax that could be used in a licensing agreement? Mr. Andrews replied that a License Agreement could be used to earmark tax funds. Mayor Loomis stated that a Franchise Fee could be used for additional funds 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 5 without restrictions and could be used anywhere in the Town if approved by the voters. He stated that with a Utility Tax, the Town Council is responsible to the voter but the voter doesn't approve or disapprove the tax, which could go to 4 or 5%. He suggested that a percentage of the tax could be used for undergrounding or road repair. Discussion followed concerning the cost of undergrounding utilities, and if a License Agreement would make more sense to assist with undergrounding utilities and concern with having the Franchise Election on the same ballot as the Naranja Town site question. In answer to a question by Mayor Loomis, Joe Andrews stated that bonds deal with debt whereas a franchise fee is paid and no debt is incurred by the Town. Therefore, the money collected could be used as the Town Council pleases. It was mentioned that Council needs to have an understanding of how important it is to the residents to underground utilities and that might be a good question to add to the upcoming community survey. Council Member Gillaspie asked for a copy of a franchise agreement to review to get a better idea of what is in the agreements and what other options are available. Council Member Abbott asked to see a map showing what lines would be undergrounded. Larry Lucero from Tucson Electric Power shared samples of various franchises in effect throughout the state. He stated that each jurisdiction has unique conditions and expectations. Very intense efforts to identify growth projects and infrastructure needs from utility perspective. He stated that TEP has had a positive experience with Oro Valley and have been able to creatively come up with solutions both for Oro Valley and TEP infrastructure improvements, which led us to talk about franchises. Provision requires working closely with the jurisdiction. Have to have that dialogue to accomplish mutual benefits. TEP is sensitive to high standards Oro Valley has. Planning is very beneficial and productive. In response to a question concerning how the franchise is shown on the electric bill, Mr. Lucero stated that TEP is a very efficient tax collector for the town indicating on the bill every item responsible for the customer to pay. He stated that all costs are itemized including any fees or taxes imposed by the jurisdiction. Mayor Loomis requested a map identifying where the power lines are and which ones could be undergrounded easily. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 6 Mr. Lucero stated that any electric lines below 46 voltage is easily available for undergrounding. TEP is already conducting an exercise of prioritizing TEP public g improvement projects to coincide with the Town's road improvements. TEP is doing an economic analysis for undergrounding to help meet objective of undergrounding. Mr. Lucero stated he would report back to the Council during a future study session. Mayor Loomis asked what lines can be undergrounded so Council will know how much money to allocate to undergrounding. TEP provide number of miles of lines with less than 46 kb that are not underground. He asked to see areas over 46 kb that TEP does not recommend undergrounding, and areas where work is on-going. He'd like to see this information to get an idea of the magnitude of undergrounding. Council Member Abbott asked TEP to identify the voltage on each line. Council Member Parish asked what line could go underground and who would be responsible for paying for it. Mayor Loomis asked that TEP report back at the first or second meeting in September. 5 minute recess at 6:55 p.m. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMUNITY SURVEYS AND THEIR USES Meeting resumed at 7:06 p.m. Town Manager David Andrews reviewed his council communication concerning community surveys and their uses. He explained that Town staff is pursuing a community survey and is asking for feed back from council to see what they would like to see on the survey. He explained that the purpose of a citizen survey is to assess community needs, evaluate existing community services, determine community priorities, and in some cases determine a community's willingness to pay for services. Mr. Andrews stated that being that the Town has recently gone through the strategic planning and budget process, this is an opportune time to survey the public and see how we are doing. The feedback gained from completing a community survey will help to drive the budget priorities in the coming fiscal year and aid in future updates to the Town's Strategic Plan. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 7 In response to a question by Council Member Gillaspie concerning the low cost to conduct the survey, Mr. Andrews stated that the $15,000 is a reasonable amount to develop the survey, send it out, tabulate results and prepare the Report. In response to a question by Council Dankwerth, Assistant Manager Watson replied that the survey will be conducted with phone samplings of 400 to 600 households but will ask the consultant how many households could be surveyed for the cost. In response to a question by Mayor Loomis asking what is the Manager recommending, Mr. Andrews replied that he took the cue from strategic planning, levels of satisfaction with town services and not necessarily looking at the citizen's willingness to pay for certain taxes. Mayor Loomis felt that it would be better to survey with one focus on the Strategic Plan and performance indicators and do a different survey that looks at community issues. Council Member Kunisch stated that the Council needs to know what the citizens are willing to pay for. Mayor Loomis stated that we have a need for 2 different results - one for benchmarking and one for figuring out how well staff is doing in performing their jobs and providing service to the community. The other question is, what is the public opinion with respect to property taxes, parks, and paying for additional services. Should we ask both questions in same survey or 2 separate surveys? Consultant Mary Davis from The Caliber Group explained that the ultimate objectives of the 2 surveys are completely different which would skew the results of the survey dramatically. Council Member Abbott agreed and suggested doing the benchmarking survey by telephone random sampling and the other survey could be mailed out to all residents. In response to a question about the cost of the 2 surveys, Ms. Davis was not able to estimate the costs at this time. Mayor Loomis asked how many surveys is staff recommending. Mr. Andrews replied that there is an RFQ out to look at public outreach and education for the Naranja Town site. This is not a poll or survey, but looking at a process to find out what the public knows about the Naranja Town Site and the proposed amenities. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 8 He stated the second recommendation is what we are looking at tonight and the third one is what Council Member Kunisch is suggesting - asking what citizens would be willing to pay for. Council Member Kunisch reiterated the need for a survey to tell us what citizens are willing to pay for, a property tax or franchise fee. Council Member Gillaspie stated the survey for satisfaction of services is part of the budget process. If manage for outcomes, we will measure ourselves differently. We need to connect with our customers and ask if they are happy with amount of police protection, etc. Bigger issue - we made a decision to go forward to educatep opulous about the park which will go forward with a vote and could be our first tax. Keep issue on how do budgeting separate - if people say happy with police department, different than asking if willing to pay for taxes. Mary Davis stated that the professional researchers will help with preparing the questions. The first line base survey will be able to asses what is important in the community. It could include second question of what the community is willing to pay for which will show the value they place on their community. Council Member Parish objected to the process stating that while a Customer Satisfaction survey is important, Council cannot manage by survey. Mayor Loomis asked that the following Council Members serve on a sub- committee to prepare the survey with the consultant: Council Members Abbott and Parish and Vice Mayor Dankwerth to serve as the Chair of the sub- committee. Mayor Loomis reminded the Council that "Community Survey" is the name of the survey. Looking at the community as a whole and not looking at individual specific issues, looking at how well are we doing our jobs from a community point of view. Council Member Gillaspie stated that a lot of questions can be answered by the professionals. The Council sub-committee should be empowered to come back for more money if needed for the survey. He stated that as long as we have professionals that have the credentials to prepare the proper survey, people will not criticize the process. He stressed the importance of the survey. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Council Member Carter to Adjourn at 7:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 7 - 0. 07/11/07 Minutes, Council Study Session 9 Prepared by: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk A , J0 11000 N. La Canada Dr. • "37 Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520) 229-4900 FAX (520) 797-2616 DANIEL G. SHARP. Chief of Police 4 www.ovpd.org *lb NA* i 1► SDE D ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Paul Loomis & Oro Valley Council Members FROM: Chief Daniel G. Sharp REF: June 2007 Statistics DATE: July 9, 2007 Please find attached the captured statistics for the Oro Valley Police Department for June 2007 plus Citation/Warning totals for the previous month. Also included are the response times for dispatched priority 1-4 calls and a historical review of the past 3 years of statistics for the month captured 0 W 0 a/ Z I."- 8 U O _. i CirCL %.1 E"* O - n E* Q C..) _ , J D W coc,,,,„) ' CO * CO CO 0 N'- 0) CO CO N. CO Lf) CO 0) * Ln C) CO N- CO CO A- N. Ln z N r- Ln -lcr- T.-� CO CO N Lf) CO * '' N CO CO 00 A- 00 Ln Ln C4- N Ln T- CO N — Ln CO N .4 ' 0 C 0•1 0 tom►- •,-- M co * co co O N r--- O N CO CO 1.0 1.0 CO r- A- O 0) CO L.0A-- L.0 CD LO 0 >. Cp v- T- V- CO v- 0) N 0) CO CO Ln CO N- N N- N CO In N Q Ln A- Ln ..- 0) '4' CO Nr O 4 2 CO W E O N. Ln CO Ln 0) 0 0 Ln CO CO Ln CO 0) CO CO CO CO Ln CO 0 0) N- Ln ce O 't N .- CO Ln N- CL) ,- CO Vt 0) — 0 N CO CO CO Ln Ln - Ln Ln Ln N Ln N CO Ci C� CL N > Em* a N. N- O) Ln O) CO ••c--• O O N N- V' N N L!) 0) d' CO CO N M CO CO O d' Ln Ln 0 Q ce N N �- CO CO 0) CO CO 0) �t CO 0 N- >, Q N CO N- Ln N V- N CO N. Ao in E W 92 ai_ A in a) CO J ti 0 0 O tet' N- O 0 0 0) N CO N. N V' 0 N- CO CO '- ti E 0 in Lo N 0 N N- N N- �' tet' N- O N CO N. Ln .V .�C m co N co r- (0 co — N A— 0 C� C) 0 co cn w [-I! — . —i,..? . 12 Z. Ln CO 0) Vt CO N 0 A- in N Ln 0 CO Cr) Ln 0) 0) CO CO N N- CO N- CO L CO n CO = ~ 0) ,- V' N N r- N- CO 0 CO N N. CO '' 0 CO V" CO r-- Ln Ln . .: Co ca a4 Z M r- Ln -- CO t N- N Ln U a) C 134 T - 0.1 R3 o = 00 'd' N N. CO 'I' CO O `zr co ' co c) .:}' Ln O N CO CO 4) e- O CO CO CO O 0 , O J CO CO O N O CO 0 CO e- N 0 CO V' N. CO CO CO 0 CO G) CO V' N. LU N 0 O Cies M e- N CO to N e- 0 N LU O) ti 0) N ti CO CO N. CO e- CO e- CO e- N e- N. U '0 6T4 -10 0 (O N *4 _ O 'a .II) Iii - O t/) 0)M C * L a) CD O (718 u) c cn = 0 > a) 1 .C — U zL (A „. o < „E (5 2 CCU) N 4 3 W CO �.' m U N N g COA .Y U -Q �- o� CO a) �, CU 03 'L _C J `+= 73 �+ i•+ L O '� `� L 4-,-0 c = O O < a) 0 03 c 0 0_ i_ O •V Ty) O • S2 ca 0 E E a) �..� 'C 'ca • o a s L L i L 8 O _ = E .Q 0 L L U) ) 'V 74 L c. V) L 0 O < < < (n F- .Q 0I- m 1-_ < 0 J o i < i- _ < < a U63: 00 _0 o. 0 w 0 CD > 0 Z CD i- 0 0 0 CD 4 a. w 0 cn E"* O <t O Z• CM..y O W -J n Eml = o g:4 CA Z At 4 m --) v) a0 z w N 00 CO 00 O N 0) N- O CO N i N CO CO N - r- "y r- O CO CD I,- N CON ,- 7- N CO AQ CO0...1 N . ti M* O a) r- O r- O CO N CO I� 00 � CO N LU CO CO CO CO O C.) O N N- CO N 0) N r- '— N ,- a) N Ce C ,,...-0=4 0 � O AO CO4 N O CO LU LU O N N r- N 7- V" CO O CD CO N0 a! r_l CD � V• N--- CO N N -•-• ,- M ,- 2 04 Q h+y � r- .-Li.-; 0 W � Ern *4 .. CO �••� CD d' CO N V' L d' 0) CD N CO r- 0) - LU CD CO ‘- CD N- '� N - N 0) r' co w , N CO �■■� W W W.tt - :4 � O O I` CO M �- in ter' 0O I,- CO CO N c O O CO CO O CD CO 0) CO N N. - ,- co r- ,q' Q C Z Q CO CO - -7 G, C I " -J CO 1.4 M O 00 00 M O h M Cts r Q� 00 CO t1� M N N M� a (0 CO '' CON n- M COO �' CO mr r- , 1` co V) I— M z 4 I-- 0 , 0 0 0 cu ZZ 0 73 p H D N. z P J W Z u) c o 0 J 0 > Z 0 o N p j — 0 P 0 := cn Q Q O w wCn p 1- F- < — cC c O J > co a! z J < z -I Q 0 3 o —10 z 0 O w -J Q 0 E- C >. > 0 w 0 - >- 0 > V o co C• w = w P U Q Q 0 > E_ E- + •- 0 O V Q - c 0 J H Z 1- H � Z 0 W 2 ces L Z a! co Z W w w� w C.7 z = V Z W J O > J m 0 a z 1- Ca - Y W W � p 1- - 2 w 0 � i N C� > - O w Z 0 0 J < J 5 a! H J C .o 0 Cl) — w a! = w a. Q w E- Q w = CI Q — -I a, I— Z a! 0 0 C Cl) J ce co U- t/) 0 W a_ J Q H U. In CD CO CO O N CO L.c.7 * 00 CO O O 00 O LO O CO CO M N. Lci N N LO 00 M N M M N x-(NI CO M LCO COO O N— CD CO N- in N- N O CO COLx, CO CO CO CO 0 (N co I . O OIt IC) O O N co M 0) O O �• N— CO CO ,� N N- �- CO r- r- ,- In LO CD 14 LC) C 0 O N CO O 0 0 co I. O M O M CO 0 V) M co CO = O M N. 00 r- co N O co CO M M M 0 0 0 0,9 M N N O N r- N '� r- '� ti CO _! W Q Z 0 Dr,.. o O 2 J N Q = CO N M CO �' oo C3� �- `n O N CO o0 C� MCO CO a' LL CO v O ti �' O O d- CO N O 00 �' CO 00 CO O 00 O COM N N. CO M N O CO CO N CO LO N O N Lo O h- O N V' CO CO W O 7 co CO M (Ni ti E >- in Z Q CD D O J Z J N � � Q < Q O CO N. LO M O CO M O O D �- M • O I` CO i _ co O N 00 I- r- t` O v v '' O M 00 co M M O ,� �- O4 ti .- N �' O O , N O O O C3) M �- M Lo N O O CO Lo , �}' I` r- N , , N ,- C) I- I- c T— � 32 o Ca v co ti) +r 0 = 0 - 1iLO CU 00 CO i- tt r- �? PO O co H = 0) N 00 O O CO O (D CO O N' O O O M 00 M M 00 CO O CO N CO N O M , (� N. O r— Cs = co ti ) (n -aO a)Vu_ -NC M N c cn U O a) O U = cn D ca.� cn O O * _ L w O Q 0 z E. a) u) 7 .c w L c0 o -O = UI - cn CD w O Q) = a) C F- O ca co a) L U .�, U) O .D co (� . -c J 4— Ti C .� L •� `� "0 c c 0) Q Q a) O (� 0 CL 1-- v is U MI cn I- � O 5 a) Q cn cn Octi Q O O .c ,L- C) ?_ 1 - c� d. � � 4- CU 0 a — ci" cn .� cn U co cts Z F- F_< 0- i0I � QH - Q < Lt < OSCCo.. 1100 .K 000 : it \o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- CO ,- a) d) - a) r- 00 N CO N o a) co ,- co o 0) 0) 0) .� N O N. N 4— N- O O CV ONO * F- r' * i::: co I- U (n 0 = a) a) N Q 0 m D Z a) CD CD C D Q.c .c }. �-. �-. Q � � 5 � � E E C c C c Cl) EE W - •- Ex co co E E E E tto CD E N E E E E — V A d. 0 0 0 0 — M M A N N CO CO A r- N N V A F ++ V AV A O �+ V AV AO Q 7. �0 L (1) Q- a' E a) wa E cn W — iLt E ~ as U ~ coU W cu > Q, > C U O .- o N 0 � H 0 H 1— ....1 J CD O = o 0 0 8.0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 • 1.0 C7) a) �- r- CO N N CO 00 00o o 00 - 0) W U U) J < ,-- N G1 N N N O N 0 > O Q) O N N E N `O O F- * i- N c/ to a) a) cn a) a) U) U) _ w co _ 0 . c c - .- co . . C• ' a) a) (1) a) 0 2 2 C c c- s' U) EE � , `� � �' '� To' >, � � � � CV A .O O I- .O N Q. a) cn Z. C) u)I— E — i- E f vca f- ca U .� U Q. > +a Q. > TO U) Elio �U) CO o o H E-- o H I— TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 1UNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/01/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MELINDA GARRAHAN, TOWN ATTORNEY • RESOLUTION (R) 07- 87 , A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND SUBJECT. COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, VACATING PORTIONS OF A 10- FOOT EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN STEPHEN AND KAY FAKE AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF THE LOGAN'S CROSSING MULTI-USE TRAIL SUMMARY: As you are aware, the Town and the Fakes' are in the final stage of settling the Logan's Crossing dispute. March 21, 2007, Council approved the Fakes' offer of$25,000 and authorized the Town Attorney to pp On take all action necessaryto settle the pending eminent domain litigation. The Settlement Agreement was signed ned on May 24, 2007. The transfer of the trail easement to the Town has taken place and the trail easement has been recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the only action left is to abandon the 10-foot unused trail fragment to the Fakes and their neighbors. This fragment is where the trail was designated to go, but was never developed or used in this location. 7ursuant to A.R.S. § 28-7205, the Town has the authorityto vacate this land as the Town will never use the trail matter of statute and Town procedure, the trail will be divided in half and each abutting fragment. As a neighbor will l obtain title to the half of the trail that abuts their property using the same abandonment process that the Town has always used to abandon property remnants. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. (R) 07-8 7 FISCAL IMPACT: The Town does not receive revenue from the vacation of any portion of the 10-foot Equestrian Trail. SUGGESTED MOTION: Resolution No. (R) 07-87 , vacating portions of the 10-foot Equestrian Trail to abutting I move to approve property owners. Melinda Garr- .n, Town Attorney j44 Ad( a 414 144 David Andrews, Town Manager a • RESOLUTION NO. (R)07-87_ A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, VACATING PORTIONS OF AN UNDEVELOPED 10-FOOT EQUESTRIAN TRAIL TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING THAT PORTION OF THAT TRAIL PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 28-7205 the Town of Oro Valleyis a political subdivision of the State of Arizona vested WHEREAS, p i , associated rights, privileges and benefits ands entitled to the immunities and with all g g exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, the Town obtained a Non-Motorized, Multi-Use Easement across the Fakes' property through a Settlement Agreement signed and executed on May 24, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Town previously acquired an undeveloped 10-foot equestrian trail ("Undeveloped . " from Pima Countyin an alignment behind the Fakes' property and other neighboring Trail") property owners that did not connect to the actual trail; and WHEREAS, The Town desires to vacate the Undeveloped Trail now that the Town has received 1111110. WH and recorded the Grant of Non-Motorized, Multi-Use Easement across the Fakes' property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-7205, the Town of Oro Valley has the authority to vacate portions of the Undeveloped Trail the Town will never use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between Stephen and Kay Fake and the Town, the Town is also required in contract to vacate that portion of the Undeveloped Trail to property owners whoseroperty abuts the Undeveloped Trail (Quitclaim Deeds attached hereto as Exhibits p A through E) in accordance with A.R.S. § 28-7205. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that the vacation of portions of the Undeveloped 10-foot Equestrian Trail to Property owners abutting that portion to be vacated is hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 1st day of August , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor F\Litigation\Logan's Crossing Equestrian Trail-Fake Property\Vacating equestrian trail\resolution.doe Tossn of Oro Valley Attorneys Office/ca/070207 ATTEST. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Date: Date: F\Litigation\Logan's Crossing Equestnan Trail-Fake Property\Vacating equestnan trail\resolution.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ca/070207 4r, WHEN RECORDED, SEND TO: Joseph N. Andrews Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, executed this day of , 2007, al Corporation (the "Town"), 11000 N. an Arizona Municipal by the Town of Oro Valley, p La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. WITNESSETH good Town of Oro Valley, for consideration does quitclaim unto Thomas and J. yi Margot Friedman forever, all the right, title, interest and claim which the Town has in and ed parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in to the following describ the County of Pima, State of Arizona, to wit: See Attached Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property DATED this day of , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Arizona Municipal Corporation By: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk I Date: Exhibit "A" Legal Description Apart of Section 14, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap, being the South quarter corner of said Section 14; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 712.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 221.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 117.65 feet to the northerly corner of lot 34, Saddle Valley II as recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office in Book 44, Maps and Plats, on Page 38; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 190.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning, said point being the northerly corner of lot 33, Saddle Valley II as recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office in Book 44, Maps and Plats, on Page 38; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 45.84 feet; thence North 33 degrees 25 minutes 54 seconds West, a distance of 5.01 feet; thence North 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 46.59 feet; thence South 25 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 5.09 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 231 square feet, more or less. WHEN RECORDED, SEND TO: Joseph N. Andrews Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, executed this day of , 2007, by the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona Municipal Corporation (the "Town"), 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. WITNESSETH good Thefor Valley, Town of Oro consideration does quitclaim unto Logan's Crossing Homeowner's Association forever, all the right, title, interest and claim which the Town has in and to the following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, to wit: See Attached Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property DATED this day of , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Arizona Municipal Corporation By: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: Exhibit "A" Legal Description Apart of Section 14, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap, being the South quarter corner of said Section 14; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 712.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 221.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 398.14 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 91.41 feet, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 89.62 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 412.00 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 44 minutes 27 seconds an arc distance 5.33 feet to a non-tangent line; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 87.78.00 feet; thence North 51 degrees 27 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 5.19 feet; thence North 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 25.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 265.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 172.88 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 443.5 square feet, more or less. WHEN RECORDED, SEND TO: Joseph N. Andrews Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED THISQ UITCLAIM DEED, executed this day of , 2007, by the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona Municipal Corporation (the "Town"), 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. WITNESSETH The Town of Oro Valley, for good consideration does quitclaim unto Stephen and Kay Fake forever, all the right, title, interest and claim which the Town has in and to the following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, to wit: See Attached Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property DATED this day of , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Arizona Municipal Corporation By: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: Exhibit "A" Legal Description A part of Section 14, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap, being the South quarter corner of said Section 14; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 712.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 221.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 117.65 feet to the northerly corner of lot 34, Saddle Valley II as recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office in Book 44, Maps and Plats, on Page 38; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 236.40 feet; thence North 25 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 5.09 feet, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 25 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 5.09 feet to a point on the southerly line of lot 28, Saddle Valley II as recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office in Book 44, Maps and Plats, on Page 38; thence North 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 201.09 feet along said southerly line of lot 28; thence South 51 degrees 27 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 5.19 feet; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 202.69 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 1009.5 square feet, more or less. WHEN RECORDED, SEND TO: Joseph N. Andrews Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, executed this day of , 2007, by the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona Municipal Corporation (the "Town"), 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. WITNESSETH The Town of Oro Valley, for good consideration does quitclaim unto Saverio and Josephine T. Di Gennaro forever, all the right, title, interest and claim which the Town has in and to the following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, to wit: See Attached Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property DATED this day of , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Arizona Municipal Corporation By: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: Exhibit "A" Legal Description Apart of Section 14, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap, being the South quarter corner of said Section 14; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 712.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 221.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 123.82 feet, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 33.71 feet; thence North 51 degrees 27 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 5.19 feet; thence North 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 25.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 265.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 172.88 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest; along thence northeasterlythe arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 412.00 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 44 minutes 27 seconds an arc distance 5.33 feet to a non-tangent g g line; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 89.62 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 5.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 91.41 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 274.32 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 4163.4 square feet, more or less. iteto WHEN RECORDED, SEND TO: Joseph N. Andrews Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, executed this day of , 2007, by the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona Municipal Corporation (the "Town"), 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. WITNESSETH The Town of Oro Valley, for good consideration does quitclaim unto Brian P. and Susan ‘Pr M. Boylan forever, all the right, title, interest and claim which the Town has in and to the following parcel described of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, to wit: See Attached Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property DATED this day of , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Arizona Municipal Corporation By: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: Exhibit "A" ,,, Legal Description A part of Section 14, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap, being the South quarter corner of said Section 14; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 245.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 712.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 221.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 117.65 feet to the northerly corner of lot 34, Saddle Valley II as recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office in Book 44, Maps and Plats, on Page 38, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence South 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 190.56 feet; thence North 25 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 5.09 feet; thence North 54 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 193.23 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 6.17 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 959.6 square feet, more or less. t r TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 -V')UNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/01/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MELINDA GARRAHAN, TOWN ATTORNEY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. ( R) 07- 88 , A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, DECLARING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ANIMAL CONTROL CODE", CHAPTER 18, OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARY: On June 14, 1989, Mayor and Council passed Ordinance 89-13, adopting Chapter 18, "The Animal Control Code" of the Town of Oro Valley. Pima County Animal Care Center, of the Pima County Health Department, is the Town's "Enforcement Agent" for animal control, and every year Pima County and the Town enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for animal control services. The Town/County IGA provides that the Town will pay for animal control enforcement and shelter services on a proportional basis. On March 7, 2007, Pima Animal Care Center notified the Legal Department that the Pima County Board of Supervisors recently passed an ordinance change, increasing licensing, shelter and board fees for Pima Animal Care Center Operations effective April 1, 1007. These fees are substantially higher than the fees in the current Town Animal Control Code. This is important because at the beginning of each fiscal year, County submits to the Town a copy of the proposed succeeding fiscal year operating and capital outlay mud et byjurisdiction, and included is an estimate for income from all fees, licenses and charges by jurisdiction g and estimated Town contribution to the Animal Control budget, if any, under the IGA. If the receipts from the Town do not cover the costs, then the Town must cover the additional amount. As such, in August 2006, Pima County invoiced the Town for approximately $12,000 for animal control services because expenses were more than revenuesg enerated by the fees collected. That being the case, because the Town's fees are significantly lower than Pima County's new fees, the Town would probably have to pay Pima County significantly more for services to make up the difference in the future. As the Animal Control Code was adopted in 1989 and there are significant additions and updates drafted into the Code, it is appropriate for the Town to repeal the old Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code in its entirety and adopt a new "The Animal Control Code of the Town of Oro Valley" to correspond with the additions, updates and the new fees to be charged by Pima County effective April 1, 2007. In addition, as Pima County periodically increases licensing, shelter and boarding fees for the Pima Animal Care Center operations, and the Town is not always informed of any new fee structure, the new Ordinance is written to state that the fees "shall be determined by Pima County Animal Care Center, as amended from time to time" to help the Town stave off future shortfalls under the IGA. ATTACHMENTS: Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code Resolution No. 07-88 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/01/07 FISCAL IMPACT: As the new Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code is written to correspond with Pima Animal Care Operations fees, the Town's share of the cost for animal control services should be more in line with actual costs. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to approve Resolution No. (R ) 07- 88, making that certain document entitled Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code, Chapter 18, a public record. • inda Ga . an Town Attorney 0444/A awhie4„4„..._ David Andrews, Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 07 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ANIMAL CODE", CHAPTER 18, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document called "Town of Oro Valley Animal Control Code", Chapter 18, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be ap ublic record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 1st day of August , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Date: 4tif F\Clerk\To++•n Code\Anim►l Control Ordinancc\Resolution public record.doc To++'n of Oro Vallee Attornc's Ofrice/ca/t)61)807 CHAPTER 18 ANIMAL CONTROL CODE Articles 18-1 Definitions 18-2 Vaccinations/Licenses/Tags/Duplicate License Tags/Transfer of License/Violations/Fees 18-3 Dogs at Large Prohibited; Exceptions/Dogs on School Grounds; Exceptions/Impoundment/Dog Waste Removal; Exceptions/Violations; Penalties 18-4 Feeding Non-Domesticated Mammalian Predators; Exceptions 18-5 Abandonment/Cruelty/Failure to Render Aid/Neglect/Violations; Penalties/Order to Show Cause 18-6 Destructive or Vicious Animals/Violations/ Sanctions/Penalties 18-7 Dangerous Animals 18-8 Excessive Noise Caused by Animals or Birds/Civil Sanctions 18-9 Biting Animals 18-10 Penalties/Sanctions 18-11 Rules of Procedure 18-12 Authority of Animal Control Officer or Police Officer 18-1 Definitions A. Altered dog - a spayed female dog or neutered male dog. B. Animal - any fowl, reptile, amphibian or mammal, exceptforhuman beings. C. At Large - being neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash. D. Bite - the penetration of the skin by the teeth of any animal. E. Biting Animal - any animal that bites or otherwise injures human beings or other animals without provocation. F. Collar - a band, chain, harness or suitable device worn around the neck of a dog to which a license may be affixed. G. Destructive Animal - any animal that has a propensity to destroy, damage or cause damage to the property of a person other than the animal's owner. H. Dog - any member of the canine species. I. Impound - the act of taking or receiving an animal into custody for the purpose of confinement at the Town's animal enforcement agent's facility. J. Leash or Lead - a chain, rope, leather strap, cord or similar restraint attached to a collar or harness or otherwise secured around an animal's neck. K. Licensed-Dog any-dog having a current-- icer-se L. Livestock - neat animals, horses, sheep, goats, swine, mules and asses. M. Owner - any person owning, keeping, possessing, harboring, maintaining or having custody and/or control of an animal within the Town limits. N. Peace Officer- includes any animal control officer. 0. Police Dog - any dog belonging to any law enforcement agency service dog unit. P. Property Line - the line which represents the legal limits of property P (including an apartment, condominium, room or other dwelling unit) owned, leased or otherwise occupied by a person, business, corporation or institution. In cases involving sound from an activity on a public street or other public right-of-way, the "property line" shall be the nearest boundary of the public right-of-way. Q. Provocation - any behavior toward an animal and/or its owner or its owner's property which is likely to cause a defensive reaction by said animal. R. Tie-Out - a chain, leash, wire cable or similar restraint attached to a swivel or pulley. S. Town Enforcement Agent - the Pima Animal Care Center director and/or his/her designee. T. Under Restraint - an animal secured by a leash or lead and under control of a responsible person, confined within a vehicle or located upon the real property limits of its owner. U. Vaccination - an anti-rabies vaccination using a type of vaccine approved by the State Veterinarian and administered by a state licensed veterinarian. V. Vicious animal - any animal that bites, attempts to bite, endangers and/or injures people and/or other animals. 18-2 Vaccinations/ License Required; Exceptions/Tags/Duplicate License Tags/Transfer of License/Violation; Penalties/Fees 18-2-1 Vaccinations. A. It is a civil infraction to own, keep, possess, harbor and/or maintain a dog over the age of three (3) months within the Town without such dog being vaccinated. B. The type(s) of anti-rabies vaccination, period of time between vaccination and revaccination, dosage and administration of vaccine shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations as designated by the state veterinarian. C. No license shall be issued for any dog until the owner has presented a vaccination certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian, in accordance with the rules and regulations as designated by the state veterinarian. Upon vaccination, the owner shall receive a certificate certifying to the fact of such vaccination, the date thereof, the owner's name and address, description of the dog, date of vaccination and type thereof, manufacture and serial number of the vaccine used and the date revaccination is due. D. Vaccination other than Pima County. A dog vaccinated in any area outside Pima County, may be licensed within the Town, provided the owner of such dog presents a vaccination certificate signed by a duly licensed veterinarian in accordance with this Article. E. If a dog is impounded and found to be unvaccinated, Pima Animal Care (111iir Center is authorized to have such dog vaccinated at the sole cost of the owner. F:\Clerk\Town CodelAnimal Control Ordinance'Aniinal Control Code Final.doc 2 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/cant/60807 Vaccination shall be performed by a licensed veterinarian who shall issue a certificate of vaccination. 18-2-2 License Required; Exceptions A. It is a civil infraction to own, keep, possess, harbor or maintain a dog over the age of three (3) months in the Town for more than thirty (30) days per calendar year without such dog being licensed. B. Any person who presents to the Pima Animal Care Center an affidavit or veterinarian's certificate stating that the dog is altered, the dog is at least ten (10) years old, and/or that the dog cannot be altered for health reasons, shall be eligible for the altered dog fee. C. Any person 65 years of age or older shall be eligible for the senior citizen dog license fee. The Pima Animal Care Center shall establish reasonable standards of proof for eligibility. No more than four (4) dogs per household shall be licensed at the senior citizen rate. D. Any person who presents to Pima Animal Care Center a statement from a qualified health care professional certifying that he/she has a disabling condition, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, shall be eligible for the disabled citizen dog license fee. E. A guide dog belonging to a blind person who is a resident of the Town, or a dog certified, in writing, as being trained to the standards of a service animal by a nationally recognized service dog training agency belonging to a resident of the Town shall be licensed, pursuant to this Article, without payment of a fee. 11111 F. An owner of a dog with a household income below the federal poverty level is - - - eligible for a one-time reduced unaltered dog licensing fee per dog. G. An owner of a dog with a household income below the federal poverty level is eligible for a one-time reduced altered dog licensing fee per dog, providing the owner shows proof that the dog has been altered. H. Any person who fails to license a dog on or before the dog reaches three (3) months of age or who fails to pay a license fee upon expiration of a license previously issued under this Chapter, shall be charged a delinquent penalty fee. 18-2-3 Tags. A. All licensed dogs are required to wear a collar with the license tag affixed. The collar and tag must be worn by the dog at all times. The tag shall be inscribed with the name of the city or county, the license number and the date the-licenseexpire&-Failure of the owner to comply a-civil infraction,B. Dog license tags are not transferable from one dog to another dog. C. Tag Exceptions. Dogs are not required to wear a collar with a tag, provided that the owner shows proof that the dog(s) is/are properly vaccinated and licensed in the following conditions: F\Clerk\Town Code\AnirnaI Control Ordinance\Animal Control Code Final.doc 3 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ca//0608t)7 1. While being exhibited at an American Kennel Club approved kitty' show. 2. While engaged in races approved by the Arizona Racing Commission. 3. A police dog at any time. 4. This Article shall not apply to a non-resident who keeps a dog within the Town limits for a maximum of thirty (30) days per calendar year, provided that the non-resident shows proof the dog is licensed elsewhere upon demand. 18-2-4 Duplicate License Tags. A. If a dog license tag is lost, a duplicate license tag shall be issued upon the owner filing an application with Pima Animal Care Center. 18-2-5 Transfer of License. A. Whenever the ownership of a dog is changed, the new owner must secure a transfer of license. 18-2-6 Violations; Penalties. A. A person found in violation of this Article shall be sanctioned in accordance Itatiorwith Article 18-10-1(A) of this Chapter. B. Any person violating the provisions of this Article shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion of a day during which any violation of this Article is committed and/or permitted. C. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, the Magistrate shall order abatement as necessary. 18-2-7 Fees. Any and all fees as required by this Article shall be determined by Pima Animal Care Center, as amended from time to time. 18-3 Dogs at Large Prohibited; Exceptions/Dogs on School Grounds; Exceptions/Impoundment/Dog Waste Removal/Violations; Penalties/Fees 18-3-1 —Dogs at Large Prohibited; Exceptions A. Any dog owned, possessed, harbored, kept or maintained on public streets, sidewalks, alleys, parks or other public property within the Town shall be restrained by a leash, chain, rope, cord or similar device. B. Any dog awned-,-possessed, kept, harbored or maintained upon or about the private property of any person, including the property of the dog's owner, shall be confined inside a house or other building, or confined by a fence or similar enclosure of sufficient strength and height, to prevent the dog from escaping from the property. 4110, F:\Clcrk\Too n Codc\Aninutl Control Ordinance'Animal Control Code Final doc 4 Town of Oro Valley Attorneys Offtce/ca//(K>ORt)7 C. Exceptions: Dogs accompanied by and under the control of their owners are exempt from this Article under the following circumstances: 1. While participating in field trails, dog obedience classes, kennel club events and/or while engaged in races approved by the Arizona Racing Commission, provided the dog is accompanied by and under the control of the dog's owner or trainer. 2. While assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties. 3. Guide dogs while assisting the blind, deaf or physically handicapped persons, as long as such dogs are under direct and effective voice control of such individuals to assure that they do not violate any other provisions of this Chapter. D. The Town Enforcement Agent and/or a peace officer are authorized to impound any dog running at large in accordance with the provisions of this Article. 18-3-2 Dogs on School Grounds Prohibited; Exceptions A. It shall be unlawful to bring a dog onto the grounds of any school, regardless of whether the dog is restrained by a leash, chain, rope, cord or similar device. B. Dogs shall be allowed on school grounds as an exception to this Section under the following circumstances: 1. While participating as part of a formal school activity or event. 2. While serving as a guide dog for the blind, deaf or physically disabled. 3. While assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties. 18-3-3 Impoundment A. The Town Enforcement Agent shall impound any dog running at large in accordance to the provisions of this Chapter. B. The Town Enforcement Agent shall promptly notify the dog's owner in person or by written notice that the dog is impounded. The owner may reclaim the dog within seven (7) days from the date of the actual notice or mailing of notice, upon proof of ownership and payment of all costs and fees, including veterinary fees incurred to remove, impound, board, care for and/or microchip the dog. C. Any licensed dog not claimed within seven (7) days of its impoundment may be placed for adoption or humanely destroyed at the discretion of Pima Animal -are Center. D. When an unlicensed dog is impounded, the owner may reclaim the dog within three (3) days of impoundment by securing a vaccination and a license for the dog, providing proof of ownership and payment of all costs and fees, including veterinary fees incurred to remove, impound, board, care for and/or microchip the dog. F:\Clerk\Toon Code\Animal Control Ordinance\Anlmal Control Code Final doc 5 Tour of Oro Vallee Attorney's Office/ca//060807 • E. Any unlicensed dog not claimed within three (3) of its impoundment may be placed for adoption or humanely destroyed at the discretion of Pima Animal Care Center. F. Pima Animal Care Center may, in addition to the provisions of this Article, microchip the animal at the owner's sole expense. 18-3-4 Dog Waste Removal; Exceptions A. It is civil infraction for the owner or person having custody of any dog to fail to immediately remove and dispose of, in a sanitary manner, any solid waste deposited by such dog on public property and/or on any private property without the consent of the person in control of the property. B. Nothing in this Article or Chapter shall be deemed to permit or otherwise allow any violation of applicable state, county or town ordinances, including health codes and nuisance regulations. C. Exceptions. This Section shall not apply to: 1. Blind persons. 2. Persons with mobility disabilities. 3. Police officers or other law enforcement officers accompanied by police dogs while on emergency. 18-3-5 Violations/Penalties A. Ape person found in violation of this Article shall be sanctioned in accordance with Article 18-10-1(A) of this Chapter. B. Any person violating the provisions of this Article shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day or portion of a day during which any violation of this Article is committed and/or permitted. Any individual who receives notice of such violation and fails to appear at the designated hearing time in the notice, or at the time designated for hearing by the court, shall be deemed to have admitted the allegations of the complaint and the court shall enter judgment for the Town and impose a civil sanctions in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. If any penalty ordered by the court to be paid and/or forfeited pursuant to default is not paid within thirty (30) days of the magistrate's order, the Town Attorney may initiate appropriate civil proceedings to seek legal and/or equitable relief to enforce the order, and the magistrate may initiate judicial proceedings as provided by law to collect the penalty. All penalties collected pursuant to this Article shall be paid to and become the property of the Town. C. In- addition to any other penalties allowed by law, the Magistrate shall order abatement as necessary. 411wor F:\Clcrk\Town Code\Animal Control Ordinance\Animal Control Code Final doc 6 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Offtce/ca111160807 18-4 Feeding Non-Domesticated Mammalian Predators; Exceptions/Violations; Penalties 18-4-1 Feeding A. No person shall feed and/or provide drink at any time for one or more non- domesticated mammalian predators including, but not limited to, coyotes, raccoons, foxes,javelinas, skunks and opossums. 18-4-2 Exceptions A. This Article shall not apply under the following circumstances: 1. Where the person is the owner of such non-domesticated predator and such predator is kept under a valid certificate or permit issued by the State of Arizona. 2. Where the person provides food and/or drink for a trapped, injured or un- weaned non-domesticated predator between the time Pima Animal Care Center is notified and such predator is picked up by Pima Animal Care Center. 18-4-3 Violations/Penalties A. Any violation of this Article is a civil violation punishable by a minimum mandatory fine of$25.00 up to a maximum fine of$1,500.00 per incident. 18-5 Abandonment/Cruelty/Failure to Render Aid/Neglect/Violations; Penalties/ Order to Show Cause - Abandonment/Cruelty/Neglect 18-5-1 Abandonment A. It is a misdemeanor for any owner to leave an animal in any location for more than forty-eight (48) hours without providing for that animal's care and well- being. The requisite intent to abandon for more than forty-eight (48) hours shall be demonstrated by proof that: 1) the owner left the animal in an abode that is not presently occupied; and/or 2) the owner released the animal out of a vehicle onto public or private property without making arrangements for its care. 18-5-2 Cruelty A. It is a Class One misdemeanor for any person to, or allows any person to, overload, overwork, torture, torment, cruelly beat, kick, mutilate, cruelly injure, or cruelly or unlawfully kill an animal. F'\CIcrk\Tow n Codc\Anin.al Control Ordinancc\Anlntal Control Codc Final.doc 7 Toon of Oro Valle}AttorneN's Office/ca//061)81)7 18-5-3 Failure to Render Aid A. It is unlawful for any person to accidentally or otherwise hit and/or injure an animal with an automobile or other vehicle and to leave the scene without making a reasonable effort to obtain aid, render aid and/or assist in the care of such animal. 18-5-4 Neglect A. It is unlawful for any owner of any animal to fail to comply with the following: 1. Provide the animal with food and/or water, free from contamination, which is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain the animal in good health. 2. Provide access to natural or artificial shelter for the animal throughout the year. Such shelter must be maintained in good repair to protect the animal from injury and the elements, and must be of sufficient size to permit the animal to enter, stand, turn around and lie down in a natural manner. Livestock are not included in this Article. 3. Provide the animal with the care and medical treatment for injuries, parasites and diseases, sufficient to maintain the animal in good health and minimize suffering. 4. Provide the animal with adequate exercise space. 5. If the animal is on a tie-out, the tie-out must consist of a chain, leash, wire cable or similar restraint attached to a swivel or pulley. Tie-out collars shall not be of a choke type. The tie-out shall be located so that it cannot entangle with other objects, or be caught on objects such as fences and/or walls. No tie-out shall be less than ten (10) feet in length. 6. Provide the animal with adequate ventilation and protection from temperature extremes at all times. It is a civil infraction for any person to keep any animal in a vehicle and/or other enclosed space in which the temperature is either so high or so low, and/or the ventilation is inadequate that it might endanger the animal's life and/or health. 7. 18-5-5 Violations/Penalties A. Any violation of this Article is punishable in accordance with the provisions of Article 18-10-2(B) of this Chapter. 18-5-5 Order to Show Cause - Abandonment/Cruelty/Failure to Render Aid/Neglect. A. Impoundment/Criminal Violation. If a peace officer and/or Town 4110w Enforcement Agent issue a citation for a violation of this Article and/or F 1ClcrktToo n Codc\Animal Control Ordinance\Aninral Control Code Final.doc 8 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's OfliceIca//060807 18-6-2 Violations; Penalties A. If any animal within the Town limits is determined to be a destructive or vicious animal, a peace officer and/or Town Enforcement Agent shall immediately impound the animal. B. Within ten (10) days of the date of the animal's impoundment, the Town Magistrate shall conduct a hearing and, upon a petition filed by the Town Prosecutor's Office, the Magistrate Court shall order that an Order to Show Cause Hearing be held at which time the owner must appear and show cause why the animal should not be declared a destructive or vicious animal and sanctions be ordered pursuant to this Article. 18-3-6 Sanctions A. Upon the Court's determination that the animal is a destructive or vicious, the Magistrate may order one or more of the following: 1. That the animal shall be kept in an enclosure so that the animal cannot bite, harm or injure any person and/or animal outside the enclosure and/or jump over the enclosure; that the enclosure and property where the enclosure is located be posted with conspicuous warning signs; and that at no time shall the animal leave the enclosure unless it is muzzled, leashed and under the control of an adult; and/or 2. That the animal shall be banished from the Town limits; and/or 3. That the animal be humanely destroyed; and/or 4. The owner shall make restitution up to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to the victim. This remedy shall not abridge any civil cause of action by the victim. 18-7 Dangerous Animals 18-7-1 Definitions A. A dangerous animal means one which has been declared to be vicious or destructive pursuant to this Chapter and/or displays or has a tendency, disposition or propensity, as determined by the Town Enforcement Agent, to: 1. Injure, bite, attack, chase or charge, or attempt to injure, bite, attack, chase and/or charge a person or domestic animal in a threatening manner; or 2-. ---Bare its---teeth and/or approach a-person and/or domestic_-animal_=irr a threatening manner. 3. Owned and/or harbored primarily for in part for the purposes of fighting or has been trained for fighting. F\Clcrk\Torr n Code\Anin>al Control Ordinancc\Amoral Control Codc Final doc 10 Toon of Oro Valle%Arnornca s Office/ca//l/61)8117 B. A dangerous animal does not include an animal used in law enforcement or in custody of zoos or wild animal parks, animals placed in animal shelters, fift'"rw animals under care of veterinarians or wild animals. 18-7-2 Declaring an Animal Dangerous; Notice A. The Town Animal Enforcement Agent shall make the determination if an animal is a dangerous animal. B. Whenever the Town Animal Enforcement agent has reason to believe an animal may be dangerous, an evaluation of the animal shall be conducted. C. If the Town Animal Enforcement Agent declares that an animal is dangerous, the owner shall be notified and issued an order of compliance. Once an animal is declared dangerous, the animal is dangerous until a hearing officer or judge determines otherwise. If the owner is known, he/she shall be provided with a written notice of his/her right to file, within five (5) days of receipt of the notice, a written request with the Town Enforcement Agent for a hearing to determine if the animal is dangerous. If the owner's whereabouts cannot be determined or the animal poses a threat to public safety and/or safety of domestic animals, the animal shall be impounded and notice shall be posted on property, or mailed forthwith to the owner at his/her last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested. 18-7-3 Hearing; burden of proof; appeal A. The owner of the animal may request a hearing to contest the declaration of dangerousness or contest the confinement conditions ordered by the Town Enforcement Agent. B. If the owner of an impounded animal fails to appear at a hearing and/or fails to request a hearing, the animal shall be forfeited to the Town Enforcement Agent to be humanely destroyed. .C. If the owner of a non-impounded animal fails to appear at a hearing or fails to request a hearing, the animal shall be declared to be dangerous and the order of compliance shall remain in effect. D. After request for a hearing, the Town Enforcement Agent shall set a hearing date within five (5) working days at a time and place designated by the town animal enforcement agent. The hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer selected by the Town Enforcement Agent. E. The hearing shall be held in an informal manner and a record of the hearing shall be made by stenographic transcription or by electronic tape recording. The rules of evidence do not apply and hearsay shall be admissible. F. It is the burden of the owner of the animaltoestablish by -a_preponder-ance_of the evidence that the animal is not dangerous. The owner may be represented by counsel and present witnesses at the animal owner's cost. G. The hearing officer shall make a written decision within five (5) working days of the hearing and notify the owner of the animal of the decision. F:\Clerk\Town Codc\Animal Control Ordinance\Anirnal Como!Code Final.doc 11 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Oflicc/ca//16081)7 l H. If the decision of dangerousness is sustained by the hearing officer, the owner of the animal shall obey the order of compliance issued by the Town Enforcement Agent within the time given by the order of compliance or ten (10) days, whichever is greater. I. If the animal is found not to be dangerous, the order of compliance shall be null and void. The finding that an animal is not dangerous does not prevent the Town Enforcement Agent from declaring the same animal dangerous again if the agent has additional reasons to believe the animal is dangerous after a new evaluation of the animal is conducted. J. Appeal of the decision of the hearing officer shall be by way of special action to the Superior Court of Pima County on the record of the hearing. If either party claims the record to be incomplete or lost, and the hearing officer who conducted the hearing so certifies, a new hearing shall be conducted before that officer. The appealing party shall bear the cost of preparing the record of the hearing on appeal. No appeal shall be taken later than thirty (30) days after the hearing officer's decision. 18-7-4 Order of compliance A. When an animal is declared dangerous, the Town Enforcement Agent shall issue an order of compliance requiring the owner within thirty (30) days to: 1. Confine the animal sufficiently to prevent the animal's escape as follows: a. The Town Enforcement Agent shall determine the appropriate fencing requirements for the size and nature of the animal. The Town Enforcement Agent may require a fence, including gates, to be six feet in height; the fence from five feet in height to six feet in height to incline to the inside of the confinement area at a forty-five degree angle from the vertical; or that the confinement area be wholly covered by a material strong enough to keep the animal from escaping. b. The Town Enforcement Agent may require the bottom of the confinement area to be of concrete, cement or asphalt, or of blocks or bricks set in concrete or cement; or if the bottom is not provided, a footing of such material shall be placed along the whole perimeter of the confinement area to a depth of one foot below ground level, or deeper if required by the Town Enforcement Agent. c. The gates to the confinement area shall be locked at all times with a padlock except while entering or exiting. d. The Town Enforcement Agent may require temporary confinement measures-_ 1[h e-==ceder o f=comp ante_h ache en oheyes or----the_hearing -- officer determines that the animal is not dangerous. If the owner does not immediately comply with the temporary confinement requirements, the animal shall be impounded. F \To,0 Codc\Animal Control Ordinancc\Animal Control Codc Final doe 1 2 Toon of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ca/M60807 pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910, and reasonably believe the violation will continue, the Town Enforcement Agent and/or peace officer are authorized to remove and impound the animal. B. Impoundment/Exigent Circumstances. The Town Enforcement Agent and/or peace officer are authorized and empowered to remove and impound any animal in plain view that is suffering from immediate life threatening exigent circumstances. C. Costs. The owner of any animal removed and impounded under the provisions of this Article shall be solely responsible for any impoundment, boarding and/or veterinarian fees incurred in connection herewith. D. Hearing. 1. Within ten (10) days of any animal's impoundment, the owner of the animal may file a petition in Oro Valley Magistrate Court for an Order to Show Cause why the animal should not be returned to the owner pending the outcome of the complaint. 2. The Town Magistrate, upon hearing the Order to Show Cause and finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prohibited treatment of the animal will continue and/or that the owner willfully or through gross negligence caused and/or allowed the animal to be caused pain, suffering or serious injury, shall order the animal to be retained by the Pima Animal Care Center pending the outcome of the complaint. 3. If the owner fails to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing and/or if 44s"r is filed within ten (10) da s the Pima Animal Care Center no petition days, may place the animal up for adoption or dispose of the animal as humanely as possible. 18-6 Destructive or Vicious Animals/Violations/Sanctions 18-6-1 Keeping destructive or vicious animals prohibited. A. It is unlawful for a person to keep, control, harbor or otherwise have under control any animal which is destructive or vicious. This Chapter does not apply to zoos, wild animal parks or animal shelters, or to persons who are in compliance with an order of the Town Magistrate issued pursuant to this Chapter. B. The owner of any animal that bites, attempts to bite, endangers or otherwise injures or causes injury to people and/or animals, or destroys, damages or causes damage to the property of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. C. It is a civil infraction for any person to fail to comply with Town Magistrate's order regarding a destructive or vicious animal. It is a separate offense for each day that such person fails to comply with the Magistrate's order. D. Violation. A violation of this Article is punishable in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (1100, F\Clcrk\Town Codc\Anin>al Control Ordinance\Animal Control Code Final doc 9 Town of Oro Vallee Attorney's Officc/ca//I60807 2. Muzzle and restrain the animal outside the confinement area with a leash, chain, rope or similar device not more than six (6) feet in length, sufficient to restrain the animal and be under the control of a person capable of preventing the animal from engaging in any prohibited behavior. 3. Post a sign on every gate or entry way to the confinement area stating "Beware of Dangerous Animal". 4. Obtain and maintain liability insurance in a single incident amount of $50,000, unless the animal has been declared to be vicious or destructive pursuant to this Chapter, in which case the amount of insurance shall be no less than $250,000, to cover any damage and/or injury that may be caused by the dangerous animal. The town animal enforcement agent shall maintain a registry of the animals, owners and insurance carrier for each animal declared "dangerous". 5. Pay the reasonable cost to the Town Enforcement Agent to tattoo the animal with an identification number. The Town Enforcement Agent shall maintain a registry of the numbers and the owners of the animals. 6. Have a licensed veterinarian spay or neuter the animal at the owner's sole expense. The owner shall obtain written certification signed by the veterinarian that the spaying or neutering has been performed. 18-7-5 Consent to inspection; inspection; order of compliance; seizure A. By continuing to own an animal declared dangerous, an owner gives consent to the Town Enforcement Agent or any peace officer to inspect the animal declared dangerous, the premises where the animal is kept, the liability insurance documents required for the animal, and the veterinarian's certificate of spaying or neutering for the animal. B. The Town Enforcement Agent may seize and impound the dangerous animal if the owner fails to obey the order of compliance. Five (5) days after the seizure, the Town Enforcement Agent may humanely destroy the animal unless the owner has demonstrated obedience to the order of compliance. The owner of the animal is solely responsible for any impound fees. If the owner of the animal demonstrates proof that the order of compliance has been obeyed, the animal shall be returned to the owner after payment of impound fees. Any action taken under this Chapter shall be in addition to any available criminal penalties. 18-7-6 Required Acts and Unlawful Activities A. An owner of an animal declared dangerous shall obey the order of compliance. B--A=n-owner of an-an-m= c1 ared=dan-g rous- alb o=sett ee awa _abancton _ - or otherwise dispose of the animal without notifying the Town Enforcement Agent in writing in advance. C. An owner of an animal declared to be dangerous shall provide proof of liability insurance and the veterinarian's certificate of spaying or neutering the animal to the Town Enforcement Agent upon demand. F\Clerk\To,n Codc\AmmaI Control Ordinance\Aninktl Control Codc Final doc 13 Toon of Oro ValleN Attorney s Office/ea//t)60807 D. An owner of an animal declared dangerous shall not prevent or attempt to ‘Pivprevent inspection of the animal and/or the premises where the animal is kept. E. When the owner of an animal is notified that the Town Enforcement Agent is evaluating an animal or requests to evaluate an animal to determine if the animal is dangerous, the owner of the animal shall present the animal for inspection within 24 hours of a request by the Town Enforcement Agent. The owner shall not sell, give away, hide or otherwise prevent the Town Enforcement Agent from making an evaluation of the animal. F. The owner of an animal declared to be dangerous shall prevent the animal from running at large as defined in this Chapter. G. The owner of an animal declared to be dangerous shall prevent the animal from biting, injuring and/or attacking any person and/or domestic animal outside of the confinement area. 18-7-7 Violations; Penalties A. Wherever in this Chapter any act is prohibited or declared to be unlawful or the doing of any act is required or the failure to do an act is declared to be unlawful, the violation of that provision is a misdemeanor punishable, except for the penalties already set forth in this Chapter, by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 and/or by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months. No judge may grant probation to and/or suspend the imposition of the minimum fine prescribed in this paragraph. In addition, a person may be placed on probation for not more than three (3) years. This shall not be *Ifi ""''" construed to affect, in any wa theimposition of the minimum mandatory Y� m P penalties provided in this paragraph. B. Each day or portion of a day any violation continues or occurs shall constitute a separate offense. 18-8 Excessive Noise Caused by Animals or Birds; Violations; Penalties 18-8-1 It is a civil infraction for anyone owning, possessing, harboring and/or controlling any animal or bird which does the following: A. Frequently or for continuous duration howls, barks, meows, squawks or makes other sounds, if they are clearly audible sounds beyond the property line of the property on which they are conducted and they disturb the public peace, quiet or comfort of the neighboring inhabitants. 18-8-2 Civil Sanctions. A person found responsible for a violation of this Article shall be sanctioned by the Magistrate or hearing officer as follows: A. First violation within a 12-month period - a fine of not less than Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00) and no more than Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00). B. Second violation within a 12-month period - a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and no more than Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars 4ilor ($250.00). F:\Clerk\Town Codc\Anirnal Control OrdinancekAnirnal Control Code Final doc 14 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ca//160807 C. Third or subsequent violation within a 12-month period - a fine of not less than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) and no more than Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00). D. Default. If an individual receiving a notice of violation fails to appear at the hearing time designated in the notice of violation and/or the time designated for a hearing by the Court, that individual shall be deemed to have admitted the allegation in the complaint and the Court shall enter judgment and impose a civil sanction in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. E. If any penalty ordered to be paid by the Magistrate or forfeited pursuant to default is not paid within thirty (30) days of the Magistrate's order, appropriate civil proceedings, both legal and equitable, may be initiated by the Town Attorney in order to enforce the administrative order. The Magistrate may also institute judicial proceedings as provided by law to collect such penalty. All penalties corrected pursuant to this Article shall be paid to and become the property of the Town of Oro Valley. F. Each day and/or a portion of a day a violation continues under this Article shall constitute a separate offense. 18-9 Biting Animals A. The owner of any animal that bites and/or otherwise injures human beings and/or other animals is guilty of a misdemeanor. B. It is unlawful for any person to fail to comply with an order of a Town Magistrate regarding a biting animal. Such offense is a misdemeanor and it is a separate offense for each day or a portion of a day the owner fails to comply with the Magistrate's order. C. A violation of this Article is punishable in accordance with the provisions of Section 18-10-2(B) of this Chapter. D. Misdemeanor Compromise: A violation of this Article may be misdemeanor compromised pursuant to the procedures set forth within Arizona Revised Statute § 13-3981. The recommendation of the Town Prosecutor's Office shall be necessary before such arrangement can be entered into. 1. Order to Show Cause/Biting Animal: a) The Town Enforcement Agent, upon determining that any animal within the Town limits is a "biting animal", and is in immediate danger to the safety or any person or other animal, shall immediately impound the animal. b) Within ten (10) days of the date of impoundment, the Town Ma istrat_e-shal l conduct-a_h.eari n aside scri bed rn-this-Article. -- __- c) The Oro Valley Magistrate Court, for good cause shown in a petition filed by the Town Prosecutor's Office, shall order that an Order to Show Cause Hearing be held, at which time the owner shall appear and show cause why the animal should not be declared a "biting animal" and sanctions ordered. F'\Clerk\Town Codc\Animal Control Ordinance\Animal Control Code Final doc 15 Town of Oro Valle}Attorney's Officc/ca//11608117 r t d) The owner of the animal shall be notified of this hearing by the Ilior Court. Upon proof of such notification, such hearing may proceed in the owner's absence. e) Sanctions: Upon the declaration of an animal as a "biting animal", a Town Magistrate may order one or more of the following: a. That the animal shall be kept in an enclosure that is high enough so that the animal cannot bite, harm, and/or injure anyone outside the enclosure; that the enclosure and property whereon it is located shall be posted with conspicuous warning signs; and that at no time shall the animal leave the enclosure unless it is muzzled, leashed and under the control of an adult human being, or b. That the animal be banished from the town limits of the Town of Oro Valley; or c. That the animal be humanely destroyed; or d. That the animal be spayed or neutered at the owner's expense; or e. Restitution up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) may be ordered made by the owner to the victim. This remedy shall not abridge any civil cause of action by the victim. f. Defenses: It shall be an affirmative defense to Article if: • 1) Provocation existed at the time of the bite; or 2) The dog is a police dog under the command of its trainer. 18-10 Penalties/Sanctions 18-10-1 Civil Sanctions A. A person found responsible for a violation of the prohibited activities in Articles 18-2, 18-3, 18-4, or 18-8 shall be sanctioned by the Magistrate or hearing officer as follows: 1. First violation within a 12 month period - a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). 2. Second violation within a 12-month period - a fine of not less than seventy-five dollars ($75.00) or more than two hundred fifty dollars ($25.00) 3. Third or subsequent violation within a 12-month period - a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) or more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). 4. Default. Anyowner of an animal receivinga notice of violation and t. failing to appear at the hearing time designated in the notice of F'\Clerk\Town Codc\Animal Control Ordinancc'Aninul Control Code Final.doc 16 Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Officdca//060807 t. violation, and/or at a time designated for a hearing by the Court, shall be deemed to have admitted the allegations of the complaint, and the Court shall enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction in accordance with the provisions of this Article. 5. In the event any penalty ordered to be paid by the court or forfeited Pursuant to default is not paid within thirty (30) days of the Magistrate's order, appropriate civil proceedings both legal and equitable may be initiated by the Town Attorney in order to enforce the administrative order. The Magistrate may institute judicial pg as provided s by law to collect said penalty. All penalties collected pursuant to this Article shall be paid to and become the property of the Town of Oro Valley. 18-10-2 Criminal Penalties A. AP erson found guilty for a violation of the prohibited activities in Articles 18-5, 18-6, 18-7 or 18-9 shall be penalized by the Magistrate as follows: 1. A fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), six (6) months in jail, three (3) years probation or any combination thereof; and 2. 18-11, Rules of Procedure 18-11 Rules of Procedure All civilP roceedings under Articles 18-2, 18-4 and/or 18-5 shall be governed by the Rules of Procedure in Civil Traffic Violation Cases 17(A) Arizona Revised Statutes. 18-12 Authority of Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer 18-12-1 Enforcement - The Town Enforcement Agent and/or peace officer are herebyauthorized and empowered to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and issue citations for violations thereof. Pima Animal Care Center shall have primary responsibility for the enforcement of this Chapter. 18-12-2 Use of Force - The Town Enforcement Agent and/or peace officer are authorized to use force as reasonable and necessary to remove any animal from a vehicle or other enclosed space whenever it appears that the animal's life or health is endangered by extreme temperatures or lack of ventilation. 18-12-3 Liability - No Town Enforcement Agent and/or peace officer shall be liable far-damage's-to`property caused=by==the use of reasonable_ -or tc-r_ move an animal from such a vehicle or other enclosed space under such circumstances. F\Clcrk\Tom n Code\Animal Control Ordinancc nimal Control Code Final doc 1 7 Toa of Oro Valley A1lon ey s Office/ca//1)6081)7 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 'r'OUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/01/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MELINDA GARRAHAN, TOWN ATTORNEY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R) 07-Rq , A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED ARTICLE 12-17, "CABLE FRANCHISE" OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE SUMMARY: On or before May 21, 2007, the existing license agreement between the Town and Comcast expired. However, by Federal law, the Town's old agreement remains in effect until another agreement can be reachedp ursuant to 47 USC 546. Because Article 12-17 "Cable Franchise" of the current Town Code is outdated, Article 12-17 has been redrafted to: 1) reflect the Town's current and future needs regarding the latest changes in Arizona law; 2) give the Town more control of the Town's rights-if-way; 3) mirror State law on the definition of "Gross Revenue"; 4) expand the design and construction requirements; and 5) require new technical standards. Upon adoption of the redrafted Article 12-17 by Council, the new Cable License Agreement shall incorporate the redraft Oro Valley Town Code, Article 12-17, Cable Franchise, into the Agreement. SCAL IMPACT: None Now ATTACHMENTS: Resolution ( R) 07-89 Article 17-12, Cable Franchise SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to adopt Resolution No. (R) 07-89 , declaring as a public record that certain document filed with the Town Clerk and entitled Article 12-17, Cable Franchise. /4" 41/ .ter elinda Ga. . a', Town Attorney 0 _./114 David Andrews, Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 07- 89 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED ARTICLE 12-17, "CABLE FRANCHISE" OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document entitled Article 12-17, "Cable Franchise", of the Oro Valley Town Code, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 1st day of August , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Date: 411 F:\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\Oro Valley License Agreement\Cable Ordinance Public Record.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ca/070307 Article 12-17 12-17-1 Intent 12-17-2 Definitions 12-17-3 License to Install and Operate 12-17-4 License Required 12-17-5 Term of the License 12-17-6 License Territory 12-17-7 Federal, State and Town Jurisdiction 12-17-8 License Non-Transferable 12-17-9 Purchase by Town upon Expiration or Revocation 12-17-10 Geographical Coverage 12-17-11 Nonexclusive License 12-17-12 Multiple Licenses 12-17-13 Initial License Applications 12-17-14 Consideration of Initial Applications 12-17-15 License Renewal 12-17-16 Consumer Protection and Service Standards 12-17-17 Rate Regulation 12-17-18 License Fee 12-17-19 Design and Construction Requirements 12-17-20 Technical Standards 12-17-21 Trimming of Trees 12-17-22 Use of Grantee Facilities 12-17-23 Hold Harmless 12-17-24 Insurance 12-17-25 Records Required and Grantor's Right to Inspect 12-17-26 Annual Reports 12-17-27 License Violation 12-17-28 Force Majeure: Grantee's Inability to Perform 12-17-29 Abandonment or Removal of License Property 12-17-30 Extended Operation and Continuity of Services 12-17-31 Receivership and Foreclosure 12-17-32 Rights Reserved to Grantor 12-17-33 Rights of Individuals 12-17-34 Conflicts 12-17-35 Severability ‘10111110 \\Legal\sharefilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc Section 12-17-1 Intent A. The Town of Oro Valley, pursuant to applicable federal and state law, is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive Licenses to construct, operate, maintain and reconstruct Cable Television Systems within the Town limits. B. The Town Council finds that the development of Cable Television Systems has the potential of having great benefit and impact upon the residents of Oro Valley. Because of the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable television, the Town Council further finds that the public convenience, safety and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers which should be vested in the Town or such Persons as the Town shall designate. It is the intent of this article and subsequent amendments to provide for and specify the means to attain the best possible cable television service to the public and any Licenses issued pursuant to this article shall be deemed to include this finding as an integral part thereof. Section 12-17-2 Definitions For the purpose of this article, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. Words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. All capitalized terms used in the definition of any other term shall have their meaning as otherwise defined in this Section 12-17-2. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and "may" is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. A. "Basic Cable Service" means any service tier which includes the retransmission of local television broadcast signals. B. "Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §§ 521-611 (1982 & Supp. V 1987), as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, and as may, from time to time, be amended. C. "Cable Service" means: 1) The one-way transmission to Subscribers of video programming or other progammingservice; and 2) Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service. D. "Cable Television System," "System" or "Cable System" means any facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service that includes video \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\F1NAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 2 a«� and that is provided to multiple subscribers within a community. Cable • programming television system does not include: 1) A facility that serves fewer than fifty subscribers. 2) A facility that serves subscribers without using any public street, road or alley. 3) A facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations. A facilityof a common carrier that is subject, in whole or in part, to 47 United 4) . • . States Code sections 201 through 276, except that the facility is considered a cable television system, other than for purposes of 47 United States Code section y 541(c), to the extent the facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of the use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services. 5) An open video system that complies with 47 United States Code Section 573. 6) A facility of an electric utility that is used solely for operating its electric utility system. gio E. "Channel" or "Cable Channel" means a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum that is used in a Cable System and which is capable of delivering a television Channel as defined by the Federal Communications Commission. F. "Council" means the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley. G. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission, its designated representative or its lawful successor. H. "License" means an initial authorization, or renewal thereof, issued by the Town, whether such authorization is designated as a License, permit, license, resolution, contract, certificate, agreement, or otherwise, which authorizes the construction or operation of a Cable System. "License Agreement" means a License granted pursuant to this article, containing the specific provisions of the License granted, including references, specifications, require. t dr .therselated matters. J. "License Fee" means any tax, fee or assessment of any kind imposed by the Town or otherg overnmental entity on a Grantee or cable Subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such. The term "License Fee" does not include: 1) any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services but not \\Legal\sharefrles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafls\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance()42507.doc 3 including a tax, fee, or assessment which is unduly discriminatory against cable operators or cable Subscribers); 2) capital costs that are required by the License Agreement to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or Governmental Access Facilities; 3) requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the License, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages; or 4) any fee imposed under Title 17 of the United States Code. K. "Grantee" means any Person receiving a License pursuant to this article and its agents, employees, officers, designees, or any lawful successor, transferee or assignee. L. "Grantor" or "Town" means the Town of Oro Valley as represented by the Council or any delegate acting within the scope of its jurisdiction. M. "Gross Revenues" means all cash, credits, property of any kind or nature, or other consideration, less related bad debt not to exceed one and one-half per cent annually, that is received directly or indirectly by the cable operator, its affiliates, subsidiaries or parent or any person, firm or corporation in which the cable operator has a financial interest or that has a financial interest in the cable operator and that is derived from the cable operator's operation of its cable system to provide cable service in the area of jurisdiction. Gross revenues include all revenue from charges for cable service to subscribers and all charges for installation, removal, connection or reinstatement of equipment necessary for a subscriber to receive cable service, and any other receipts from subscribers derived from operating the cable system to provide cable service, including receipts from forfeited deposits, sale or rental of equipment to provide cable service, late charges, interest and sale of program guides. Gross revenues also include all income the cable operator receives from the lease of its facilities located in the public streets, roads and alleys, unless services that the lessee provides over the leased facilities are subject to a transaction privilege tax of the licensing authority. Gross revenues do not include revenues from commercial advertising on the cable system, the use or lease of studio facilities of the cable system, the use or lease of leased access channels or bandwidth, the production of video programming by the cable operator, the sale, exchange, use or cablecast of any programming by the cable operator in the area of jurisdiction, sales to the cable operator's subscribers by programmers of home shopping services, reimbursements paid by programmers-far-launch_fees car-marketing expense,lcense-fees, taxes or other fees or charges that the cable operator collects and pays to any governmental authority, any increase in the value of any stock, security or asset, or any dividends or other distributions made in respect of any stock or securities. N. "Initial Service Area" means the area of the Town that will receive Cable Service initially, as set forth in any License Agreement. \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507 doc 4 O. Installation" means theSystem connection of the S stem to Subscribers' terminals, and the provision of Cable Service. P. "Normal Business Hours" means those hours during which most similar businesses in the communityare open to serve customers. In all cases, "Normal Business Hours" must . p • include some eveninghours at least one (1) night per week and/or some weekend hours. Q. "Normal Operating Conditions" means those service conditions that are within the p g control of the Grantee. Those conditions that are not within the control of the Grantee include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather conditions, and significant legislative or regulatory requirements. Those conditions which are ordinarily within the control of the Grantee include, but are not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events, peak regular or seasonal demand periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the System. R. "Person" means any natural person or any association, firm, individual, partnership,Joint stock joint com an , venture, trust, corporation, limited liability company, syndicate, p Y business or other legally recognized entity, private or public, whether for-profit or not- for-profit. tor S. "Public, Educational or Government Access Facilities" or "PEG Access Facilities" means: 1) Channel capacity designated for public, educational, or governmental use; and 2) Facilities and equipment for the use of such Channel capacity. T. "Section" means any section, subsection, or provision of this article. U. "Service Area" or "License Area" means the entire geographic area within the Town as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted, unless otherwise specified in the License Agreement. V. "Service Interruption" means the loss of picture or sound on one or more Cable Channels affecting at least ten percent (10%) of the Town's subscribers on the System. W. "State" means the State of Arizona. X. "Street" means each of the following that have been dedicated to the public or are hereafter dedicated to the public and maintained under public authority or by others and located within the Town limits: streets, roadways, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, easements, rights-of-way and similar public property and areas that the sidewalks, g y 411, Grantor shall permit to be included within the definition of Street from time to time. \\Legal\sharel'iles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current draRs\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 5 Y. "Subscriber" means any Person who or which lawfully elects to subscribe to, for any purpose, Cable Service provided by the Grantee by means of or in connection with the Cable System and who pays the charges therefore, except such Persons or entities authorized to receive Cable Service without charge as described in the License Agreement. Section 12-17-3 License to Install and Operate A License granted by the Town under the provisions of this article shall encompass the following purposes: A. To engage in the business of providing Cable Service, and such other services as may be permitted by the License Agreement. B. To erect, install, construct, repair, rebuild, reconstruct, replace, maintain, and retain cable lines, related electronic equipment, supporting structures, appurtenances, and other property in connection with the operation of a Cable System in, on, over, under, upon, along and across Streets or other public places within the designated Service Area. C. To maintain and operate said License properties for the origination, reception, transmission, amplification, and distribution of television and radio signals for the delivery of Cable Services and any other services permitted by the License Agreement. D. To set forth the obligations of a Grantee under the License Agreement. Section 12-17-4 License Required It shall be unlawful for any Person to construct, install or operate a Cable Television System in the Town within any Street without a properly granted License awarded pursuant to the provisions of this article. Section 12-17-5 Term of the License A. A License granted hereunder shall be for a term established in the License Agreement, commencing with the Grantor's adoption of an ordinance or resolution authorizing the License. B. A License granted hereunder may be renewed upon application by the Grantee pursuant tW:rae-pmvisions=of applicable state_ dfec erg vrand---phis article. Section 12-17-6 License Territory Any License shall be valid within all the territorial limits of the Town, and within any area added to the Town during the term of the License, unless otherwise specified in the License Agreement. \\Lcgal\sharefilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 6 Section 12-17-7 Federal, State and Town Jurisdiction A. Thisarticle shall be construed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal and state laws. that the state or federal government discontinues preemption in any area of B. In the event cable communications over which it currently exercises jurisdiction in such manner as to expand rather than limit municipal regulatory authority, Grantor may, if it so elects, adopt p rules and regulations in these areas to the extent permitted by law. C. This article shall apply 1 to all Licenses granted or renewed after the effective date of this article. It shall further apply 1 to the extent permitted by applicable federal or state law to all existing Licenses granted prior to the effective date of this article. D. Grantee's are subject rights b'ect to the police powers of the Town to adopt and enforce g J ordinances necessaryto the health, safety and welfare of the public. Grantee shall comply with all applicable general laws and ordinances enacted by the Town pursuant to that pp power. g E. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligation to comply with any of the provisions of this article or any License granted pursuant to this article by reason of any failure of the Town to enforce prompt compliance. 11110, F. This granted articleand anyLicense pursuant to this article shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Arizona. Section 12-17-8 License Non-Transferable A. Grantee shall not sell, transfer, lease, assign, sublet or dispose of, in whole or in part, i her byforced or involuntarysale, or by ordinary sale, consolidation or otherwise, the et License and/or Cable System or any of the rights or privileges granted by the License, without thep rior consent of the Council which consent shall not be unreasonably denied or delayed and shall be denied only upon a good faith finding by the Town that the proposed transferee lacks the legal, technical or financial qualifications to perform its obligations under the License Agreement. Any attempt to sell, transfer, lease, assign or otherwise dispose of the License and/or Cable System without the consent of the Council shall be null and void. This provision shall not apply to sales of property or equipment in the normal course of business. No consent from the Town shall be required for a transfer --- - - i - ther-Ifs-trUmeft-o -----thee- tion i -whale-0r-gin-part,to-Sere-an n ebtedness or fora pro forma transfer to a corporation, partnership or other entity id controlling, controlled by or under common control with Grantee. B. The following events shall be deemed to be a sale, assignment or other transfer of the iso License and/or Cable System requiring compliance with this Section: \\Lcgal\sharcfilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 1) The sale,a e, assignment or other transfer of all or a majority of Grantee's assets; 2) The sale, assignment or other transfer of capital stock or partnership, membership or other equity interests in Grantee by one or more of its existing shareholders, partners, members or other equity owners so as to create a new controlling interest in Grantee; 3) The issuance of additional capital stock or partnership, membership or other equity interest by Grantee so as to create a new controlling interest in Grantee; 4) The entry by the Grantee into an agreement with respect to the management or operation of the Grantee and/or the System; and 5) The term "Controlling Interest" as used herein means majority equity ownership of the Grantee. C. Except as provided below, no Grantee may sell or otherwise transfer ownership in a License and/or Cable System within a thirty-six (36) month period following either the acquisition or initial construction of said System by Grantee. In the case of a sale of multiple Systems, if the terms of the sale require the buyer to subsequently transfer ownership of one or more such Systems to one or more third parties, such transfer shall be considered a part of the initial transaction. The above-described thirty-six (36) month holding period shall not apply to: 1) Any transfer of ownership interest in any License and/or Cable System which is not subject to federal income tax liability; 2) Any sale required by operation of any law or any act of any agency, any state or political subdivision or the Town; or 3) Any sale, assignment, or transfer, to one or more purchasers, assignees, or transferees controlled by, controlling, or under common control with, the seller, assignor, or transferor. D. In the case of any sale or transfer of ownership of any License and/or Cable System, the Town shall have one hundred twenty (120) days to act upon any request for approval of such sale or transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Federal Communications Commission Regulations, the requirements of _Ahi s=a _. e-an -_- ch other-reasonable-information-as_.- the Town-,-in-its-sole disc-re-t-IonT request. If the Town fails to render a final decision on the request within one hundred twenty (120) days from receipt by the Town of all required information, such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the Town agree to an extension of time. \\Legal\sharef lcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafis\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 8 ‘1110. E. Grantee shall notify Grantor in writing of any foreclosure or any other judicial sale of all or a substantialp art of the License property of the Grantee or upon the termination of any lease or interest coveringall or a substantial part of said License property. Such notification shall be considered by Grantor as notice that a change in control of ownershipof the License has taken place and the provisions under this Section governing the consent of Grantor to such change in control of ownership shall apply. F. For theu ose of determining whether it shall consent to such change, transfer, or p � acquisition of control, Grantor may inquire into the qualifications of the prospective transferee or controlling party, and Grantee shall assist Grantor in any such inquiry. In seekingGrantor's consent to any change of ownership or control, Grantee shall have the responsibility of insuring that the transferee completes an application in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Grantor, which application shall include the information required under state and federal law as well as under Subsections (A) through (H) of Section 12-17-13 of this article. An application, acceptable to the Town, shall be submitted to Grantor not less than ninety (90) days prior to the date of transfer. The transferee shall be required to establish that it possesses the legal, technical and financialq ualifications to operate and maintain the System and comply with all License requirements for the remainder of the term of the License. If, after considering the legal, financial, character and technical qualities of the applicant and determining that they are satisfactory, the Grantor finds that such transfer is acceptable, the Grantor shall transfer and assign the rights and obligations of such License. The consent of the Grantor to such '` transfer shall not be unreasonably denied. G. Any financial institution having a pledge of the Grantee or its assets for the advancement of money for the construction and/or operation of the License shall have the right to notify the Grantor that it or its designee satisfactory to the Grantor shall take control of and operate the Cable Television System, in the event of a Grantee default in its financial obligations. Further, said financial institution shall also submit a plan for such operation within thirty (30) days of assuming such control that will insure continued service and compliance with all License requirements during the term the financial institution exercises control over the System. The financial institution shall not exercise control over the System for a period exceeding one (1) year unless extended by the Grantor in its Y discretion and during said period of time it shall have the right to petition the Grantor to transfer the License to another Grantee. Section 12-17-9 Purchase by Town Upon Expiration or Revocation . - - se-} . e ---- --- A. -_ 1 - . . - - : � � . _: , ;le__Act,---a-rer�A�xJ � � ;�P- - -Town --- ---- i may purchase to the extent permitted by Federal law and upon payment to the Grantee of the Cable Systems' fair market value as a going concern, exclusive of any value allocated to the License itself, that portion of Grantee's Cable System serving the Town of Oro Valley. \\Legal\shareftics\Franchisc Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafls\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 9 B. Subject to the Cable Act, if a License is revoked for cause, the Town may, to the extent permitted by Federal law, acquire that portion of the Cable System serving the Town of Oro Valley upon payment of an equitable price. Section 12-17-10 Geographical Coverage A. Grantee shall design, construct and maintain the Cable Television System to have the capability to pass every dwelling unit in the Service Area, subject to any line extension requirements of the License Agreement. B. After service has been established by activating trunk and/or distribution cables for any part of the Service Area, Grantee shall provide Cable Service to any requesting Subscriber within that Service Area within thirty (30) days from the date of request, provided that the Grantee is able to secure all rights-of-way necessary to extend service to such Subscriber within such thirty (30) day period on reasonable terms and conditions. Section 12-17-11 Nonexclusive License Any License granted shall be nonexclusive. The Grantor specifically reserves the right to grant, at any time, such additional Licenses for a Cable Television System or any component thereof, as it deems appropriate, subject to applicable state and federal law, provided, however, that no License shall be granted on terms materially less burdensome or more favorable than any other License granted hereunder. Section 12-17-12 Multiple Licenses A. Grantor may grant one or more Licenses for a Service Area. Grantor may, in its sole discretion, limit the number of Licenses granted, based upon, but not necessarily limited to, the requirements of applicable law and specific local considerations; such as: 1) The capacity of the public rights-of-way to accommodate multiple coaxial cables in addition to the cables, conduits and pipes of the utility Systems, such as electrical power, telephone, gas and sewerage. 2) The impact on the community of having multiple Licenses. 3) The disadvantages that may result from Cable System competition, such as the requirement for multiple pedestals on residents' property, and the disruption arising from numerous excavations of the rights-of-way. 4) The financial capabilities of the applicant and its guaranteed commitment to make necessary investment to erect, maintain and operate the proposed System for the duration of the License term. B. Each Grantee awarded a License to serve the entire Town shall offer service to all residences in the Town, in accordance with construction and service schedules mutually agreed upon between Grantor and Grantee, and consistent with applicable law. \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafls\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 0425(17.doc 10 C. Developers of new residential housing underground der round utilities shall provide conduit to g accommodate cables for at least two (2) Cable Systems in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-19(D). D. Grantor may require that any new Grantee be responsible for its own underground q trenching and the costs associated therewith, if, in Grantor's opinion, the rights-of-way in any particular area cannot feasibly and reasonably accommodate additional cables. E. Anyadditional License granted by the Town to provide Cable Service in a part of the Town in which a License has already been granted and where an existing Grantee is providing service shall require the new Grantee to provide service throughout its Service p g q Area within a reasonable time and in a sequence which does not discriminate against lower income residents. Section 12-17-13 Initial License Applications AnyPerson desiringan initial License for a Cable Television System shall file an application with the Town. A reasonable nonrefundable application fee established by the Town shall accompany the application. Such application fee shall not be deemed to be p Y "License Fees" within the meaning of Section 622 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 542), and suchpaY ments shall not be deemed to be (i) "payments in kind" or any involuntary payments chargeable ments char against the compensation to be paid to the Town by Grantee pursuant to Section 12-17-18 hereof and applicable provisions of a License Agreement, or (ii) part of the compensation to be paid to the Town by Grantee pursuant to Section 12- (ii) p 17-18 hereof and applicable provisions of a License Agreement. An application for an initial License for a Cable Television System shall contain, where applicable: A. A Statement as to the proposed License and Service Area. B. Resume ofp rior history of applicant, including the legal, technical and financial expertise of applicant in the cable television field. C. List of theartners, general and limited, of the applicant, if a partnership, or the p percentage of stock owned or controlled by each shareholder, if a corporation. D. List of officers, directors and managing employees of applicant, together with a —description-of 1,.,,ekgrou -- ch-such Perm E. The names and addresses of any parent or subsidiary of applicant or any other business entity owningor controlling applicant in whole or in part, or owned or controlled in whole or in part by applicant. F. A current financial Statement of applicant verified by a CPA audit or otherwise certified to be true, complete and correct to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town. \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafis\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 03251)7.doc 11 G. Proposed construction and service schedule. H. Any additional information that the Town deems applicable. Section 12-17-14 Consideration of Initial Applications A. Upon receipt of any application for an initial License, the Town Manager shall prepare a report and make his recommendations respecting such application to the Town Council. B. A public hearing shall be set prior to any initial License grant, at a time and date approved by the Council. Within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing, the Council shall make a decision based upon the evidence received at the hearing as to whether or not the License(s) should be granted, and, if granted, subject to what conditions. The Council may grant one (1) or more initial Licenses, or may decline to grant any License. Section 12-17-15 License Renewal License renewals shall be in accordance with applicable law including, but not necessarily limited to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. Grantor and Grantee, by mutual consent, may enter into renewal negotiations at any time during the term of the License. Section 12-17-16 Consumer Protection and Service Standards A. Except as otherwise provided in the License Agreement, Grantee shall maintain a local office or offices to provide the necessary facilities, equipment and personnel to comply with the following consumer protection standards under Normal Operating Conditions: 1) Cable System office hours and telephone availability: a) Grantee will maintain a local, toll-free or collect call telephone access line which will be available to its Subscribers twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. i) Trained Grantee representatives will be available to respond to customer telephone inquiries during Normal Business Hours. ii) After Normal Business Hours, the access line may be answered by a service or an automated response System, including an answering machine. Inquiries received after Normal Business Hours must be responded to by a trained Grantee representative on the next business day. \\Legal\sharefiles\FrancIuse Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 0425(17.doc 12 b) Under Normal Operating Conditions, telephone answer time by a customer representative, including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds when the connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds. These standards shall be met no less then ninety percent (90%) of the time under Normal Operating Conditions, measured on a quarterly basis. c) The Grantee will not be required to acquire equipment or perform surveys to measure compliance with the telephone answering standards above unless an historical record of complaints indicates a clear failure to comply. d) Under Normal Operating Conditions, the customer will receive a busy signal less than three percent (3%) of the time. e) Customer service center and bill payment locations will be open at least during Normal Business Hours and will be conveniently located. 2) Installations, outages and service calls. Under Normal Operating Conditions, each of the following four standards will be met not less than ninety-five percent (95%) of the time measured on a quarterly basis: a) Standard Installations will be performed within seven (7) business days after an order has been placed. "Standard" Installations are those that are located up to one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the existing distribution System. b) Excluding conditions beyond the control of Grantee, Grantee will begin working on "Service Interruptions" promptly and, in no event, later than 24 hours after the interruption becomes known. The Grantee must begin actions to correct other service problems the next business day after notification of the service problem. c) At the subscriber's request, the "appointment window" alternatives for Installations, service calls, and other Installation activities will be within a two to four hour time block during Normal Business — Hours. fThe Grange--rnay -sc-hedule - service calls- and—other Installation n-—ot-er- Installation activities outside of Normal Business Hours for the express convenience of the customer.) d) Grantee may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled ., appointment. \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 13 e) If Grantee's representative is running late for an appointment with a customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer will be contacted. The appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time that is convenient for the customer. 3) Communications between Grantee and cable Subscribers: a) Notifications to Subscribers: i) The Grantee shall provide written information on each of the following areas at the time of Installation of service, at least annually to all Subscribers, and at any time upon request: • Products and services offered; • Prices and options for programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and other services; • Installation and service maintenance policies; • Instructions on how to use the Cable Service; • Channel positions for programming carried on the System; and • Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of the Town's cable office. ii) Customers will be notified of any changes in rates, programming services or Channel positions as soon as possible through announcements on the Cable System and in writing. Notice must be given to Subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes if the change --------------- — is within the control of the Grantee. In addition, the Grantee shall-notify--Subscribers--thirty (30Jdays-ii' dance-óf-any - significant changes in the other information required by the preceding paragraph. Legal\sharcfilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafls\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 14 b) Billing: i) Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly delineate all activity during the billing period, including optional charges, rebates and credits. ii) In case of a billing dispute, the Grantee must respond to a written complaint from a Subscriber within thirty (30) days. c) Refunds: Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than either: i) The customer's next billing cycle following resolution of the request or thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or ii) The return of the equipment supplied by the Grantee if service is terminated. d) Credits: Credits for service will be issued no later than the customer's next billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. Section 12-17-17 Rate Regulation A. The Town reserves the right to regulate rates for Basic Cable Service and any other services offered over the Cable System, to the fullest extent permitted by federal and/or state law. The Grantee shall be subject to the rate regulation provisions provided for herein, and those of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Town shall follow the rules relating to cable rate regulation promulgated by the FCC. B. Except to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by applicable law, Grantee shall provide Cable Service to each resident within the Service Area at a uniform rate. Section 12-17-18 License Fee A. =Fo- _- •.- arrec and-acceptance-of a License, the=Grantc - - -- antor a License Fee in the amount set forth in the License Agreement. B. The Grantor, on an annual basis, shall be furnished a Statement within sixty (60) days of the close of the calendar year, certified by an officer of the Grantee or audited by a Certified Public Accountant, reflecting the total amounts of gross annual revenues and all payments, computations ments and com utations for the previous calendar year. Upon ten (10) days prior written notice, Grantor shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of Grantee's \1Legal\sharefilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 15 111 0 records, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and if such audit indicates a License Fee underpayment of five percent (5%) or more, the Grantee shall assume all reasonable costs of such an audit. C. Except as otherwise provided by law, no acceptance of any payment by the Grantor shall be construed as a release or as an accord and satisfaction of any claim the Grantor may have for further or additional sums payable as a License Fee under this article or any License Agreement or for the performance of any other obligation of the Grantee. D. In the event that any License Fee payment or recomputed amount is not made on or before the dates specified in the License Agreement, Grantee shall pay as additional compensation an interest charge, computed from such due date, at an annual rate equal to the prime lending rate plus one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) during the period for which payment was due. E. License Fee payments shall be made in accordance with the schedule indicated in the License Agreement. Section 12-17-19 Design and Construction Requirements A. Grantee shall not construct any Cable System facilities until Grantee has secured, at its own expense, all necessary permits, licenses or other forms of approval or authorization from Grantor and other cognizant public agencies. B. In those areas of the Town where transmission or distribution facilities of all the public utilities providing telephone and electric power service are underground, the Grantee likewise shall construct, operate and maintain its transmission and distribution facilities therein underground. C. In those areas of the Town where Grantee's cables are located on the above-ground transmission or distribution facilities of the public utility providing telephone or electric power service, and in the event that the facilities of both such public utilities subsequently are placed underground, then the Grantee likewise shall construct, operate and maintain its transmission and distribution facilities underground, at Grantee's cost. Certain of Grantee's equipment, such as pedestals, amplifiers and power supplies, which normally are placed above ground, may continue to remain in above-ground closures. D. In new residential developments in which all the electric power and telephone utilities are --- un - - : .; _ .ms roce€ :-.a_ -: =3 • -- _., tto-access-to-and-utilization - of underground easements: 1) The developer shall be responsible for contacting and surveying all Licensed cable operators to ascertain which operators desire (or, pursuant to the terms and provisions of this article and any License Agreement, may be required) to provide Cable Service to that development. The developer may establish a reasonable deadline to receive cable operator responses. The final development map shall \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreementkurrent drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 16 • indicate the cable operators that have agreed to serve the development. 2) If one (1) or two (2) cable operators wish to provide service, they shall be accommodated in the joint utilities trench on a nondiscriminatory shared basis. If fewer than two (2) operators indicate interest, the developer shall provide conduit to accommodate two (2) sets of cable television cables and dedicate to the Town anyinitiallyunoccupied conduit. The developer shall be entitled to recover from Grantor the cost of such initially unoccupied conduit in the event that Grantor subsequently leases or sells occupancy or use rights to any Grantee. 3) The developer shall provide at least ten (10) working days notice of the date that utility trenches will be open to the cable operators that have agreed to serve the development. When the trenches are open, cable operators shall have two (2) working days s to begin the Installation of their cables, and five (5) working days after beginning Installation to complete Installation. 4) The final development map shall not be approved until the developer submits evidence that: a) It has notified each Grantee that underground utility trenches are to open as of an estimated date, and that each Grantee will be allowed access to such trenches, including trenches from proposed Streets individual homes or home sites, on specified nondiscriminatory to p terms and conditions; and b) It has received a written notification from each Grantee that the Grantee intends to install its facilities during the open trench period on the specified terms and conditions, or such other terms and conditions as are mutually agreeable to the developer and Grantee, or has received no reply from a Grantee within ten (10) days after its notification to such Grantee, in which case the Grantee will be deemed to have waived its opportunity to install its facilities during the open trench period. 5) Sharing the joint utilities trench shall be subject to compliance with state regulatory agency and utility standards. If such compliance is not possible, the g Y developer shall provide a separate trench for the cable television cables, with the entire cost shared among the participating cable operators. With the concurrence utilities—and—the—cable—operators,alternative- Installation procedures, such as the use of deeper trenches, may be utilized, subject to applicable law. 6) Any cable operator wishing to serve an area where the trenches have been closed shall be responsible for its own trenching and associated costs and shall repair all property to the condition which existed prior to such trenching. \Legal\sharcfilcs\Franchise Agrcerncnts\Comcast Cable License Agreerncnt\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 1 7 E. Grantee shall remove, replace or modify at its own expense the installation of any of its facilities within any Street when required to do so by the Town to allow the Town to change, maintain, repair, improve or eliminate a Street. Nothing in this section shall prevent Grantee from seeking and obtaining reimbursement from sources other than the Town. F. At the request of any person holding a valid building moving permit and upon sufficient notice, Grantee shall temporarily raise or lower its wires as necessary to facilitate such move upon not less than seventy-two (72) hours advance notice. The direct expense of such temporary changes, including standby time, shall be paid by the holder of the moving permit and Grantee may require payment in advance. Section 12-17-20 Technical Standards A. The Grantee shall construct, install, operate and maintain its System in a manner consistent with all applicable laws, ordinances, construction standards, governmental requirements, Federal Communications Commission technical standards, and any standards set forth in its License Agreement. In addition, the Grantee shall provide to the Grantor, upon request, a written report of the results of the Grantee's periodic proof of performance tests conducted pursuant to Federal Communications Commission standards and guidelines. B. Repeated and verified failure to maintain specified technical standards shall constitute a material License violation. C. All construction practices shall be in accordance with all applicable Sections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, as well as all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. D. All Installation of electronic equipment shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of the National Electrical and Safety Code and National Electrical Code, as amended, and as may from time to time be amended. E. Antennae and their supporting structures (towers) shall be painted, lighted, erected and maintained in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration and all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. F. All of Grantee's plant and equipment, including, but not limited to, the antenna site, .t- a •-i -. 3 :, - a we e col nem tions -str cture ,—pcil ,cry-_wir-e7 coaxial cable, fixtures and appurtenances shall be installed, located, erected, constructed, reconstructed, replaced, removed, repaired, maintained and operated in accordance with good engineering practices, performed by experienced maintenance and construction personnel so as not to endanger or interfere with improvements that the Town may deem appropriate to make, or to interfere in any manner with the rights or reasonable convenience of any property owner, or to unnecessarily hinder or obstruct public use of the Streets or pedestrian or vehicular traffic. \Lcgal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 18 G. Grantee shall at all times employ ordinary care and shall install and maintain in use commonly accepted methods and devices preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injury or nuisance to the public. Section 12-17-21 Trimming of Trees Grantee shall have the authority to trim trees, in accordance with all applicable utility restrictions, ordinance and easement restrictions, upon and hanging over Streets, alleys, sidewalks, and public places of the Town so as to prevent the branches of such trees from coming in contact with the wires and cables of Grantee. Town representatives shall have authority to supervise and approve all trimming of trees conducted by Grantee. Section 12-17-22 Use of Grantee Facilities The Town shall have the right to install and maintain, free of charge, upon the poles and within the underground pipes and conduits of Grantee, any wires and fixtures desired by the Town to the extent that such Installation and maintenance does not interfere with existing operations and future use of Grantee. Section 12-17-23 Hold Harmless A. Grantee, under any License operated pursuant to this article, shall agree to indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend the Town, its officers, boards, commissions, agents and employees from and against any and all lawsuits, claims, causes of action, actions, liability, demands, damages, disability, losses, expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs or liabilities of any nature that may be asserted by any Person resulting or in any manner arising from the action or inaction of the Grantee in constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing or removing the System, in carrying on Grantee's business or operations in the Town or in exercising or failing to exercise any right or privilege e granted by the License. This indemnity shall apply, without limitation, to any action or cause of action for invasion of privacy, defamation, antitrust, errors and omissions, theft, fire, violation or infringement of any copyright, trademark, trade names, service mark or patent, or any other right of any Person, firm or corporation, whether or not any act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited by this article or any License Agreement, but shall not include any claim or action arising out of the actions or omissions of Town officers, employees or agents or related to any Town programmingor other access programming for which the Grantee is not legally responsible. B. The Town shallromptly notify Grantee of any claims subject t6Inderrniflcation by p Grantee and shall cooperate with all reasonable requests by Grantee for information, documents, testimony or other assistance appropriate to a resolution of such claims. Grantee shall have full responsibility for and control of any action or undertaking directed at the resolution of such claims. \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 19 Section 12-17-24 Insurance Grantee shall provide insurance as specified in the License Agreement. Section 12-17-25 Records Required and Grantor's Right to Inspect A. Grantee shall at all times maintain: 1) A full and complete set of plans, records and "as-built" maps showing the location of the Cable Television System installed or in use in the Town, exclusive of Subscriber service drops and equipment provided in Subscribers' homes. 2) If requested by Grantor, a summary of service calls, identifying the number, general nature and disposition of such calls, on a monthly basis. A summary of such service calls shall be submitted to the Grantor within thirty (30) days following its request in a form reasonably acceptable to the Grantor. B. Upon forty-eight (48) hours written notice, and during Normal Business Hours, Grantee shall permit examination by any duly authorized representative of the Grantor, of all License property and facilities, together with any appurtenant property and facilities of Grantee situated within the Town, and all records relating to the License, provided they are necessary to enable the Grantor to carry out its regulatory responsibilities under local, state and federal law, this article and the License Agreement. Such records include all books, records, maps, plans, financial Statements, service complaint logs, performance test results, records of request for service, and other like materials of Grantee. Grantee shall have the right to be present at any such examination. C. If any of the records described in the previous subsection are proprietary in nature or must be kept confidential by state, federal or local law, upon proper request by Grantee, such information obtained during such an inspection shall be treated as confidential. To the extent that any federal or state law requires Grantor to disclose any such records, the Town shall be entitled to disclose those records. D. Copies of all petitions, applications, communications and reports submitted by Grantee, or on behalf of or relating to Grantee, to the Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other federal or state regulatory commission or agency having jurisdiction with respect to any matters affecting the Cable System authorized pursuant to this article and any License shall be made available to the ■.'.■..■ ✓ : :■:■ =ice: a`die=• = ii i-� Ci • . " G • _ _ ■i likewise be furnished to the Town upon request. Section 12-17-26 Annual Reports A. Grantee shall submit a written end of the year report to Grantor with respect to the preceding calendar year containing the following information: \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 20 • 1) A Summary of the previous year's (or in the case of the initial reporting year, the initial year's) activities in development of the Cable System, including but not limited to, services begun or discontinued during the reporting year. 2) A list of Grantee's officers, members of its board of directors, and other principals of Grantee. 3) A list of stockholders or other equity investors holding five percent (5%) or more of the voting interest in Grantee. 4) Information as to the number of Subscribers and the number of basic and pay service Subscribers. 5) The Town, including its agents and representatives, shall have the authority, during Normal Business Hours, to arrange for and conduct an inspection of Annual Reports required pursuant to this article or a License Agreement. The Town shall give the Grantee seventy-two (72) hours written notice of the inspection request. 6) If the requested information is proprietary in nature or must be kept confidential by state, federal or local law, upon proper request by Grantee, such information obtained during such an inspection shall be treated as confidential. To the extent that anyfederal or state law requires Grantor to disclose any such records, the q Town shall be entitled to disclose records. B. All reports and records required under this article shall be furnished at the sole expense of Grantee, except as otherwise provided in this article or the License Agreement. Section 12-17-27 License Violation If Grantee fails to perform in a timely manner any material obligation required by this article or a License granted hereunder, following notice from the Grantor and an opportunity to cure such nonperformance, Grantor may act to remedy such violation in pp Y accordance with the following procedures: A. Grantor shall notify Grantee of any alleged material violation in writing by personal delivery or registered or certified mail, and demand correction within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than ten (10) business days in the case of the failure of the Grantee • - � -- _- -=:z-= � : . . the—Gra . License and thirty (30) days in all other cases. B. If Grantee fails either to correct the violation within the time prescribed or to commence correction of the violation within the time prescribed and thereafter after diligently pursue correction of such violation, the Grantor shall then give written notice of not less than New twenty (20) business days of a public hearing to be held before the Council. Said notice shall specify the violations alleged to have occurred. \\Lcgal\sharefilcs\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafls\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 21 C. At the public hearing, the Council shall hear and consider relevant evidence and thereafter render findings and its decision. In the event that the Council finds that a material violation exists and that Grantee has not corrected the same in a satisfactory manner or has not diligently commenced correction of such violation after notice thereof from Grantor and is not diligently proceeding to fully remedy such violation, the Council may revoke the License or impose another penalty permitted by the License agreement. 1) The Grantor shall give written notice to the Grantee of its intent to revoke the License on the basis of a pattern of noncompliance by the Grantee, including one or more instances of substantial noncompliance with a material provision of the License. The notice shall set forth with specificity the exact nature of the noncompliance. The Grantee shall have sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice to object in writing and to state its reasons for such objection. In the event the Grantor has not received a satisfactory response from the Grantee, it may then seek termination of the License at a public hearing. The Grantor shall cause to be served upon the Grantee, at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, a written notice specifying the time and place of the hearing and stating its intent to request termination of the License. 2) At the hearing, the Grantor shall give the Grantee an opportunity to state its position on the matter, present evidence and question witnesses, after which it shall determine whether or not the License shall be revoked. The public hearing shall be on the record and a written transcript shall be made available to the Grantee within ten (10) business days. The decision of the Grantor shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Grantee. The Grantee may appeal such determination to an appropriate court, which shall have the power to review the decision of the Grantor and to modify or reverse such decision as justice may require. Such appeal to the appropriate court must be taken within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the determination of the Grantor. Section 12-17-28 Force Majeure: Grantee's Inability to Perform In the event Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions or obligations required by this article or a License grant hereunder is prevented by a cause or event not within Grantee's control, such inability to perform shall be deemed excused and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof. For the purpose of this Section, causes or events not within the control of Grantee shall include without limitation acts of God, strikes, sabotage, riots or civil disturbances, restraints imposed by order of a governmental—,, =- a.- •- - - e - - e e e 4 — - - public- ---- -- --- •3 � � � � • e ��•ewr�-- • w � � i- i • enemies, and natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and fires. Section 12-17-29 Abandonment or Removal of License Property A. In the event that the use of any property of Grantee within the License Area or a portion thereof is discontinued for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, Grantee shall be deemed to have abandoned that License property. ,1 Legal\sharefilesTranchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current dra11s\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 22 (NO B. Grantor, upon such terms as Grantor may impose, may give Grantee permission to abandon, without removing, any System facility or equipment laid, directly constructed, operated or maintained under the License. Unless such permission is granted or unless otherwise provided in this article, the Grantee shall remove all abandoned above-ground facilities and equipment upon receipt of written notice from Grantor and shall restore any affected Street to its former state at the time such facilities and equipment were installed, so as not to impair its usefulness. In removing its plant, structures and equipment, Grantee shall refill, at its own expense, any excavation that shall be made by it and shall leave all public ways and places in as good condition as that prevailing prior to such removal without materially interfering with any electrical or telephone cable or other utility wires, poles or attachments. Grantor shall have the right to inspect and approve the condition of the public ways, public places, cables, wires, attachments and poles prior to and after removal. The liability, indemnity and insurance provisions of this article and any securityfund provided in the License shall continue in full force and effect during the period of removal and until full compliance by Grantee with the terms and conditions of this Section. C. Upon abandonment of any License property in place, the Grantee, if required by the Grantor, shall submit to Grantor an instrument, satisfactory in form to the Grantor, transferring to the Grantor the ownership of the License property abandoned. D. At the expiration of the term for which the License is granted, or upon its revocation or earlier expiration, as provided for herein, in any such case without renewal, extension or transfer, the Grantor shall have the right to require Grantee to remove, at its own expense, all above-ground portions of the Cable Television System from all Streets and public ways within the Town within a reasonable period of time, which shall not be less than one hundred eighty (180) days. E Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this article, the Grantee may abandon any underground License property in place so long as it does not materially interfere with the use of the Street or public rights-of-way in which such property is located or with the use thereof by any public utility or other cable Grantee. Section 12-17-30 Extended Operation and Continuity of Services Upon either expiration or revocation of the License, the Grantor shall have discretion to permit p and/or require Grantee to continue to operate the Cable Television System for an extended period of time not to exceed six (6) months from the date of such expiration or revocation. Grantee shall ths-ar c l ri P L c en e_ to provide the regular Subscriber service and any and all of the services that may be prove e at- that time Section 12-17-31 Receivership and Foreclosure A. A License granted hereunder shall, at the option of Grantor, cease and terminate one hundred twenty (120) days after appointment of a receiver or receivers, or trustee or \\Legal\sharefiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafrs\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doe 23 trustees, to take over and conduct the business of Grantee, whether in a receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy or other action or proceeding, unless such receivership or trusteeship shall have been vacated prior to the expiration of said one hundred twenty (120) days, or unless: 1) Such receivers or trustees shall have, within one hundred twenty (120) days after their election or appointment, fully complied with all the terms and provisions of this article and the License granted pursuant hereto, and the receivership or trustees within said one hundred twenty (120) days shall have remedied all the faults under the License or provided a plan for the remedy of such faults which is satisfactory to the Grantor; and 2) Such receivers or trustees shall, within said one hundred twenty (120) days, execute an agreement duly approved by the court having jurisdiction in the premises, whereby such receivers or trustees assume and agree to be bound by each and every term, provision and limitation of the License granted. B. In the case of a foreclosure or other judicial sale of the License property, or any material part thereof, Grantor may serve notice of termination upon Grantee and the successful bidder at such sale, in which event the License granted and all rights and privileges of the Grantee hereunder shall cease and terminate thirty (30) days after service of such notice, unless: 1) Grantor shall have approved the transfer of the License, as and in the manner that this article provides; and 2) Such successful bidder shall have covenanted and agreed with Grantor to assume and be bound by all terms and conditions of the License. Section 12-17-32 Rights Reserved to Grantor A. In addition to any rights specifically reserved to the Grantor by this article, the Grantor reserves to itself every right and power which is required to be reserved by a provision of any ordinance or under the License. B. The Grantor shall have the right to waive any provision of the License, except those required by federal or state regulation, if the Grantor determines (1) that it is in the public interest to do so, and (2) that the enforcement of such provision will impose an undue uch giver shall_ e evidenced by a Statement in writing signed by a duly-authorized representative of the Grantor. Waiver of any provision in one instance shall not be deemed a waiver of such provision subsequent to such instance nor be deemed a waiver of any other provision of the License unless the Statement so recites. ,Legal\sharcliles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 24 . c Section 12-17-33 Rights of Individuals A. Grantee shall not deny service, deny access, or otherwise discriminate against Subscribers, Channel users, or general citizens on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender or sexual preference. Nor shall Grantee fail to extend service to any part of the Town within its licensed Service Area on the basis of the income of the residents. Grantee shall comply at all times with all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, relating to nondiscrimination. B. Grantee shall adhere to the applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of federal, state and local regulations. C. Neither Grantee, nor any Person, agency, or entity shall, without the Subscriber's consent, tap or arrange for the tapping, of any cable, line, signal input device, or Subscriber outlet or receiver for any purpose except routine maintenance of the System, detection of unauthorized service, polling with audience participating, or audience viewing surveys to support advertising research regarding viewers where individual viewing behavior cannot be identified. D. In the conduct of providing its services or in pursuit of any collateral commercial enterprise resulting therefrom, Grantee shall take reasonable steps to prevent the invasion of a Subscriber's or general citizen's right of privacy or other personal rights through the Nemo use of the System as such rights are delineated or defined by applicable law. Grantee shall not, without lawful court order or other applicable valid legal authority, utilize the System's interactive two-way equipment or capability for unauthorized personal surveillance of any Subscriber or general citizen. E. No cable line, wire amplifier, converter, or other piece of equipment owned by Grantee shall be installed by Grantee in the Subscriber's premises, other than in appropriate easements, without first securing any required consent. If a Subscriber requests service, permission to install upon Subscriber's property shall be presumed. Where a property owner or his predecessor has granted an easement including a public utility easement or a servitude to another and the servitude by its terms contemplates a use such as Grantee's intended use, Grantee shall not be required to obtain the written permission of the owner for the Installation of cable television equipment. Section 12-17-34 Conflicts entered pursuant to it, the provisions of this article shall control, except as may be specifically otherwise provided in the License Agreement. (PP \\Legal\sharel'tles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 25 Section 12-17-35 Severability If any provision of this article is held by any court or by any federal or state agency of competent jurisdiction to be invalid as conflicting with any federal or state law, rule or regulation now or hereafter in effect, or is held by such court or agency to be modified in any way in order to conform to the requirements of any such law, rule or regulation, such provision shall be considered a separate, distinct, and independent part of this article, and such holding shall not affect the validity and enforceability of all other provisions hereof. In the event that such law, rule or regulation is subsequently repealed, rescinded, amended or otherwise changed, so that the provision hereof which had been held invalid or modified is no longer in conflict with such law, rule or regulation, said provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect and shall thereafter be binding on Grantor and Grantee, provided that Grantor shall give Grantee thirty (30) days written notice of such change before requiring compliance with said provision or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required for Grantee to comply with such provision. \\Legal\sharcfiles\Franchise Agreements\Comcast Cable License Agreement\current drafts\FINAL TOV Cable Ordinance 042507.doc 26 • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/1/07 ler TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 07 -90 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE CONTRACT WITH TISCHLERBISE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,700 TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF ENACTING NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN THE TOWN. SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley advertised a Request For Qualifications on June 4, 2007, for professional consultants to complete a cost of service study to analyze the costs related to providing municipal services as a result of new growth and development within the Town. Specific areas of interest were: police facilities, street and transportation improvements, parks and recreation facilities, library facilities, open space and riparian areas, operational needs and storm water management. Based on land use and population data, as well as established demand factors, the Consultant was asked to develop a comprehensive cost of service study as Phase I of this project. After an exhaustive cost of service study is completed, the Consultant may be asked to create a sound methodology for formulating development impact fees as part of Phase II. In addition, the Consultant will use 'lese methodologies to calculate legally defensible impact fees for the Town. The study shall be phased, with pie detailed findings after the completion of Phase I being used to determine the feasibility of proceeding with the remaining Scope of Work for Phase II to develop impact fees for each specific service area. The Town received three sets of qualifications and ultimately selected TischlerBise, Inc. The attached resolution accepts the qualifications submitted by TischlerBise, Inc. and authorizes the Town to contract with TischlerBise, Inc to complete Phase I of this two-phase process. Phase I of the RFQ will allow the consultant to conduct a feasibility/cost of service study to determine whether the Town can support the creation of additional development impact fees. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is available in the Town Manager's FY 2007/08 budget in the amount of$9,700. RECOMMENDATION: Town Manager's staff recommends approving the contract with TischlerBise, Inc. for Phase I of this two- phased process through the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution (R) 07- 90 2. Copy of Development Impact Fee RFQ dated June 4, 2007 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/1/07 3. Copy of Proposal submitted by TischlerBise, Inc. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve Resolution (R) 07- 90 OR I move to deny Resolution (R) 07- 90 David Andrews, Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 07- 90 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE CONTRACT WITH TISCHLERBISE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,700 TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF ENACTING NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN THE TOWN. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona vested with all associated rights, privileges and benefits and is entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to evaluate the feasibility of enacting new development impact fees within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town submitted Request for Qualifications in order to obtain a list of qualified professional consulting services firms to prepare and submit to the Town a study for the feasibility of enacting new development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Town followed state and Town procurement procedures and selected TischlerBise, Inc. based upon a number of factors, including project understanding, approach, project team qualifications and capabilities; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into this Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", with TischlerBise, Inc. and that the Mayor and Council authorize and approve the Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that the Contract between the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, and TischlerBise, Inc. (attached hereto as Exhibit "A") is hereby approved. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The Town Manager is authorized to contract with TischlerBise, Inc. to study the feasibility of enacting new development impact fee ordinances as stated in the Consultant's proposal dated July 2, 2007. 2. The Town Manager and any other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\tschlievert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 I\Resolution Impact Fee RFQ Phase I doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ch/071707 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 1st day of August , 2007. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Date: Date: C:\Documents and Settings\tschlievert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI 1\Resolution Impact Fee RFQ Phase I.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Office/ch/071707 f � Request for Qualifications Town of Oro Valley Development Impact Fee Consultant Scope of Work for Comprehensive Cost of Service Study and the Possible Development of Additional Impact Fees TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • Town Manager's Office 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Telephone: (520) 229-4700 Facsimile: (520) 229-4724 JUNE 4,2007 • 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General Information The Town of Oro Valley is pleased to request qualifications from professional consultants to complete a cost of service study to analyze the costs related to providing municipal services as a result of new growth and development within the Town. Specific areas of interest are: police facilities, street and transportation improvements, parks and recreation facilities, library facilities, open space and riparian areas, operational needs and storm water management. Based on land use p andpop ulation data, as well as established demand factors, the Consultant shall develop a comprehensive cost of service study as Phase I of this project. After an exhaustive cost of service study is completed, the Consultant may be asked to create a sound methodology for formulating development impact fees as part of Phase II. In addition, the Consultant will use these methodologies to calculate legally defensible impact fees for the Town. The study shall be phased, with the detailed findings after the completion of Tasks A, B, and C of Phase I being used to determine the feasibility of proceeding with the remaining Scope of Work for Phase II to develop impact fees for each specific service area. The Town shall negotiate a more defined Scope of what Phase II will be, dependent upon what Phase I delivers. The specific responsibilities are outlined in the Scope of Work to follow. B. Background The Town currentlyhas development impact fees in place for water (potable and alternative water) and roads. The water development impact fees were adopted in 1996 and the potable water fee was increased in 2000. The Mayor and Town Council are currently considering an increase to both water impact fees at a public hearing scheduled for June 6, 2007. At this time the Town is not interested in evaluating its water rates in conjunction with this study. The Town's roadway impact act fees are charged only to residential development rather than commercial. This study is an opportunity to analyze the adequacy of our current roadway impact fees and determine if there are opportunities to apply the rates to commercial development. C. Scope of Work The scope of the project requires a multi-disciplinary team with a designated project manager to provide the following services: PHASE I: A. COMPILATION OF LAND USE AND POPULATION DATA The Consultant will work with Town staff to obtain relevant land use information for the current entire incorporated Town limits, as well as possible uses for unincorporated areas within the Town's sphere of influence as identified in the Town's General Plan (see map — Attachment A). In addition, the consultant will utilize existing estimates on current population, as well as projections of the Town population through the study's planning period. 2 B. IDENTIFICATION OF DEMAND FACTORS/LEVEL OF SERVICE The Consultant will determine the expected demand levels for Town services. This includes a review of current service levels enjoyed by Oro Valley residents, as well as an assessment of the impact of these demands due to future growth in the Town. C. IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS Using the demand factors as a basis, the Consultant will review capital facility needs, and identify those capital costs which can be attributed to the planned growth of the Town. This information will be compiled from various sources, including Capital Improvement Program, various system master plans, past studies and through interviews with Town staff. D. PREPARE DRAFT WRITTEN REPORT The Consultant shall complete Tasks A-C as Phase I, and shall prepare a draft Memorandum which specifically details the current levels of Town services, impact of new development on those services and the Cost of Development analysis related to capital facility needs. The Memorandum shall provide an analysis of the feasibility of, and the data and resources necessary for, generating a development impact fee for each of the identified service areas. Upon review and comment on the draft report by staff, a final report shall be delivered to the Town. All submittals (memorandums, draft copies and reports) shall be provided in electronic format along with three original copies of each document !kw and its attachments. All documents, including but not limited to data compilations, studies, and reports which are prepared in the performance of this Contract, shall remain the property of the Town and shall be delivered to the Contract Administrator before final payment is made to the Consultant. E. FORMAL PRESENTATION The Consultant shall be available for at least two formal meetings of the Town of Oro Valley Town Council. This includes an initial discussion prior to the process which outlines the scope of study. The second meeting will allow the consulting firm to present its findings at a regular Council study session. The Consultant may be requested to attend other Town Council meetings and/or Town staff meetings, as needed. Such requests will be made by the Town upon reasonable notice. PHASE II: F. DEVELOPMENT OF A COST OF GROWTH IMPACT FEE MODEL The development of a cost of growth impact fee model (the "Model") shall be undertaken by the Consultant. The Model shall include an evaluation of various impact fee methodologies, and a recommendation of the collection process that should be undertaken by the Town. The Consultant shall also interview applicable 3 department staff to discuss the current use and appropriations of fee waivers and exemptions and the effect on the proposed model. G. EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGIES Within the scope of the study shall be an evaluation of the different impact fee allocation methodologies that can be applied in a fee calculation. Giving consideration to collection procedures, availability of data and legal requirements, the Consultant shall ascertain the most useful methodology for allocating costs and developing unit fee charges. H. CALCULATE IMPACT FEE LEVELS-CONSIDER GEOGRAPHIC-BASED RATES Based on the accepted impact fee methodologies, the costs shall then be applied to calculate the estimated unit costs by land use type. Where applicable, impact fee rates shall be segregated by geographic zones to account for any separate systems functioningindependently within the Town limits. The Consultant shall assist staff in the establishment of impact fee zones to determine appropriate fee structures. I. CONDUCT FUNDING ANALYSIS AND DETERMINE THE NEED FOR CREDITS The Consultant shall create a model for establishing credits and net impact fees in addition to a mechanism for staff to apply such activities. The Consultant will also identify expected fundingsources for future capital projects, and use this information id fy p to calculate any credits which should be applied against allocable costs by land use. The Consultant shall also work with the staff to evaluate the application of other development design elements that meet livability and sustainability goals. p g J. PREPARE DRAFT WRITTEN REPORT Consultant shall complete Tasks F-I as Phase II, and shall prepare a Technical The p Memorandum which specifically details the current levels of Town services, impact of new development on those services and the Cost of Development analysis related to capital facilityneeds. The Technical Memorandum shall provide an analysis of the feasibility of, and the data and resources necessary for, generating a development impact fee for each of the identified service areas. The Consultant shallp rovide a written draft document that summarizes the above Technical Memorandum, theplanned methodology, related capital costs and calculated impact fee levels for each infrastructure type, based on the findings and recommendations of Phase I. In addition, the report shall outline the recommended fee level for all land use types, and rovide back-upinformation regarding population estimates, capital facility costs p and land use information. Upon review and comment on the draft report by staff, a p final report shall be delivered to the Town. All submittals (technical memorandums, draft copies and reports) shall be provided in electronic format along with three p original copies of each document and its attachments. All documents, including but not limited to data compilations, studies, and reports which are prepared in the performance of this Contract, shall remain the property of 4 the Town and shall be delivered to the Contract Administrator before final payment is made to the Consultant. Cr K. FORMAL PRESENTATION The Consultant shall be available for at least two formal meetings of the Town of Oro Valley Town Council. This includes an initial discussion prior to the fee calculation process which outlines the scope of study. The second meeting will allow the consulting firm to present its findings at a regular Council study session. The Consultant may be requested to attend other Town Council meetings and/or Town staff meetings, as needed. Such requests will be made by the Town upon reasonable notice. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS: A. POST-ADOPTION ANALYSIS The Consultant shall provide services to the Town after adoption of an impact fee program if/as needed to analyze the effect of the adopted fee. This additional service will be required only where the legislative process adopts a fee significantly smaller than recommended. Analysis will include the need to find additional sources of revenue to balance shortfalls or to evaluate developer overcharge/under-credit situations. Fee will be negotiated if/as this analysis becomes necessary. GENERAL PROVISIONS NOP The Consultant shall organize and lead a "kick-off" meeting to include all identified participants in the project. This meeting is intended to verify needs, schedules, and goals of the work to take place. The Consultant shall confirm all targets, meetings, reviews, and deliverables on a master schedule. The Consultant will report to a project manager and project task force. The Consultant shall prepare minutes of all meetings between the Town and the Consultant, for review and approval by the Town. The Consultant shall prepare a Master Project Schedule and Monthly Cash Flow Schedule, encompassing the entire project for review and approval by the Town. The Consultant shall base the initial schedule upon information developed by the Consultant and provided by the Town. The Consultant shall then be responsible to maintain and update the schedule on a monthly basis during the course of the Project. The Consultant shall submit each schedule revision to the Town for review and approval. A. Project Schedule The Town envisions a two-month time frame for consultant selection: June 4, 2007 Advertise for RFQ Submissions June 11, 2007 Pre-Submittal Conference 5 . July 2, 2007 Qualifications Due July 9-13, 2007 Interviews July 18, 2007 Town Council Award of Contract August 1, 2007 Contract Negotiation Complete Short-listed firms shall submit a schedule of work, including time frames for data collection, analysis, model development, report preparation and cost estimates. B. Budget The selected consultant shall work with Town staff to prepare a budget and final schedule to complete the task listed above. III. CONSULTANT SELECTION A. Pre-Submittal Conference All interested firms shall be invited to a Pre-Submittal Conference to be held June 11, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in the Kachina Conference Room, Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona. Questions may be emailed, faxed or mailed to the Town Manager's Department and must be received seven (7) days in advance of the RFQ due date. Responses, which materially change the scope or intent of this RFQ, will be issued via addendum to all RFQ recipients. Questions maybe directed to Ms. Tory Schlievert, Town Manager's Office, Town of Oro Valley, 11000 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737, Phone 520-229-4723, Facsimile 520-229-4724, and E-mail tschlievert@orovalley.net. B. Submittal Due Date Prospective consultants shall submit seven (7) copies of their submittal in sealed envelopes, clearlymarked with the name of the RFQ, due date and time, addressed to Ms. p Kathi Cuvelier, Town Clerk, Town of Oro Valley, 11000 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. Qualifications shall be delivered or received in the Town Clerk's Office no later than July 2, 2007, at 2:00p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Any Request for Qualifications received or delivered after the stated deadline will be returned to the applicant unopened. Pursuant to thep rovision of Arizona Revised Statues all information submitted shall be deemed to be public information and shall be made available to the public in accordance with thep olicies of the Town of Oro Valley, except trade secrets or other proprietary data which shall remain confidential to the extent the offeror designates and the Town Manager concurs. 6 C. Selection Process • 1. A "Consultant Selection Committee" will review Qualifications, determine a short list of firms, conduct interviews of short-listed firms, and make a recommendation for award of contract. The final selection of the consultant shall be made by the Oro Valley Town Council. 2. Final selection of the consultants shall be at the discretion of the Town of Oro Valley. The Town reserves the right to reject any or all Qualifications. 3. Following selection by the Town Council, the Town will enter into fee negotiations with the firm. If agreement cannot be reached with the recommended firm, the Town will enter into negotiations with the firm(s) ranked next lower in the scoring or reject all Qualifications. Compensation for professional services will be commensurate with the provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes. D. Submittal Information and Evaluation Criteria Submittal booklets should be bound on the left side and have front and back covers. The submittal pages shall not exceed 8 1/2 x 11 inches. Each section should be indexed, i.e. Cover Letter, Firm's Capabilities, etc. All pages shall be printed on one side only. For typewritten pages, the minimum font size is 10, and black ink is preferred. Qualifications should be kept concise, and shall not be more than thirty-five (35) pages including front and back covers. lob Introductory letter The introductory letter should be approximately one (1) page (8 1/2 x 11). The letter shall be on company letterhead including the company name, address, phone number, and fax number. The letter should be addressed to: Town of Oro Valley, ATTN: Town Manager's Department, 11000 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737. The letter shall be signed by an authorized person, and should contain the following: • An expression of the firm's interest in being selected for the contract work. • A statement confirming the commitment of the key personnel and sub-consultants identified in the submittal to the extent necessary to meet the Town of Oro Valley's quality and schedule expectations. • A summary of key points regarding the firm's qualifications. E. Proposal Evaluation Criteria - (Listed In Relative Order Of Importance) A. Method of Approach B. Qualifications and Experience of Key Staff C. Experience of the Firm F. Requirements Specific To Evaluation Criteria: The narrativep ortion and the materials presented in response to this Request For Qualifications shall be submitted in the same order as requested and must contain, at a minimum,the following: A. METHOD OF APPROACH 1. Provide a detailed method of approach to the Scope of Work, indicating the services ro osed to be performed by your firm, to confirm your understanding of p p this RFQ. depth Describe in de th how you plan to meet the requirements of each of the services and activities outlined in the Scope of Work. This should be presented as to reflect understanding and commitment to providing services in a professional and timely manner. 2. Describe the recommended approach of the organization in meeting the responsibilities that the Town has outlined. Include the firm's management and organizational capabilities. 3. Clearly distinguish uish tasks that the Consultant will undertake as distinguished from those that are the responsibility of the Town. Absence of this distinction shall mean the Consultant is fully assuming responsibility for all tasks. 4. Thero osal must contain a task-by-task schedule of the time required to p p complete the project. B. COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM or your Provide a brief history organization, including number of years in business in this capacity, number of employees, and names of chief officers. 2. Providea list of previous and current contracts, if any, that are considered identical or similar to the Scope of Work herein. Include all public agencies served. type Identifythe t e and location of similar work performed which characterizes the work quality. 4. Provide a minimum of three (3) references for which the Consultant has performed similar or related analyses that the Town may contact. Include names of firms and contacts, addresses, phone and fax numbers. 5. Explain how your firm's administrative process will ensure that appropriate levels p of attention are given and that work is properly performed. 8 4 6. Provide specific information that demonstrates the Consultant's knowledge of Arizona Development Impact Fee statutes and Oro Valley regional development structure and history. C. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF KEY STAFF 1. Describe the specific qualifications and experience of the project principal, project manager, key staff, and any subcontractors have in supplying the services listed in this RFQ, including any professional designations and affiliations, certifications or licenses, etc. 2. Provide a list of subcontractors (if applicable), with their respective qualifications and experience to be used in performing the services requested. The Town reserves the right to approve or deny proposed subcontractors. 3. Describe how the qualifications and experience identified above relate to the project, as well as the extent of principal involvement and team experience on similar projects. IV. OTHER PROVISIONS A. The Town anticipates short-listing the respondents. The Town may conduct interviews before or after any short-listing. However, the Town may determine that short-listing and/or interviews are not necessary. In the event the Town established a shortlist, it reserves the right to shortlist the Consultants based on criteria A and B. B. The Town reserves the right to make such additional investigations as it deems necessary to establish the competency and financial stability of any firm submitting a proposal. C. Experiences with the Town and entities which evaluation committee members represent shall be taken into consideration when evaluating qualifications and experience. D. EXCEPTIONS To CONTRACT TERMS AND SPECIFICATIONS The Consultant shall clearly identify any proposed deviations from the Contract Terms or Specifications in the Request for Qualification. Each exception must be clearly defined and referenced to the proper paragraph in this RFQ. The exception shall include, at a minimum, the Consultant's proposed substitute language and opinion as to why the suggested substitution will provide equivalent or better service and performance. 9 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CONSLTA U NT Prepared For TOWN OF ORO VALLEYARIZONA it''1111116 Air ,) - 411: WI s Mt. ol.11100111'7 fk, '�, �'#'.kid '�'�'"-.- ►. 001 * Town of Oro Valle Prepared By lischlerBise Fiscal, Economic& Planning Consultants JULY 2, 2007 lischlerBise 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816 T: 800.4 24.431 8 I F: 301.3 20.4860 Fiscal,Economic& Planning Consultants 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91105-1404 T: 81 8.790.6170 I F: 81 8.790.6235 WWW.TISCHLERBISE.COM July 2, 2007 Town of Oro Valley Attn: Town Manager's Department 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Request for Qualifications-Development Impact Fee Consultant Scope of Work for Comprehensive Cost of Service Study and the Possible Development of Additional Impact Fees Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: TischlerBise is interested in being selected to conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the Town of Oro Valley. We would like to note several points making our proposal unique. 1. TischlerBise has prepared more development impact fees than any other firm (over 600). Our in-house staff of eight development impact fee professionals ensures quality internal review. 2. TischlerBise has prepared more Arizona development impact fees than any other firm. Many of our Arizona jurisdictions are repeat clients. 3. Staff experienced in Arizona will work on this assignment. Paul Tischler and Christopher Cullinan have worked on over 20 Arizona development impact fee assignments. Yvonne Dawson is currently preparing development impact fees for Snowflake and Taylor. We will commit these three people to meet the Town's quality and schedule expectations. We are willing to abide by a penalty clause. 4. Our business focuses on development impact fees and fiscal impact analysis. These two activities, which account for over 90% of our business, reflect capital facility needs and revenue strategies. 5. We understand the minefields. Our occasional private sector work ensures that we prepare development impact fees that are understandable and defensible. An example, Tuscon example is discussed in the text. 6. Our development impact fees have never been litigated in court. None of our clients has ever had to spend considerable time, effort and money to defend the fees in court. Nor has any of our clients had to heavily discount the fees because of study problems. •Fiscal Impact Analysis•Impact Fees•Revenue Strategies•Economic Impact Analysis• Fiscal Software• 7. We routinely provide "what if" methodological policy alternatives. Each community is unique and needs to understand alternatives. Our individual approach is a major reason why so many clients recommend us. We believe our suggested two phase approach is comprehensive and defensible, yet cost and time effective. We are confident that the qualifications and experience of the key staff (and TischlerBise, Inc.) is unsurpassed in Arizona (and nationally). We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our approach, qualifications and work scope with you. Please contact Paul Tischler, President,regarding this proposal at(800)424-4318. Sincerely, Tis i� erBise,Inc. dik, i l► ' ' \ )11, 11 Paul S.Tischler President Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal TABLE OF CONTENTS —METHOD OF APPROACH— 2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2 APPROACH 2 METHODOLOGIES 2 POTENTIAL WORK SCOPE 3 PHASE I—DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FEASIBILITY STUDY 3 Task 1: Review Relevant Published Material and Interview Service Providers and Personnel 3 Task 2: Prepare Feasibility Report 3 Task 3: Workshop 4 PHASE II—DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY 4 Task 1:Recommend Land Use Assumptions 4 Task 2:Ascertain Demand Factors and Level of Service for Relevant Public Facilities 4 Task 3:Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies 4 Task 4:Identify Capacity Needs and Costs 4 Task 5:Determine Need for and Calculate "Credits"to be Applied Against Capital Costs 5 Task 6:Discussion of Preliminary Methodologies and Policy Options 5 Task 7:Prepare Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) 5 Task 8: Complete Development Impact Fee Methodology and Calculations 6 Task 9:Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis 6 Task 10:Preparation of Development Impact Fee Report 6 Task 11:Presentations/Meetings 7 Task 12:Liaison Committee(Optional) 7 DELIVERABLES 8 ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH 9 CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITY 9 —SCHEDULE— 10 —TISCHLERBISE QUALIFICATIONS— 11 BRIEF HISTORY 11 CLIENTS AND LOCATION 11 REFERENCES 18 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 21 —QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF KEY STAFF— 21 SUBCONTRACTORS 23 QUALITY CONTROL 23 APPENDIX Resumes TischlerBise Newsletters and Reprints TischlerBise _ Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal —METHOD OF APPROACH— PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Based on our review of the RFQ and discussions with Town staff, the Town is interested in having a two phase work effort. Our recommendation for a Phase I is to conduct a cost effective Development Impact Fee Feasibility Analysis. This white paper will evaluate the feasibility of preparing possible development impact fees for various General Fund capital facility activities. It will also comment on any appropriate changes to the road development impact fees. A presentation of the findings will conclude this phase. A 30 day time period is anticipated. After the Town decides on the specific development impact fee categories to include in Phase II, this phase will begin. Our suggested Phase II tasks, pending further discussion with the Town, include confirming land use assumptions, ascertaining levels of service, reviewing capital needs and costs, allocating costs to new growth, calculating appropriate credits, discussion of preliminary methodologies and policy options, conducting a cash flow analysis and preparing the development impact fee report. This thorough approach has led to the successful implementation of hundreds of development impact fees across the country. We are confident that at the conclusion of our Phase II report we will have identified for the Town the maximum justifiable development impact fees for each relevant category. APPROACH TischlerBise's national reputation for preparing development impact fees can be attributed in large part to our approach to quality control. The firm will conduct a thorough evaluation of relevant information and data in terms of its being supportable and sustainable. Another part of the quality control consideration is TischlerBise's national expertise in the areas of revenue strategies, capital improvement planning, growth policy analysis, demographics and economics. Finally, we play "devil's advocate" in terms of ensuring that the information and resulting fees will withstand close scrutiny. Our relevant experience will allow us to discuss various technical approaches with the Town. For development impact fees, it is critical that the development impact fees pertain to the existing levels of service, unless there is a financial plan to provide the desired level of service for existing residents. Another important component of the development impact fee analysis is to evaluate actual capital costs, as well as credits, in order to make sure that the development impact fee meets the requirements of case law. METHODOLOGIES There are three basic methodologies that can be applied in the calculation of development impact fees. These are the plan-based, incremental expansion and cost-recovery approaches. The plan-based approach is usually based on a master plan or facility study that indicates the future facility needs over a certain time frame to service certain population thresholds. The incremental expansion approach reflects a methodology in which capital items are added TischlerBise — 2 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal incrementally to meet growth. An example is the need for additional police cars as the number of police personnel increase. The cost-recovery methodology is a third approach. This occurs when the Town has already oversized capital facilities from which new growth will benefit. This approach can be utilized with either of the first two approaches. The selection of the particular methodology for each component of the development impact fee category will be dependent on which is most beneficial for the Town. In a number of cases we will prepare the development impact fees for a particular infrastructure category using several methodologies and will discuss the trade-offs with the Town. POTENTIAL WORK SCOPE The following tasks are recommended to provide a defensible development impact fee study. The Phase I and Phase II tasks are discussed in turn. These tasks may be altered after further discussion with the Town. Phase I—Development Impact Fee Feasibility Study The work scope for this Phase, which will be conducted primarily by Paul Tischler, will focus on the feasibility of including different Town facilities for development impact fee calculations as well as the identification of other possible revenue mechanisms. The likely fee categories include: police, parks and recreation/open space, library and general government. Comments regarding possible recalibration and/or modification of the road development impact fee will be included. The tasks are discussed in turn. Task 1: Review Relevant Published Material and Interview Service Providers and Personnel TischlerBise will review relevant budgets,fiscal information,planning documents,past studies and other material so that meaningful discussions can be held. TischlerBise will meet with appropriate staff from the Town. The interviews will focus on key questions pertaining to the approaches and other requirements of development impact fees. The topics to be discussed will pertain to levels of service, future capital facility needs, geographic sub- areas, financing and other relevant items. TischlerBise will consider all relevant development impact fee categories and subcomponents. Task 2: Prepare Feasibility Report In this task, we will prepare a report discussing the findings of the above task. This task will present recommendations and prioritize the feasible categories for development impact fees. It will address rational nexus, benefit and proportionate share issues. Potential data limitations will also be noted. We will also discuss other revenue alternatives, as appropriate. In summary, this report will be a cost-effective product suggesting potential development impact fee categories and components. TischlerBise - 3 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Task 3: Workshop We will conduct a workshop with appropriate Town officials to present the findings of the Feasibility Report and answer questions. Topics to be discussed will include development impact fees, the Arizona Development Impact Fee Act, revenue sources, political realities and implementation steps. Phase II-Development Impact Fee Study The following tasks are suggested for a comprehensive Phase II work effort. Task 1: Recommend Land Use Assumptions TischlerBise will review and,if appropriate,update annual projections of population, employment, housing, commercial,industrial and other nonresidential square footage data for at least five years. This will be based on discussions with Town staff. We will prepare a memorandum discussing the recommended land use projections. This task will serve to establish forecasts reflecting population,housing,employment,nonresidential building area and other relevant data. Task 2: Ascertain Demand Factors and Level of Service for Relevant Public Facilities There are several important components to this task that are outlined below. a. Ascertain Demand Factors -The actual demand factors that generate the need for new capital facilities will be reviewed. b. Evaluate Existing Levels of Service - It is important to note that development impact fees should use existing levels of service for the purpose of calculating the new demand, unless there are extenuating circumstances. We will determine the existing level of service by conducting onsite interviews, evaluating the appropriate studies and analyzing relevant local data. c. Determine Geographic Service Area - The appropriate geographic service area for purposes of calculating the development impact fees will be determined. The above subtasks will enable us to ensure that three important development impact fee requirements are met;namely the proportionate share,benefit test and rational nexus. Task 3: Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies TischlerBise will consider different possible allocation methodologies to determine which is the most appropriate for each component of the particular impact fee. This comprehensive approach will allow maximization of the development impact fees. Task 4: Identify Capacity Needs and Costs This task will culminate in the relevant capital needs and costs due to growth. TischlerBise - 4 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal 1) Long Range Capital Need - In this subtask, TischlerBise will further review the various studies and other relevant data. The discussions may include not only an understanding of the specific costs, but also whether these capital facilities needs were due to normal replacement, catch-up or new demand. The issue of catch-up will be discussed in the context of new development impact paying for higher levels of service than those that currently exist. 2) Review Cost Estimates-In this subtask TischlerBise will review, as relevant, the various capital costs. As part of this subtask, we will ascertain whether the facilities are likely to be financed and, if so, the amortization schedule. As part of calculating the fee, the jurisdiction may include the construction contract price; the cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials and fixtures; planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the construction system improvement; and debt service charges, if the Town will use development impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes or other obligations issued to finance the cost of system improvements. All of these components will be considered in developing an equitable allocation of costs. Task 5: Determine Need for and Calculate "Credits" to be Applied Against Capital Costs A consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid development impact fee methodology. There is considerable confusion among those who are not immersed in development impact fee law about the definition of a credit and why it may be required. There are, in fact, two (2) types of "credits" each with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which will be included in the development of development impact fees. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur when future contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the development impact fee. The second is a credit toward the payment of a development impact fee for the required dedication of public sites and improvements provided by the developer and for which the development impact fee is imposed. Task 6: Discussion of Preliminary Methodologies and Policy Options The completion of the above tasks will allow us to prepare draft levels of service tables and supporting documentation for each infrastructure category. We will discuss this information with service providers to ensure understanding and acceptance. Policy alternatives will be discussed as appropriate. This should help ensure "sign-off" and prevent time delays. Task 7: Prepare Infrastructure Improvement Plan(IIP) In this task TischlerBise will prepare an IIP which reflects the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, other capital and associate appurtenances equipment, vehicles, furnishings and other personalty that is associated with meeting those future needs for necessary public services. This IIP will meet the new State requirements. TuschlerBise - 5 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Task 8: Complete Development Impact Fee Methodology and Calculations The completion of the above task will enable the development impact fee methodology and calculations to be finalized. The maximum justifiable fee that can be charged and conform to fee requirements will be calculated. (The Town will subsequently decide what percentage of the maximum justifiable fee it wants to charge.) Task 9: Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis In order to prepare a meaningful capital improvement plan, it is important to evaluate the anticipated funding sources. In this task, TischlerBise will prepare a cash flow analysis. This calculation will allow the Town to better understand the various revenue sources possible and the amount which would be needed if the development impact fees were discounted. It will also provide a good understanding of the cash flow needed to cover the infrastructure costs both for existing and new development. The initial cash flow analysis will indicate whether additional funds might be needed or whether the capital improvement plan might need to be altered. This could also affect the total credits calculated in the previous task. Therefore, it is likely that a number of iterations will be conducted in order to refine the cash flow analysis reflecting the capital improvement needs. Task 10: Preparation of Development Impact Fee Report TischlerBise will prepare a draft report that summarizes the need for development impact fees for the appropriate public facility category, the relevant methodologies employed and documents all assumptions and cost factors. The report will include at a minimum the following information: — Executive Summary — A detailed description of the methodologies used during the study — A detailed description of all level of service standards and cost factors used and accompanying rationale — A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed by land use type and activity — Other information which adequately explains and justifies the resulting recommended fee schedule Following the Town's review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon changes and issue final copies. TischlerBise's fee report will have flow diagrams clearly indicating the methodology and approach, a series of tables for each activity showing all of the data assumptions and figures, and a narrative explaining all of the data assumptions, sources and the methodologies. The report will be a stand-alone document clearly understood by interested parties. Because of the TischlerBise - 6 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal firm's extensive experience in calculating development impact fees and preparing such reports, we have developed a very succinct written product that leaves a well-understood paper trail. Task 11: Presentations/Meetings TischlerBise will attend two meetings/public hearings to explain the analysis and conclusions. In addition, we will conduct on-site interviews with relevant staff at the beginning of the process to gather data and obtain a detailed understanding of capital needs. Task 12: Liaison Committee (Optional) In our calculation of fees around the country, it has been very beneficial to have a liaison committee. The purpose of this committee is to allow interested parties, designated by the Town, to understand assumptions and raise any questions about the technical demographic, cost, revenue, credit and other data and supporting documentation that is being used in the calculation of development impact fees. This will not be a forum to discuss the political and/or philosophical use of fees. Rather it will be an opportunity for these interested parties to understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the technical development impact fee methodology. We anticipate two meetings with this group. The first would be to discuss the initial data assumptions, after "sign-off" by the client. The second would be to discuss the draft report. Utilizing this forum will enable the focus of the public hearings to be on the political and economic issues of implementing fees, not the technical approach. TischlerBise - Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal DELIVERABLES Phase I—Development Impact Fee Feasibility Study TASK DELIVERABLE Task 1: Review Relevant Published Material and Interview Service Providers and Personnel Memoranda as Appropriate Task 2: Prepare Feasibility Report Feasibility Report Task 3. Workshop Appropriate Materials and Graphics Phase II-Development Impact Fee Study TASK DELIVERABLE Task 1. Recommend Land Use Assumptions Memorandum Discussing Land Use Projections Task 2. Ascertain Demand Factors and Level of Service for Relevant Public Facilities Memoranda as Appropriate Task 3. Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies Memoranda as appropriate Task 4. Identify Capacity Needs and Costs Memoranda as appropriate Task 5. Determine Need for and Calculate"Credits" Memoranda as Appropriate to be Applied Against Capital Costs Task 6:Discussion of Preliminary Methodologies and Memoranda as Appropriate Policy Options Task 7. Prepare Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) Infrastructure Improvement Plan(IIP) Task 8. Complete Development Impact Fee Methodologyand Calculation Memoranda as Appropriate Cash Flow Analyses Reflecting Capital Task 9. Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis Improvement Plan(s) and Applicable Development Impact Fees Task 10. Preparation of Development Impact Fee Report Development Impact Fee Report Task 11. Presentations/Meetings Appropriate Materials and Graphics Task 12.Liaison Committee(Optional) Appropriate Presentation Material TischlerBise _ Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH Paul Tischler, Christopher Cullinan and Yvonne Dawson will work on this assignment. Paul will be principal in charge as well as project manager. All three individuals are currently working on Arizona development impact fee studies. Their familiarity with the State Act and the geographic area will be very beneficial. We will communicate with Town staff efficiently and as frequently as appropriate. We will prepare memoranda summarizing meetings with the Town. The specific meeting (including a "kick-off" meeting) and communication process for Phase II will be recommended as part of Phase I. Please consult our references for more information on how we work efficiently with our clients. The organizational chart is shown below. Town of Oro Valley TischlerBise, Inc. Paul Tischler Christopher Cullinan Yvonne Dawson CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITY The Town will be primarily responsible for providing requested data, which should be reasonably available, and reviewing our draft products. TischlerBise will be primarily responsible for all tasks and products. TischlerBise — 9 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal —SCHEDULE— The time for Phase I is approximately four weeks. The time estimated to complete the Phase II development impact fee report is approximately pp Y four months from the start of Phase II-Task 1. This assumes prompt q receipt of requested materials and data from the Town, as well as allowing sufficient time for Town staff to review the appropriate products. The anticipated four-month schedule is indicated below. TASK MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Task 1. Recommend Land Use Assumptions Task 2. Ascertain Demand Factors and Level of Service for Relevant Public Facilities Task 3. Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies Task 4. Identify Capacity Needs and Costs Task 5. Determine Need for and Calculate "Credits" to be Applied Against Capital Costs Task 6:Discussion of Preliminary Methodologies and Policy Options Task 7. Prepare Infrastructure Improvement Plan(IIP) Task 8. Complete Development Impact Fee Methodology and Calculation Task 9. Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis Task 10.Preparation of Development Impact Fee Report Task 11.Presentations/Meetings Task 12.Liaison Committee(Optional) TischlerBise _ 10 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal —TISCHLERBISE QUALIFICATIONS— BRIEF HISTORY TischlerBise, Inc., formerly Tischler & Associates. Inc., is a fiscal, economic and planning consulting firm that specializes in development impact fees, fiscal impact analysis, and revenue strategies. The firm has been providing consulting services to both the public and private sectors for over 25 years. The firm has eight professionals, most of whom focus on development impact fees. In this time, TischlerBise has prepared over 600 development impact fees and over 500 fiscal impact analyses. Through its detailed approach, proven methodology and comprehensive product, TischlerBise has established itself as a national expert on development impact fees. The map below illustrates the broad geographic diversity of our client base. ..t, • • - ‘• • :. . ..... ' ji . f° • . : . •• saf . :::,,* • •• • ..• •j• •• it •••• • .• •.• .1. . • ••:. . -.• • • •- • ..• • .. . .•• . • •• • • • • • • • • • s •• •.,Ix.x• • ••• .. . • -....;„,,,e,,, • • \IP` toftiNgoit • ... . ♦ • CLIENTS AND LOCATION Arizona The following pages indicate the approximately 30 Arizona development impact fee clients, with names and telephone numbers. As indicated,both a feasibility analysis and Phase II study were conducted in many cases. Our national clients are then listed. Fee Categories 0 .4o C, v o y45 •�•+,,,, ..., - C� .air >~ l •~ V CLIENT CONTACT t cn o14 „ 3E tj `' P4 Q., v t. o ;—, rd ..J.i 43 cf) Z '' '' (1) g :i. 3 g 1Ey P. cn 0 a, •.� E ft 1 E.w w V o. AZ A ache Co. H.Milton 011erton X p 928-337-7547 TischlerBise _ 11 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Fee Categories •ti V .2 8 au to to `'+'4 ,:-1 l' eli •.�..� W g 2)4 O i.,, a.+ 0 O u C/) y V ,_.., 0 4 CLIENT CONTACT 4 o „ 3 3 cn Q., i O •E. ' w a H 0CJ 14-41 V AZ Apache Junction Bryant Powell X X X X X X (480)474-8116 AZ Avondale Pilar Aguilar X X X X X X X X 602-925-0018 AZ Bullhead Tim Ernster X X X X 928-763-0122 AZ CampVerde Bill Lee X X 928-567-6631 X X X AZ Carefree Jonathan Pearson X X X X X 480-488-3686 AZ Casa Grande Scott Barber X X X 520-421-8600 X AZ Casa Grande Scott Barber X X X X X X X 520-421-8600 AZ Cave Creek Usama Abujbarah X X X X X X 480-488-6611 AZ CoolidgeBob Flatley X X X X X X X 520-723-5361 AZ El MirageBJ Cornwall X X X X X 480-488-6611 X AZ Eloy Joe Blanton X X X X X X 520-466-2578 AZ Flagstaff Mary Jo Jenkins X X X X X X X g 520-774-5281 AZ Glendale Ken Reedy X X X X X X X X 602-930-2254 AZ Good year Tracy DeSomma X y 623-882-7067 AZ Lake Havasu City Wendy Kemp X 928-855-3377 AZ Maricopa Roger Kolman X X X X X X X X 520-568-9098 AZ Navajo Co. Bill Fraley X X X 928-524-4100 AZ Northwest FD Jim Grasham 520-887-1010 X AZ Pinal Co. Ken Buchanan X X X X 520-866-6250 AZ Pinetop-Lakeside Paul Esparta X X x X X 520-368-8883 AZ Queen Creek Wendy Kaserman X X X X X X X X 480-987-9887 AZ Scottsdale Laurel W.Edgar X X 480-312-3111 AZ Sedona Andrea Costello X X 928-203-5022 X X X AZ Show Low Michael Maag X X X X X X 520-537-5262 X Mary Jacobs AZ Sierra Vista X X X X X X 520-458-3315 Tischiergise - 12 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo s ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Fee Categories z � ° .� •V 0 CU OD u .g H CLIENT CONTACT .� cn a.'•-. i 1 ' cn ai a po., el 'Li4, a4 ,y, . ' ° cin° cin° 0 0 - �' •v 0 H p. x �� E OJ w MI E� P. V AZ Snowflake Dr.Spencer Isom X X 928-536-7103 X X X X X AZ S rin erville Larisa Bogardus X X X p g 928-333-2656 AZ Surprise Robert Nilles X X X X p 623-583-1000 X X X X AZ Ta for Steve Sturgell X X y 928-536-7366 X X X X AZ Yuma Jennifer Albers X X X X 928-373-5180 X X X X National Clients A partial listing of our National clients is provided below. Fee Categories 0S 0 tu �v, "au ,9 u ed °; tit) ett V 74 W �' ° .. - ed cu m •2O 4 R. GV! >~ • '! 27ID u E. CLIENT 4.' cin o 3 c;) 44p,, .-• ° ,1 cs) "2 "al °),.) c 2 1 0 411.4 .g. c th' i a) '~ F P. w11 1 0 E w R:, V AL Baldwin X X X AL Daphne X X X X AL Fairhope X X X X X AL Foley X X X X AL Gulf Shores X X X X AL Orange Beach X X X X X AR Bentonville X X X X X X AR Siloam Springs X X X X X X CA Banning X X X X X CA Butte Co. X X X X X CA Chino Hills X X X X CA Clovis X CA El Centro X X X X X CA Grass Valley X X X X X X X X CA Half Moon Bay X X X X X CA Hemet X X X X X X X X CA Imperial Co. X CA Maywood X TischlerBise _ 13 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Fee Categories .. ~ a� a a V) GJ .2 V ,S4 ba al “ t i' i' <4 CLIENT z' cis o u ti w il ,.�' cn F.-4, 1 5",4 2 cn g al g li (s) g C:',, �, c `� •,.., - ar w 4 2 4 H S w P., V CA National City X X X X CA Rancho Cucamonga X CA Suisun City X X X CA Visalia X X X CO Boulder X X X X X X CO Castle Rock X X X X X X X CO Colorado Springs* X CO Eaton X X X X X X CO Erie X X X X X CO Evans X CO Greeley X X X X CO Johnstown X X X X X X X CO Louisville X X X X X X X CO Pitkin Co. X CO Pueblo X CO Vail X CO Steamboat Springs X X X X X DE Appoq.School District X DE New Castle Co. X X X X X X DE State of Delaware X X X X FL Coral Gables X X X X X X X FL Deerfield Beach X X FL DeSoto X X X X X X FL DeSoto Co.School Board X • FL Key Biscayne X ~ FL Lake Wales X X X X X X X FL Manatee Co. X X X X X • FL Manatee Co.School Board X FL Miami X X X X X X FL Naples X X X X X FL North Miami X X X X X X X X X FL Pasco Co.Schools X FL Plant City X FL Port St.Lucie X X FL Punta Gorda X X X X X X FL Seminole County X FL Stuart X X X X X TischlerBise - 14 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Impact Fee Proposal Fee Categories cc a) 75u v •v bbc W Z 5 '' .4+ 17; G •y ' cn cn v O E- .e4 2:,) U t t ei' ''' *.iz ,4 P" -,' -)' g 44' 62 15 U NCLIENT cn o „ 3 r w 0.4 _2 w w et E"' u P. FL Sunny Isles Beach X X X FL West Miami X X X X GA Atlanta* X X X X GA Calhoun X GA Douglas County X X X X X X GA Douglasville X X X X GA Effingham Co. X X X X X X GA Garden City X GA Gordon Co. X X X X GA Henry Co. X IA West Des Moines* X ID Caldwell X i ID Canyon Co. X ID Hailey X X X X X X X X X ID Kellogg X X X ID Nampa X X X X X X X X ID Post Falls X X X X ID Shoshone Fire District X IL Evanston X X X X X MD Anne Arundel Co.* X X MD Caroline Co. X MD Carroll Co. X X X X X X MD Charles Co. X X X MD Dorchester Co. X X X MD Easton X X X X X X MD Frederick X MD Frederick Co. X X X X X X X MD Hagerstown X X X X MD Hampstead X X X MD Ocean City X MD Queen Anne's,Co. X X X X X X X X MD Salisbury X X X X X X X X X MD Snow Hill X X X X X MD Talbot X X X X X X X MD Westminster X X X X X MD Wicomico X X X MD Worcester X X X X X MO Nixa X X X X X ®. isca ise _ 15 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Impact Fee Proposal Fee Categories Cl) z V) CJ . _ v on V ar V) 't ---irl .� ij'i .r.+ 4J CJ '.+ .� � .� C1 z � w O i CLIENT .� c�'n o 3 3 3 U. V E E—. ''-' Fi,"74 c%) :5! •a' i.,, cen'd 1 0 ,9,, ,94-, cy) U w 4 C� w U MO Nixa Fire Protection District X MS Madison X X X X MT Belgrade X X X X X X MT Big Sky* X MT Bozeman* X X MT Corvallis School District X MT Florence School District X MT Gallatin Co. X X X MT Gallatin Co.Fire Districts X MT Great Falls X MT Madison X MT Manhattan X X MT Missoula X X X X X MT Missoula Co. X X X MT Polson X X X MT Ravalli X NC Cabarrus Co. X NC Camden Co. X NC Catawba Co. X NC Chatham Co. X NC Creedmoor X X NC Currituck Co. X NC Durham X NC Greenville X X X NC Nags Head X X X NC Orange Co. X X X NC Pasquotank X NE Lincoln* X X X X NM Albuquerque* X X X X NM Las Cruces X X NV North Las Vegas X X NV Nye County X X X X X OH Delaware X X X X OH Lebanon X X OH Pickerington X X X X X OH Sunbury X X RI E.Greenwich X X X X X SC Aiken X X X X X TischlerBise _ 16 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im e act Fee Pro•osal Fee Categories .4bA • o u °) W Z W .. 0 , ed CLIENT t' CZ oma,•V `� E -5' v, ¢' i'ei t v ' Cn ve . g . cn c '5 (1,a CJS i~ C ¢' cn 1 H0. aJ a/ ni [~ 0 W 0-. U SC Anderson Co. X SC Horry Co. X X X X X X SC Summerville X X X UT American Fork X X X X UT Brigham City X UT Clearfield X X X X X UT Clinton City X X X X X X X UT Draper X X X X X X UT Farmington X X X X X X X X UT Hyde Park X X X X UT Kaysville X X X UT Logan X X X X X X X X UT North Logan X X X X X X UT Pleasant Grove X X X X X X X UT South Valley Sewer District X X UT Salt Lake Co. X X UT Spanish Fork X X X X X UT Springville X UT Wellsville X X X X X UT West Jordan X X X X X X X UT Woods Cross X X X X VA Chesterfield Co. X X X X X VA Goochland Co. X VA Henrico Co. X X X X VA Isle of Wright Co. X X X VA Prince George Co. X X X X X X VA Spotsylvania Co. X VA Suffolk X X VA Sussex Co. X WI Eau Claire X X X X X WV Jefferson Co. X X X X X WY Casper X X X X WY Laramie X WY Pinedale X WY Teton Co. X *Private Sector TuschlerBise _ 17 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal Related Private Sector Work As noted in the cover letter, TischlerBise occasionally works for the private sector. We believe this is an asset to our public sector clients because it keeps us consistently aware of what is and is not advisable from a policy, methodological and/or data perspective. Two Arizona examples include the Cities of Phoenix and Tucson. In Phoenix, after receiving approval from our clients contiguous to the City, we worked with the City and developer to calculate appropriate development impact fees to meet rational nexus requirements. More recently, we were hired by the nonresidential community to review the development impact fee study prepared for Tucson. Only two fees were ultimately calculated by the City's consultant, parks and roads. (Because the former applied only to residential development, we were not asked to review it.) In a series of meetings and in memoranda to the client, we noted significant policy, methodological and data concerns with the road fees. The proposed road fees for the nonresidential community were significantly changed. We should note that the homebuilders groups are familiar with TischlerBise and have reviewed/critiqued our work products in most of our Arizona communities. Please contact other Arizona city managers to confirm the homebuilders' acceptance of our work. REFERENCES Please feel free to contact any of our Arizona clients. We have provided names and telephone numbers above in the full client list and in narratives of a few of our Arizona assignments. CLIENT City of Apache Junction,Arizona ACMe PQ ✓�, Q� ti CONTACT �,,► Bryant Powell,Assistant City Manager = (480) 474-8116 NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT 'qlp/—tQ'4 P TischlerBise was hired to update the development impact fees for the City of Apache Junction that another consultant previously prepared. One reason TischlerBise was hired to undertake this update versus the original consultant was the City's desire to evaluate different methodologies in order to meet specific policy objectives. For example, the original development impact fee study relied heavily on the incremental expansion methodology. TischlerBise prepared iterations of the development impact fees using both the incremental expansion and the plan-based approach to evaluate the best approach for the City to maximize revenue in order to implement its Government Facility Master Plan. The development impact fees prepared included roads, general government, parks, library and police. TischlerBise _ 18 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal CLIENT City of Casa Grande, Arizona CONTACT Scott Barber, Administrative Services Director (520) 421-8600 NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT TischlerBise has conducted four development impact fee updates for the City of Casa Grande, the most recent update being in 2006-2007. This update included recalculating existing fees for sewer, community services (libraries, parks and recreation), police, fire, general government, transportation, as well as calculating a new sanitation development impact fee. The City has made extensive use of debt financing to fund its Capital Improvements Plan. This necessitated an analysis of the extent to which development impact fees would be used to repay the debt service (and inclusion of financing costs in the fee calculations) versus other revenues, which necessitated a debt service credit to avoid "double payment" issues. TischlerBise also updated the land uses in the City's development impact fee schedule to include multi-family housing units and hotels. CLIENT City of Surprise,AZ _ %.0 t rf• "tab. A .A . CONTACT Robert Nilles, Finance Director S U R P R Is E (623) 875-4258 ARIZONA NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT TischlerBise recently updated existing development impact fees for the City of Surprise. The study included updating the City's existing development impact fees for water resources, drinking water system, wastewater, fire, police, parks and recreation, libraries, public works, and general government. In addition to revising demographic and cost data, several of these fees were updated using the buy-in and plan-based methodologies. These reflect the City's active Capital Improvements Plan in which several major projects have recently been completed and several are in the planning stage. The study also included calculating new development impact fees for the dual water system and roads of regional significance for three areas of the City. TischlerBise also updated the land use categories in the City's development impact fee schedule to include a differentiation of multi-family housing units by the number of units as well as a category for hotels. TischlerBise _ 19 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal CLIENT Town of Cave Creek, AZ y.. CONTACT111116),r« R kr � fir.. Usama Abujbarah, Town ManagerCAVE CRIB r (480) 488-6611 a.. NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT The Town of Cave Creek retained TischlerBise to perform a Development Impact Fee Feasibility Analysis, which identified service areas where the Town could effectively recover new development's fair share of the Town's capital costs for facilities and equipment. The infrastructure categories include recreation, open space and trails, wastewater, water, public buildings and equipment, and roads. A cash flow analysis showed that the fees could total about $6.4 million over six years, providing needed capital for expanding recreation facilities and public buildings as well as paying for new growth's share of basic infrastructure—like water, wastewater, and roads—that are used by new and existing residents. CLIENT Town of Queen Creek, AZ or QUEEN' CR CONTACT Wendy Kaserman, Manager Community Development Administration (480) 358-30924'1AP - NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT TischlerBise has worked with the Town of Queen Creek since 1999 and is currently under contract to do annual updates of the Town's comprehensive package of development impact fees. In 1999, TischlerBise used a combination of methodologies to develop the Town's first impact fees to support the Town's wastewater collection and treatment facilities, libraries, town buildings and vehicles, public safety, and parks, open space, and recreation facilities. In 2002, Queen Creek again retained TischlerBise to calculate a transportation impact fee and to update the impact fees adopted by the Town in 1999. Since the amount of parkland exceeded the Town's target of 6.1 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, a unique approach of the 2002 study was TischlerBise's use of a "cost recovery" methodology for community parks. This approach permitted new development to contribute to the Town's temporary overcapacity in parkland. The Town has now retained TischlerBise to update the development impact fees annually because of escalating land and construction costs. TischlerBise - 20 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal CLIENT City of Avondale,Arizona CONTACT • Pilar Aguilar, Finance and Budget Department City of (623)478-3204 ..,,/ i/01111 Ali NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT TischlerBise recently updated development impact fees for the City of Avondale. The categories of fees included water, sewer, libraries, parks and recreation, police, fire, general government, sanitation, and transportation. Since the City's previous update (also conducted by TischlerBise), the City has been engaged in significant expansion of its infrastructure. Many of the recently completed projects were constructed with excess capacity to serve additional development. For these types of projects, TischlerBise used the buy-in methodology to calculate the development impact fees which will ensure that new development repays the City for providing the excess capacity. The City also has an active Capital Improvements Program which resulted in increased use of the plan-based methodology. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS Because we have more development impact fee professionals than any other firm, our staff focuses on certain states. Arizona is one of three states on which Paul Tischler, Christopher Cullinan and Yvonne Dawson focus. Our individual attention and comprehensive analyses are a main reason for the extent of our Arizona new and repeat work. Apache Junction and Goodyear are two jurisdictions where we were hired to "redo" development impact fees. As evident by our Arizona experience, our knowledge of Arizona Development Impact Fee Statutes is unsurpassed. We are confident we will have a comprehensive understanding of Oro Valley regional development structure and history very quickly in this assignment. In addition, we are also willing to abide by a penalty clause ensuring that the work will be properly performed in a timely fashion. —QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF KEY STAFF— TischlerBise's widespread success can be attributed to its highly experienced staff of analysts whose relevant experience is unsurpassed. Paul Tischler, Chris Cullinan and Yvonne Dawson will comprise the project team for this assessment and collectively bring almost 50 years of development impact fee experience to the assignment. Paul Tischler, President of TischlerBise, has a BA in Economics and an MBA in Real Estate and Urban Development. Mr. Tischler will serve as principal in charge and project manager. Mr. Tischler has over 30 years of experience in the area of infrastructure financing and development TischlerBise - 21 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal impact fees. Recognized as an expert, Mr. Tischler frequently gives lectures and conducts workshops on development impact fees and revenue exactions for various groups and organizations including the American Planning Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, National Impact fee Roundtable, the Urban Land Institute and the Government Finance Officers Association. Mr. Tischler has also authored numerous articles on development impact fees and fiscal impact analysis. These include "20 Points to Know about Impact Fees," printed in the American Planning Association's Planning Magazine, and "Impact Fees - Understand Them or Be Sorry," published in the National Association of Homebuilders' Land Development Magazine. In addition to these articles, Mr. Tischler, along with TischlerBise staff member Dwayne Guthrie, wrote the ICMA IQ Report, "An Introduction to Infrastructure Financing." Mr. Tischler and Carson Bise addressed the 2005 ACMA meeting on the topic "Development Fees—The Good, The Bad and The Ugly." Mr. Tischler's recent Arizona Development Impact Fee assignments include: Apache Junction, Goodyear, Glendale, and Queen Creek. Chris Cullinan has a B.A. in Political Science and a Masters of Public Affairs in Public Financial Administration, will serve as overall project manager for this assignment. As a former Budget Director, he brings several years of financial management experience including budgeting, cost analysis, revenue analysis and forecasting, long-term financial planning, and capital improvement planning. Mr. Cullinan has prepared over 200 development impact fees. His Arizona development impact fee assignments include Avondale; Buckeye; Casa Grande; Carefree; Cave Creek; City of Maricopa; Coolidge; El Mirage; Eloy; Flagstaff; Glendale; Lake Havasu City; Pinal County; Pinetop-Lakeside; Queen Creek; Sedona; Sierra Vista; Surprise; and Yuma. In his Arizona experience,he has worked extensively with elected officials,homebuilder representatives and citizen committees in explaining both the technical aspects of development impact fees as well as policy and fiscal considerations. Chris recently addressed the ACMA Conference on "The Cost of Growth: It's Not Just the Capital Costs," highlighting case studies from Queen Creek and the City of Maricopa. Yvonne Dawson holds a B.A. in English and Master of Science in Community and Regional Planning. Ms. Dawson has five years experience in the areas of fiscal/economic analysis, market analysis and infrastructure finance. Ms. Dawson has prepared over 60 development impact fees throughout the country. Her current assignments include: West Miami, FL; Coral Gables, FL; North Miami, FL; Clinton, UT; Butte Co., CA; Orange Beach, AL; Lebanon, OH; Prince George Co., VA and Castle Rock, CO. In Arizona she is working on preparing development impact fees for Taylor and Snowflake. Ms. Dawson has also conducted numerous fiscal impact evaluations, including evaluating the revenue implications of annexations in Imperial County, CA, examining the fiscal impact of new mixed-used development in Pasadena, CA and a cost of land use study for Lenexa, KS. Prior to her joining TischlerBise, Ms. Dawson worked for the International Economic Development Council. TischlerBise — 22 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Town of Oro Valle ,Arizona—Develo•ment Im•act Fee Pro•osal SUBCONTRACTORS Since the Town already has an ordinance, we have not included a land use lawyer. However, if legal assistance is desired, we regularly partner with several land use attorneys who specialize in development impact fees. QUALITY CONTROL The firm's size allows us to have meetings in which we talk about specific assignments and "state of the art" approaches. We believe our "hands on" involvement and "devil's advocate" approach ensure quality control. Paul Tischler is project manager and will be actively working on this assignment and is 90%responsible for Phase I. Tischlerl3ise - 23 Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants PAUL S. TISCHLER TischlerBise Ecoifornir l PI in sir g Consultant, President EXPERIENCE Mr. Tischler has over twenty-five years of consulting experience in fiscal evaluations and impact fees as well as market and economic feasibility studies. For the last twenty-two years he has been President of the consulting firm. His advice has been sought by both public and private sector clients on a broad range of decisions concerning development and growth management. His areas of specialty include: fiscal impact analyses, impact fee evaluations, revenue strategies, capital improvement plans, growth policy studies, and market and economic feasibility studies. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS • Fiscal Impact Analysis:FUTURE-Little Rock Project. Mr. Tischler conducted an analysis of the market and economic conditions of the City, which culminated in a fiscal impact analysis. • Fiscal Impact Analysis: Howard County, Maryland. Mr. Tischler worked on the economic and fiscal analysis of the Howard County General Plan, which won the prestigious American Planning Association Award for Outstanding Comprehensive Plan and was featured in the first Casebook published by the American Institute of Certified Planners. • Fiscal Impact Analyses: Sample Clients. Mr. Tischler has managed fiscal impact analyses for jurisdictions across the United States including: King County, WA; Phoenix, AZ; Hillsborough County, FL; Baltimore County, MD; Pima County, AZ; Nashville-Davidson County, TN; Lancaster County, PA; Albuquerque, NM; Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; Raleigh, NC; Scottsdale, AZ; Boise, ID; Pasadena, CA; Reno, NV; Dublin, OH; Venice, FL; Post Falls, ID and Parkland, FL. • Impact Fee Evaluations. Mr. Tischler has worked on over 400 impact and development fees for communities throughout the country. Mr. Tischler has worked in such locations as Chino Hills, CA; Scottsdale, AZ; Peoria, AZ; Las Cruces, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Boulder, CO; Castle Rock, CO; North Logan, UT; Salt Lake Co., UT; Post Falls, ID; Billings, MT; Eau Claire, WI; Beavercreek, OH; Jefferson Co., WV; Carroll Co., MD; Frederick Co., MD; Chesterfield Co., VA; Suffolk, VA; Chatham Co., NC; Nags Head, NC; Manatee Co., FL; Deerfield Beach, FL; Nye County, NV; and Town of Pahrump, NV. Paul S. Tischler ■ Revenue Strategies. Mr. Tischler develops revenue strategies for communities as part of fiscal impact analyses. Sample clients include: Post Falls, Idaho, and Queen Anne's County, Maryland. In Post Falls, Mr. Tischler developed recommendations for revenue strategies as an outgrowth of the firm's fiscal impact analysis of the comprehensive plan that showed a need for additional revenues to fund capital facilities. In Queen Anne's County, Maryland, Mr. Tischler developed revenue strategies considering the following issues: land use, level of service, revenue mechanisms and other topics. ■ Capital Improvement Plans. Whether the assignment is fiscal impact analysis or preparation of impact fees, a capital improvement plan is typically prepared. In addition to the above assignments, Mr. Tischler participated in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where the firm was retained to develop a multi-year capital improvement program and in Westminster, Maryland, where a CIP process was implemented. ■ Growth Policy Studies. Many of the four types of studies described above are generated by communities' concerns with the management of growth. Other assignments directly related to growth management include the following: In an effort to preserve agricultural land and open space, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, retained the firm to compare the public costs and revenues associated with clustered residential development, as compared to more low density, sprawling patterns of land use. Mr. Tischler presented the results of this analysis at a seminar of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Howard County, Maryland, the firm conducted several fiscal evaluations of General Plan alternatives. The adopted Plan seeks to retain the more rural character of the western part of the county, while encouraging development in the more urbanized eastern county. ■ Market and Economic Feasibility Studies. Mr. Tischler has conducted numerous market and economic feasibility studies for both public and private sector clients throughout the U.S. Clients include the Bridgewater (New Jersey) Redevelopment Agency (BRA), which retained Mr. Tischler to expedite negotiations with the developer of a regional shopping center along an interstate. He conducted a market reconnaissance, a financial feasibility study from the developer's perspective, and a fiscal impact analysis from the public sector's perspective. The BRA used this information to successfully conclude negotiations with the developer. The project was discussed in the book Edge Cities. In Rocky Hill, Connecticut, the Town retained Mr. Tischler to evaluate the impact of a proposed residential development from market-rate to subsidized housing. The firm analyzed a range of alternatives, and presented the results to the Town Council, who in turn were better able to negotiate with the developer. Mr. Tischler worked with the Detroit Housing Authority on the redevelopment of the Herman Gardens public housing project, which included a highest and best use study. Prior to forming his own consulting firm, Mr. Tischler worked for Marcou, O'Leary and Associates, where he directed the firm's economic and fiscal analysis activities, and for Real Estate Research Corporation. Mr. Tischler has served as an instructor Paul S. Tischler in real estate practices at Montgomery College in Maryland, has served as an expert witness regarding land and market values, and is trained as a real estate appraiser. EDUCATION M.B.A. Real Estate and Urban Development, American University B.A. Economics,Johns Hopkins University PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITIONS & AFFILIATIONS • Who's Who in Real Estate • Who's Who in Finance and Business • Lambda Alpha International Honorary Land Economics Society • American Planning Association (APA) • Past Chair, Economic Development Division of the APA • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy • Urban Land Institute SAMPLE SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS • Comprehensive and Simple Fiscal/Economic Impact Assessment, Conference on Development Impact Analysis organized by Rutgers University's Center for Urban Policy Research/LTLI. • Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Is It Done? Chesapeake Bay Program, Maryland Office of Planning • The Future of Infrastructure Finance, National Academy of Science/National Research Council • Comments Regarding Growth, Growth Management and Infrastructure, APA National Planning Conference • Fiscal Impact of Suburban Development, APA National Planning Conference • County Planning with Growth Management, APA National Planning Conference • The Fiscal Impacts of Smart Growth, ICMA National Conference • Seminar on Fiscal Impact Analysis and Cash Proffers, Hampton Roads, Virginia Chapter of the APA • Effectively Utilizing Economic Development Strategies and Fiscal Impact Evaluations, California Chapter APA Conference • Fiscal Impact Analysis: Managing Land Use Choices, Oregon and Washington APA Conference on Community Sustainability • Ten Points to Consider in Fiscal Impact Analysis, ULI Development Impact Analysis Seminar Paul S. Tischler ■ Fiscal Impacts of Growth, Lincoln Land Institute Seminar ■ Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Growth and Development Issues, Sensible Land Use Coalition on Growth Management: Looking Back, Moving Forward, Minneapolis, Minnesota ■ Applications of Fiscal Impact Analysis and Lessons Learned, Lincoln Land Institute SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS ■ "Financing Tomorrow's Infrastructure—Solutions for Local Government," National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences Compendium ■ "New Fangled Impact Fees," Planning magazine, contributing author ■ "Analyzing the Fiscal Impact of Development," International City Management Association (ICMA)Management Information Service (MIS)Report ■ "Fiscal Impact Analysis—From a Developer's Perspective," Urban Land Magazine ■ "Fiscal Impact Analysis: A Process which Evaluates the Future of a Community," Practicing Planner ■ "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Reader Beware, Some Caveats," The Growth Management Reporter ■ "Real Estate Decision-making and the Computer," National Capital Area Realtor (Reprinted by the Institute for Business Planning) ■ "Cash Flow and Its Relation to Investment," Baltimore Real Estate and Building News ■ "An Example: The Importance of the Highest and Best Use Analysis," The Real Estate Appraiser ■ Managing Growth in America's Communities, Island Press (Contributor) ■ Guide to County Capital Improvement Programming, National Association of Counties Publication (Contributor) ■ "20 Points to Know about Impact Fees," Planning magazine ■ "Impact Fees:Understand Them or Be Sorry," Land Development magazine ■ "Impact Fees Break Out in Maryland," Urban Land Magazine ■ "Introduction to Infrastructure Financing," International City/County Management Association (ICMA) IQ Service Report CHRISTOPHER V. lschlerBise 1scat,EcaOwMnc gr Plat Consultants Fisca i/Econo mic Analyst EXPERIENCE Christopher Cullinan conducts fiscal impact analyses, revenue strategy assessments, capital improvement funding analyses, and impact fee studies. He has prepared over 125 impact fees. He has completed a number of fiscal impact analyses as well as developed customized fiscal impact models for clients across the country. Mr. Cullinan was previously the Budget Director for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia in which he was involved with budgeting, cost analysis, revenue analysis and forecasting, long-term financial planning, and capital improvement planning. He has a B.A. in Political Science and a Masters of Public Affairs in Public Financial Administration REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS • Fiscal Impact Analysis: Frederick, Maryland. Mr. Cullinan conducted a fiscal impact analysis of two growth scenarios as a part of the City's effort to update its Comprehensive Plan. • Fiscal Impact Analysis: Barnstable, Massachusetts. Mr. Cullinan conducted a cost of land use study analysis that evaluated residential prototypes for single-family housing units and two types of condominium units and nonresidential land uses including business park, office, shopping center, big box retail, specialty retail, hotel, restaurant, and fast food restaurant. • Fiscal Impact Analysis: Falls Church, Virginia. Mr. Cullinan developed a fiscal impact model for the City of Falls Church, which is used by City staff to evaluate the fiscal impact of development proposals. • Fiscal Impact Analysis: McDowell and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. Mr. Cullinan worked on determining the continued fiscal viability of communities in McDowell and Wyoming Counties in southern West Virginia, which experienced significant devastation in 2001 and 2002 from floods. The West Virginia Secretary of Finance and Revenue was the liaison for this project. • Concurrency Management Model: Carroll County, Maryland. Mr. Cullinan developed a concurrency management model for Carroll County, Maryland, which is used by County Christopher V. Cullinan staff as a part of its Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) to evaluate the impact of new residential development on the County's infrastructure capacity. ■ Impact Fee Evaluations. Mr. Cullinan has completed impact fee studies for water, wastewater, police, fire, parks and recreation, schools, transportation, and municipal facilities and equipment. His impact fee assignments include several communities in Arizona including Avondale, Casa Grande, Cave Creek, Coolidge, Flagstaff, Glendale, Peoria, Pinal County, Sedona, Sierra Vista, Queen Creek and Yuma. He has also prepared impact fees for East Greenwich Fire District, RI; Jefferson County, WV; Louisville, CO; Manatee County Schools, FL; Summerville, SC; and statewide impact fees for the State of Delaware. ■ Capital Improvement Plans. Mr. Cullinan developed Capital Improvement Programs for new growth for Pinal County, AZ. He also has extensive capital improvement programming experience while working in the public sector. ■ Public Sector Management Experience. In his public sector experience, Mr. Cullinan served as Budget Director for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Cullinan's experience in budgeting, accounting, financial management, capital budgeting, cost analysis, and long- term financial planning have been beneficial in his TischlerBise consulting assignments. He has a working knowledge of local government operations and administration, and public policy issues affecting communities. EDUCATION M.P.A. Public Finance, Indiana University-Bloomington B.A. Political Science, Earlham College SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ■ Mr. Cullinan developed the curriculum and conducted workshops for appointed and elected officials in Wyoming and McDowell counties in West Virginia on improving local government financial management. ■ American Planning Association, National Conference 2006, "The Cost of Growth: It's Not Just The Capital Costs". ■ Arizona City/County Management Association, Summer Conference 2006, "Cost of Growth vs. Fiscal Impact Analysis". YVONNE M. D lischlerBise Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants Fiscal/Economic Analy EXPERIENCE Yvonne Dawson has five years of experience in the areas of fiscal/economic analysis, market analysis and infrastructure finance. Prior to her joining TischlerBise, Ms. Dawson worked for the International Economic Development Council. At TischlerBise, she has conducted over 55 impact fee studies and a number of fiscal impact analyses. Ms. Dawson's current assignments include impact fee studies for Castle Rock, CO; Clinton, UT; and Gulf Shores, AL; and a fiscal impact study for Lenexa, KS. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS • Imperial County, California. Ms. Dawson prepared an impact fee studyforthe County covering the following categories - fire, sheriff, general government, public, works and parks and recreation. The fee report presents two demand bases — unincorporated and countywide — to reflect the different service areas for County functions. Ms. Dawson also conducted studies for the County's Local Area Formation Commission, g stud in the fiscal studying impact of annexation for the Cities of Calexico and El Centro. • Pasadena, California. Ms. Dawson conducted a cost-benefit analysis of a mixed-use infill project in the City's Old Town. The report reflects revenues and expenses as a result of the planned development-for the City and the area's tax increment finance district. • Orange Beach, Alabama. Ms. Dawson prepared an impactstudy fee for this beach community in Alabama. The impact fees reflect the demand for capital facilitiesg enerated by year-round residents as well as seasonal residents staying City's the Ci 's condos and motels. EDUCATION M.S. Community and Regional Planning, University of Texas at Austin B.S. English Literature, University of Houston AFFILIATION • American Planning Association (APA) 0 I No.48 k$3yy 1111 isc e ,ts i , NJ FE S L FE T T E R I li ImpactFeesandClE DifferentlmpactFeeIN ISSUE II Prepared for Effing ham Methods Used for Fire Impact Fees are • Count , GA Stationsin Lake Wales, FL yMore Than Numbers • Effingham County is located northwest The City of Lake Wales is being impact- This newsletter focuses on impact fees. IIII of Savannah,Georgia. Urban development ed by growth from Orlando and Tampa.The Impact fees should reflect not only defen- • is intensifying in the County, as evident by City hired TischlerBise to update impact fees sible dollar amounts,but also policy con- the County's recent decision to undertake the for water,sewer,police,fire/EMS and park siderations and methodological alternatives. • construction of major water and sewer utili- infrastructure. Many studies use a formulaic"cookie cut- ty systems,for which TischlerBise calculat- ter" approach. In Grass Valley, CA, • ed water and sewer impact fees.TischlerBise Two different approaches for TischlerBise was hired to complete an IIII also calculated fees for roads,parks and pub- fire stations were utilized impact fee study that reflected one lic safety facilities. approach throughout. We considered and The road impact fee prepared for the Because each community is unique, tested several approaches. Consequently, • County will help fund a major four-laneTischlerBise does not have a"one-size-fits-I. the revenues for one category (police) highway that will be constructed in the util- all" approach to impact fees. For example, increased an additional $3.6 million, or • ity service area. The new highway is a coop- in this assignment we applied differentIIII 50%more. erative effort between the County (paying methodologies for fire stations in two serv- ofor rights-of-way and engineering) and the ice areas. In the north service area,a new fire Impact fees should consider growth (See EFFINGHAM COUNTY,p.4) (See LAKE WALES,p.4) management policies and Ialternative methods 111 New City of Maricoa, AZ Dade CountyImpact Fees This newsletter discusses four interest- Implements Development Reviewed for the City of ing recent assignments.For the new City ofIII - - Maricopa,AZ, we calculated the cost of Impact Fees Miami, FL higher levels of service and the City's cost Ito bring the existing development base up TischlerBise was hired to calculate devel- The City of Miami,Florida,requested that mi opment fees for the newly incorporated City TischlerBise review existing impact fees to these levels. In Effingham County,GA,we calculat- 1111 Maricopa, Arizona, southwest of imposed by Dade County in the 1990's for ed the revenue needed to supplement ii Phoenix. The City is currently averaging road and school capacity. The findings are impact fees due to higher levels of service, 600 single family building permits per summarized below. credits and/or discounting of the fees. ii month. The City's current population is esti- For Lake Wales,FL,we used different mated at 11,100 with a projected population County road impact fees overcharge impact fee methodologies based on differ- of over 100,000 in five years. new development in the City ing needs for two service areas for fire sta- tions. li Establishing appropriate levels ofFinally,in addition to preparing impact New high-rise development in Miami is fees for Miami,FL,TischlerBise was asked Ill service was a challenge very different from the low-density develop- - to evaluate two Dade County impact fees ment in the unincorporated County. Because (roads and schools)paid by new develop- TischlerBise calculated development fees new residential development within Miami is ment within the City. County fees over- for parks and recreation, libraries, public demographically different from development charge new development in Miami. IN safety,general government,and transporta- on the suburban fringe, the ten-year old .11 tion using the plan-based methodology. The County road impact fees are not proportionateNI ' lack of existing infrastructure owned by the to the demand for additional lane miles. OW 6, 6ciAftL, (See MARICOPA,p.2) (See DADE COUNTY,p.2) II BETHESDA, MD TOLL-FREE (800) 424-4318 PASADENA, CA 2 111 111 DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA MARICOPA,ARIZONA (continued from p.1) (continued from p.1) I Dade County road impact fees are significantly overcharging new development within the City presented a challenge as well as an in City of Miami because of 1)smaller household size;2)fewer vehicles available and 3)less pri- opportunity. The challenge was to calculate vate motor vehicle use for journey-to-work trips. For the six development categories shown an appropriate level of service (LOS) to i below, a reduction of County road impact fees should range from 9% to 37% to account for serve new growth. However, new growth lower demand factors within the City of Miami. cannot be charged for a higher LOS than is. currently being provided, unless there is a Dade County Road Impact Fees plan in place to fund the higher LOS for ii existing development with non-development Lodging(per person) ,,,..,,,,,,,--,,,,,,,,-4,,,,,-,,;:-,---; , ,—'•.,,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,„,,,.,1- fee revenues. The opportunity was to charge 100 KSF Office(per KSF) ,,,,d a ;, development impact fees on a new higher ., �� h�.i,hi 4i,�zY.,�f�-tili�,�{: f:...:���.wig/,,.,:r/.ity./.y�✓ :;✓,�./�!/,�,il/�j%moi � 100 KSF Commercial(per KSF) ,,,,, , y,,, ,y.,, , , ti,,;� , ,, LOS. r,3 a High-Rise Housing Unit ,,,,,, ,, ;,, f;;,, ,,;;; ,, •Revised Fee for City of Miami Current Countywide Fee The City committed non-development II Low-Rise Housing Unit �-,- 0,-,,,,,5 ,,,„ r-,,.,, fee revenues to raise existing levels of service Single-Family Detached %F,,,,.,,,,,,w,,,,,,„, ,,,',,,N,50"-Y';7-,r;,,',sy f:,.,,,-,, 111 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 For public safety, libraries, and general 111 School Impact Fees government, the plan-based methodology TischlerBise also evaluated Dade County s school impact fees and prepared recommenda- tions for consideration during the next County school impact fee update. School impact fees average LOS for other Phoenix area com- are currently imposed using a formula based upon the floor area of a housing unit,with no vari- ation by type of housing or geographic area. Based on TischlerBise's national impact fee expe- calculated development fees. The develop- ment fee calculations included identifying II the current LOS deficit and the cost to raise High-rise residential development in the City of Miami is paying twice the LOS for existing development. II their proportionate share in school impact fees Maricopa,AZ Projected Development Impact Fee 111 Revenues Next Six Years Compared to Funds rience with student generation rates,a suburban single-family detached house and a downtown Needed to Raise Existing LOS Deficit high-rise unit with the same floor area do not yield the same number of public school students. II $40,000 - -- TischlerBise recommended that student generation rates and school impact fees vary by geo- $35,000 II graphic area(e.g.,central city versus suburbs)and housing type(e.g., single-family detached, $30,000 low-rise and high-rise units). To derive the recommended student generation rates,TischlerBise $25,000 used detailed demographic data from the U.S.Census Bureau Year 2000 Public Use Microdata $20,000 II $15,000 $10,000 ..... 1111 Recommended Student Generation Rates by $5,000 t.<-ye,.i i Alternative Benefit Districts and Type of Housing $0 Library Public Safety General Govt II ■Development Fees Revenues ra Existing LOS Deficit 0.60 III Single-Family Detached ■Low-Rise High Rise The chart above reflects the excellent U 0.50 leverage the City receives if it uses non- development impact fee money to fund the II 0.40 ._ _ .... _ _____. ____ ................................ existing deficiencies under the higher LOS. 0.30 If the City committed$4.2 million to raise U the existing LOS for the three categories of 0.20 II By funding$4.2 million to raise existing ii 0.10 levels of service, the City could collect 0.00 $64.1 million in 6 years II Miami SE NE SW NW libraries,public safety,and general govern mi - Sample(PUMS 5% sample). The chart above shows significant differences between benefit ment, the City could collect a projected um districts by type of housing. In conclusion,TischlerBise found that high-rise units within the $64.1 million in development fees over the 0 City of Miami are paying twice their proportionate share in school impact fees. next six fiscal years. 111 Fiscal & Economic Newsletter No. 48 Toll-Free (800) 424-4318 U i 3 I lischlerBise News ,........---....-----------. Speaking Engagements impact analysis helps communities understand objectives and the need for a full cash flow illthe fiscal effects of growth,and cash proffers analysis to identify revenue shortfalls not cov- Im act Fee or Is It? Carson Bise discussed Impact help to mitigate some of new growth's impacts. ered by impact fees. Car o At the National American Planning The session provided an overview of both tools how to leverage local dollars by committing 1 residents Conference,TischlerBise associ- along with case study examples from two to higher levels of service for current di ate, Julie Herlands, presented a session on TischlerBise Virginia clients, Henrico and and being able to charge new growth for these. 111111 cash proffers. Ms. Herlands discussed Frederick Counties. higher levels of service. I TischlerBise's work in the Virginia counties of Henrico and Goochland. The session Fiscal and Economic Analysis in Planning di focused on the evolution of cash proffer pro- grams, their similarities and differences to At the National American Planning ii impact fees,and specific case studies.The ses- Association Conference,Carson Bise was a New Fiscal Impact presenterIn at the session,"Economic and Fiscal Assignments: sion is available through the APA training i� series, Best of Contemporary Community Impact Analysis in Planning." The session I. examined the evolvingand broadeningappli- Lawrence,Kansas Planning 2005 as part of the CD-ROM p Trainin Packa "A reements, Fees, and cations for economic and fiscal impact analy- Snow Hill,Maryland g ge, g Guilford County,North Carolina 11111 Capital Improvement Programs." sis. Among the topics discussed was the Oklahoma City,Oklahoma difference between economic impact and fis- Coppell,Texas Ical impact studies. Integrated Planningwith School Demands p Ig At the National American PlanningNew Impact Fee and Impact Fees in Arizona:The Good,The Bad, Association Conference,Julie Herlands dis- &The U l Feasibility Assignments: I cussed TischlerBise's work with Lake Count g y Y me Schools,Florida,where land use and demo- The above session was part of the 2005 il Arizona Cit /Count Management Associa- Bentonville,Arkansas graphic analysis along with fiscal impact City/County g Camp Verde,Arizona la analysis was utilized to address the school dis- tion conference. The two speakers were Paul Lake Havasu,Arizona IN trict's capital facilityneeds. Tischler and Carson Bise.A number of topics Sierra Vista,Arizona p were discussed based on TischlerBise's devel- Hemet,California 1 opment fee work for over 20 Arizona clients. DeSoto Co.,Florida(Public Schools) Fiscal Impact Analysis and Cash ProffersThe topics included possible pitfalls,examples Plant City,Florida Carson Bise and Julie Herlands presented of bad approaches,alternative methodologies, Douglas County,Georgia Douglasville,Georgia at the Virginia American Planning Association future trends and other issues. Paul Tischler's Worcester County,Maryland I (VAPA)annual conference on two tools avail- presentation stressed the need to consider Nye County,Nevada able to growing Virginia communities,fiscal methodological alternatives for each impact Green,Ohio IIimpact analysis and cash proffers. Fiscal fee component that meets the jurisdiction's I III I- TischlerBise CALL TOLL-FREE (800) 424-4318 IICOST OF GROWTH SERVICES I I Please send the following: 4701 Sangamore Road,Suite S240 ID Recent Fiscal&Economic Newsletters Bethesda,MD 20816 D Reprint"20 Points to Know About Impact Fees" Ip - p (800)424-4318•Fax(301)320-4860 I ❑ Reprint"Impact Fees Understand Them or Be Sorry" info@tischlerbise.com I ❑ Excerpts from:ICMA IQ Report"Introduction to Infrastructure Financing" www.tischlerbise.com IID Excerpts from:ICMA Smart Growth Network"Smart Growth&Fiscal Realities" Also:Pasadena,CA Information about TischlerBise II Consulting Services: [21Fiscal Impact Analyses Name II L:, Impact Fees I D Capital Improvement Programs Title Agency Telephone ID Revenue Strategies ❑ Growth Policy Studies I Street II I D Market and Economic Analyses I ❑ Fiscal Software City State Zip L J II Fiscal & Economic Newsletter No. 48 Toll-Free (800) 424-4318 4 M III EFFINGHAM COUNTY,GEORGIA As shown in the chart below,the percentage increase the level of service for both exist- (continued from p.1) of funding from impact fees varies signifi- ing and future development. At the recom- III Georgia Department of Transportation(pay- cantly by type of infrastructure. Further- mended level,impact fees will pay for 40% ing for construction). more,the fees recommended for adoption of the system improvements for roads and ii are less than the maximum supportable fees 47% for parks,partially due to credits and Revenue Strategy thus increasing the funding gap. An exam- level of service enhancements. I Because the Board of Commissioners set Because impact fees frequently don't water and sewer fees significantly less than 11 _ g y cover 100%of growth related capital costs, Benefit to existing development the maximum supportable amount over the it is important to identify additional revenue requires non-impact fee revenue PP ' next five years,impact fees for water and 111 sewer systems are expected to fund approx- A cash flow analysis should indicate any le is imately 60%to 65% of the anticipated cost II impact fee revenue shortfalls P the public safety impact fees,which of system improvements. only covers approximately 17% of theIIII y p expected p cost. This is because the new sources and the relative magnitude of the Public Safety Complex and enhancements to fundingII gapthrough a cash flow analysis.. g y the emergency communications system will Percent LAKE WALES,FLORIDA Iercent of Growth-Related Cost Covered by Impact Fee (continuedfrom 1 p ) Effingham County,Georgia II station will be constructed during the next five years. In the south service area,the main 100% � II Recommended II Maximum station has sufficient capacity to accommo- 90% date new development. II 80% Geographic areas vary by fee category II70% 60% ,y;er;;FA „r/ II ' By usingplan-based �,,r,,,,,q0,," � �' rmethodology for a 50% a ' ,,,,,w04-6,� y ��y�, the new fire station in the north and a cost % r ,7,-,444,414, c/r LY,f�"r// Ill 40% !J/ /4;W ,9f �, �3,; %�/-, ,�% recovery methodology for the existingfire ' ov ry o X' %r�/r//r rin//.: .���3"' �r�,l�'� rr r /q ry�r(yr r� f ti - % r, ;y' g/rte�� station in the south impact fees are higher in II 30% /040/0 '/ry iii'a i'y �',/, p x'2 ;, y✓;*if* ,, .�/�'r % 'i' '''y r srfi/i/v�/ / r y,, 6/,y s N*0 % the new growth area. ':;;;,,,,/-y ,r/i/ / r �//`0 r . , r r/ -: 20% ,�, /,may rs %� �,/ � % , //�' TheCityadded a new j�`�� -x/%i/�y, ;,i rj/i%.. _ /, �•ti�� � _ 0,:?Aff14,s/�` � 1 c III� ,. � � also mpa t fee fory fir �� i °/ sr�x rvys / ����,���.� � r %.� �, *451' ���,-���� ��� F �� expansion of the library system. Be10% r��',y, �,�,( , __ �,�,'yr/,;� ��,, rs,��/����% N �,�y� icause the ,�/.r�r i�i'� rig `���/ �,r%/,, ty/i��r/3r�/!ti•�l ��;//��c%/ /% r /GYrl/ -,,,1/44c/0:. yA,- rr S.1";** /r/f �Y//rr�/ s City's arks and library provide service to a �.�� /r i /�i/�/�r,< fes./r � .� y f/O /". rN yG��/ f%6r// /r// r/�/% ,�/` ii / ,G/r F/i��, ■% r`' a' ' 'Clei r `'�/0: % largercity area than the limits, geographic Public Safety Roads Parks Water Sewer infrastructure standards were calibrated using IIthe estimated service area population. U U 8L£ti-tiZti (008) II a mm1Jos IrosId• saipn1s XCailod glmoJ9• U sasiciuuv DItuouoaa put la)lJUyA• saLSalu.ns anuanaN• swu.iSoJd tuauuano1dW I[UI!dU�• Ill saaJ 1DUdug• sasIcIIiuV iawdwj leased• U "' 9N1I3330 III wog'as!Ttaiyos1 mmit4 v3`nuapnsbd:os1V II 3E85#l!waad 9I80Z MAI`iPsatllag•ObZS aims•peoN aloweSues tOLl7 Ell PM OW`a!!!^>Iool;l S3Din83S HLMOtID 3O 'SOD aldd ;,. e6elsod�S fl I/0, a a!S lEISbid -01 : II a I47 ■ •' 9schlerBise IlifiSChlerBISe Fiscal 8, Econ Om I c ■ I NJ FE S L E T T FE R I I We Are Now TischlerBise Denver Suburb I N THIS I S S U E have noticed from the new Implements Fiscal ModelII You may masthead to this newsletter that Tischler& Fiscal Impact Models ■ Associates, Inc. is now TischlerBise. The TischlerBise was retained by the City of This newsletter focuses on three recent fiscal Chan e marks the elevation of Carson Bise Westminster,Colorado to design and ample- impact applications developed for individual g ment a fiscal impact model, usinga two- ■ to partner at the firm. Over Carson's long p clients and their unique specifications.A fiscal tenure with the firm,he has performed scores impact model provides an effective means to of studies pertainingto the firm's core busi- The city wishes to know integrate budget and finance concerns with land I messes: fiscal,economic and planningcon- the fiscal impacts of buildout use planning decisions. The overwhelming majority of local govern- ■ suiting services. Carson's new partnership ments do not conduct fiscal impact evaluations role will ensure that TischlerBise will con- phase approach. In Phase I, a beta version and do not understand the short-and long-term ■ time to offer our clients the exceptional con- using the Parks, Recreation and Libraries fiscal effects of land use and development poli- suiting services that have defined the firm for cies. ■ more than 25 years. (See WESTMINSTER,p.2) The firm's fiscal applications are the most successful,comprehensive and widely used in IIthe country. One reason is that we design our fis- cal applications only after the appropriate iDevelopment Impact methodologies,levels of service,and cost/rev- enue factors have been agreed upon by both the up for Fast GrVirginia Cclient and the firm. IITischlerBise was retained by the Model Flexibility Each jurisdiction's individualized i Winchester-Frederick County Economic The Frederick County Development model answers their unique Development Commission to design and Impact Model was developed using p Micro- cost of growth questions implement a development impact model for soft Excel and Visual Basic. The result is a This newsletter focuses on three recent fiscal II use by Frederick County, Virginia. The powerful and flexible application that allows models developed by the firm.The Frederick Winchester-Frederick County Economic the user to decide the level of detail,as well County,VA model calculates the impact of vara- 111 Development Commission wished to as sophistication,reflected in the model. As ous land use decisions.The Westminster,CO understand the fiscal impacts to the County the County grows and changes, levels of application assists the City in understanding not IIof proposed development projects as well service, cost data, funding terms and other only the impact of land use decisions,but also the as countywide growth scenarios. (See FREDERICK COUNTY,p.4) likely impacts of buildout as the City matures. I Finally, the Carroll County, MD model was developed to monitor the impact of residential The model evaluates specific projects Concurrency Model growth on infrastructure capacity,as defined by i as well asgrowth scenarios Facilities Ordinance. their Adequate Public Prepared Finally,this newsletter is our first under our IInew name—TischlerBise. I am pleased to The fiscal model designed for the Carroll County, Maryland, impacted by announce long-time associate and current Vice II County includes a projection of the growth from both Baltimore and Washington, President,Carson Bise,as partner at the firm. demands for service(possibly under differ- contracted with TischlerBise to provide a This change marks an exciting,yet natural evo- ■ ent levels of service),as well as the impact software application to assess the impacts lution for the firm.We look forward to continu- on revenues and operating and capital of new residential development projects on ing to provide the best fiscal, economic, and Iexpenditures. In addition, the structure of the capacity of the County's infrastructure planning services to our ever-growing roster of the fiscal impact model allows for future (water,sewer,schools,police,fire,and roads) clients. IIexpansion and/or incorporation of addi- as measured by the County's Adequate Public 1-- tional modules(i.e.,economic impacts). Facilities Ordinance(APFO). -111 5, ifix.bit, I (See CARROLL COUNTY,p.2) I - PASADENA, CA BETHESDA, MD TOLL-FREE (800) 424-4318 I 2III III WESTMINSTER,CO and is capable of analyzing multiple land ment. An example is using an FAZ to (continued from p.1) use scenarios.These scenarios can include reflect development in a tax increment II department as the initial test case was con- changes to the land use plan, zoning finance district. ducted. Since this initial effort involved only amendments, varying absorption sched- ules as well as major new development • Inherent in the model design is the ability III one department,the focus was determining p to incorporate the City's changingchar- potential applications for the model, devel- projects. atter from newrowth to buildout over oping a user-friendly interface and deter- g the model's 25_year time horizon;the City IN mining methodologies for projecting capital The model reflects different will also be able to vary levels of service. Irl and operating costs,as well as program-relat- fiscal analysis zones, including r 1 ed revenue. TIF districts s icts Like all of the firm's fiscal applications, Based on the feedback received during the fiscal impact model developed for the Phase I, it was mutually decided that p p A. ■ The model is designed with the capabili- City of Westminster was developed using TischlerBise would proceed with Phase II, ty of incorporating at least three fiscal Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic. Following '-' development of the complete fiscal impact p g al analysis zones (FAZs), which allows the completion of the model,an implementation model with the following design parameters: City to reflect varying demographic and program was initiated, which involved ■ The model uses a 25-year time horizon land use characteristics of new develop- hands-on training with City staff. 4 Jr CARROLL COUNTY,MD Concurrency Analysis project meets concurrency management - I (continued from p.1) standards;or,to the"Deferral Database"if The first component of the model tests '" The model, designed in Microsoft the concurrency status of the project. the project does not meet concurrency man- Excel and Visual Basic, was developed to Through a series of simple pull-down agement standards. i If a project meets concurrency man- t- represent the particular demographic,infra- menus, the user selects the specific water, structure,and legal characteristics of Carroll sewer, school, and fire facilities that will agement standards, it is added to the ,, i County, as well as the types of outputs and serve the proposed development. "Issued&Allocated Database,"which adds w p p p the project's impact to the cumulative analyses the County desired. Using the proposed number of dwelling impact of other projects that have already units and related demographic data, the p model calculates the impacts of the Bevel- been approved. This step adds the new Th model calculates development to the development that cur- e ode ca c lates whether opment in terms of population,public school p p a development meets or fails rently exists and those approved develop- _. students,gallons of water,gallons of sewer, y concurrent ments that will be served by water, sewer, is and vehicle trips. Various development sce- narios with varying phasing assumptions Police,fire,school,and road facilities in the As the County grows and changes,ley- can be evaluated to test the resulting con- future. Nels of capacity, inventory of capital assets, currencies. "` ti-- concurrency management standards and The model adds the impact of the new "The modelrovides important other similar factors, which define concur- development to cumulative development p p information for us to make better rency in the County,can be easily modified impacting each category(both from existing and quicker decisions" and updated. Alternative development development and future development that —Carroll County Official schedules and assumptions can be substitut- has been approved). The model then corn- ed to evaluate the concurrency status of dif- pares the total impact on the capacities of the ferent development proposals. affected infrastructure and calculates the project's concurrency status for each cate- If a project does not meet concurrency management standards, the next step is to Model Overview gory. add the project to the queue in the"Deferral There are two components of the The model automatically calculates P Database." This step adds the project's , model. The first evaluates the concurrencyconcurrency management status(adequate, approaching inadequacy,or inadequate)for impact to the queue of other projects that IN status of a proposed new development.If the have alreadybeen deferred. police,water,sewer,and schools. The con- project meets the County's concurrency The model keeps track of the cumula- arameters adopted in the APFO and is currency status for fire and roads is entered I p pdirectly. tive impact of development when evaluat- approved, it is moved to the "Issued & ing the concurrency of future development • Allocated Database" and added to theproposa1 hasdesigned to accom- s. I t been County's cumulative development database. Cumulative Development Databases modate 300 new developments. If aproject fails the concurrencyparameters, - The next component of the model The model has several pre defined 11 it is moved to the"Deferral Database"to be involves adding the development proposal graphs and tables for viewing the impact of re-tested at a futureat . d e to the Issued&Allocated Database"if the cumulative development in the County. Fiscal & Economic Newsletter No. 47 Toll-Free (800) 424-4318 3 TischlerBise News • Impact Fees libraries,schools,and roads in more detail.The lation was based on comparable impacts of firm evaluated possible methodologies and similar centers in other jurisdictions. How- TischlerBise has prepared over 500 impact P documented appropriate demand indicators by ifees,more than any other firm. Highlighted type of development for each type of cash rof- Tiverton is unique, P p below are three recent impact fee assignments. fer. as is every community ITucson,AZ Over 95% of our impact fee ever,Tiverton is unique,as is work is for the public sector. However,some- Fiscal Impact Analysis every commu- nity. A number of capital and operating times we critique impact fee studies for the TischlerBise is sometimes hired to critique expenses were not fully reflected.Also,one of private sector.We believe it provides us with the fiscal impact evaluations prepared byother the tax categories was beingphased out.These a more comprehensive perspective and aware- firms. P P g firms.A few are summarized bel factors changed the results significantly. ness of the "minefields."The nonresidential ow. g g tly. Icommunity hired us to critique proposed road Englewood,NJ This community, close to FiscalNew impact fees for Tucson.TischlerBise found a New York Cit Y q,hired TischlerBise to criti critique w I number of significant issues including the fiscal impact study of a proposed residen- ASI ment : methodology, cost assumptions,no specific tial and office development that indicated net capital improvement program and geograph- surpluses.TischlerBise requested more infor- Arapahoe Co.,CO is nexus issues.Bythe end of theprocess,the Lawrence,KS mation in order to ascertain what the fiscal Pickerington,OH ICity chose to eliminate this fee for nonresi- results would be if the residential development Suwanee,GA dential development. preceded the nonresidential, since the office Bucke a AZ The Townmarket appeared to be soft.The fiscal results NewImpact Fee and y , of Buckeye will bep one of the largest cities in Arizona when it is were then negative. FcBllAssignments: ultimatelyI built out.Given en its geographic size, Queenstown, MD—A 500,000 square feet the calculation of development impact fees shopping center is proposed in this small Avenal,CA needed to be sensitive to issues related to col- community.The developer's fiscal consultant Corcoran,CA lection and expenditure zones.TischlerBise provided a report showing sizeable fiscal sur- DeSoto Co.,FL developmentEl Centro,CA I prepared impact fees for:water, pluses. However, the report failed to ade- Frederick MD sewer,parks,library,police,fire/EMS,streets quately account for significant cost increases Grass Valley,CA I andove eneral g government. for police, fire/EMS and off-site road expen- Imperial Co.,CA ditures.The assessed value assumptions were Maricopa,AZ Henrico Co., VA For the County of also aggressive. A revised study showed Pahrump,NV sig- Henrico, VA, TischlerBise was hired to nificantlyless net surpluses. Pasquotank Co.,NC explore cash proffers for a number of capital Pickerington,OH facilities including: police,fire,parks/recre- Tiverton, RI This small community Port St.Lucie,FL ation, libraries, schools, and roads.After an received a fiscal impact analysis showing sig- Sedona,AZ Sherman,TX initial feasibility study for these categories,the nificant fiscal benefits from a proposed Stuart FL County decided to pursue parks/recreation, 350,000 square feet retail complex.The calcu- lischlerBise CALL TOLL-FREE (800) 424-4318 I I Please send the following: 4701 Sangamore Road,Suite N210 ❑ Recent Fiscal&Economic Newsletters Bethesda,MD 20816 ❑ Reprint"20 Points to Know About Impact Fees" (800)424-4318Fax(301)320-4860 I ❑ Reprint"Impact Fees—Understand Them or Be Sorry" info@tischlerbise.com ❑ Excerpts from:ICMA IQ Report"Introduction to Infrastructure Financing" www.tischlerbise.com I ❑ Excerpts from:ICMA Smart Growth Network"SmartRealities" Also:Pasadena CA rP Growth&Fiscal II Information about TischlerBise I Consulting Services: Name I ❑ Fiscal Impact Analyses I ❑ Title Agency Telephone Impact Fees I ❑ Revenue Strategies Street I ❑ Economic Impact Analyses I ❑ Fiscal Software City State Zip L Fiscal & Economic Newsletter No. 47 Toll-Free (800) 424-4318 4 1 FREDERICK COUNTY,VA County Working Group assisted with implementation of the finished II (continued from p.1) Once selected for this assignment, model. III TischlerBise interacted with a public/private similar factors that define fiscal expenditures, Design of Model II can be easily modified and updated. The The model structure is To develop the model,TischlerBise staff model structure is also transparent and allows trans parent and exible interviewed major County facility and serv- II all users to clearly see the methodology,data, p iceroviders to understand how each p depart- and algorithms utilized to verify the correct ment is structured, as well as to gather Ill application of the data, thereby avoiding sector working group who reviewed level of information regarding current levels of serv- "black box"concerns. service and cost/revenue assumptions and ice, available capacity of capital facilities, II facility-related operating costs and how dif- ferent types of growth affect services. Based 1111 The Dynamics of a Fiscal Model on these discussions,a unique methodology was developed for each service and capital II Scenario facility type. 111 Input Module A unique methodology was developed for II each service and capital facility type Base Year 5 Real Property t Il Demographic Module I Tax Base Module Applications II + + If + + Although the model can be used for long- ran e planningapplications such as evaluat- II Operating Operating ,' Capital Capital g pp P g p g Pmg Countywide growth scenarios, the Revenues Costs Revenues Costs • primaryuse of the model will be to review 111 ' and assess the impact of specific develop- mentro osals,such as rezonings.The over II - Fiscal p p g Out Outputs whelming majority of counties in the p Commonwealth of Virginia are not authorII - g ized to collect impact fees,and therefore rely on"voluntary"proffers. Since these proffers II can only be committed at the time of a rezon- in , the model's out ut on ca ital facilit ii Net ° g P P Y impacts will provide valuable information for Surplus/Deficit i these negotiations. I I II U 8 LEV-t t7 (008) a.renn o 11 �� SI .L'asi�• sas1 p uV ppiduiI atwouoag• saI2oluils anuana1• II saaj paidwI• sasiquuy laedmj ii osi3• 111 "' 9 N I 1 3 3 3 0 III 14103 slq.Ja/g3siJ Mn1n1 vJ `vuapvsvd:ow II 9180Z QY\I`ipsagiag•O 1 ZN alms.puo1 aaotu ups Tut ii ZE89#i!wied aW`ell!nloo8 s3Iinass H LMoHlo Ls„ gm a lddIII 36Eisod's.n GIS lHJS8d ■ II I I Il N, i ***1 P,,,, LAN\\,\\ N, \I,,,,,N,,,\,,,,,\,, ,\\ G `, \ ,, \\ \1414 \\1'4\) ,w4„ko,,,\\, \t,,\,,,‘,,\\\,0'\ i�`„\,\ ,1\\\\\\\ , t . , 1 ,,, ,` 1 t�� "�.i����,, , � , � ,��.„, �,,�,�,,,�, 1, ��� u���''. , 20„,,,,, to Know About� `, ,` ��� �` ,,1,�,'�,,``��,}���.,ne.��.,��4.11,,.�\�1 � 1,�'r Dear Reader ;`,1\ 1,1�1111�\1a�1,11\,.�,1� �,'N\(� �1 111\���.���.1�\,1, \,V�,A111\�al��1��1��'��11\,�\\�11�'`i11,1��1��11 Ci\u (� V 1b1, `,i�`1))��1���i�;�u 1\1\\11\1\�1 Aa11\X11\\1�111�\\�11�,11U1N1�\I��\11111a1�1*H\�11�1�1\,��\i�, �,,,\��ih�a�1\�11�1�����1,,���1�1�'�,1�„��tot , 1�1� iii��*�!,,1 tthpact Fees We are p pleased to present this article, which was II in Planning magazine.Tischler&Associates, by Paul S. Tischler Inc. (TA) is a fiscal, economic and planning III consulting firm specializing in: mpact fees are an increasingly popular new Tp gyp p ❑ Fiscal Impact Analyses revenue source to local governments.While II ❑ Impact Fees (includingfeasibilityanalysis)p Y there are a number of advantages to impact fees III ❑ Capital Improvement Programs {:i Revenue Strategies 'and related exactions there are limitations.As communities and development groups become ❑ Growth Policy Studies p g p Market and Economic Analyses - more sophisticated about what should be expected Y p II ❑Economic Development Strategies [:1 Fiscal and Economic Software from a thorough impact fee study, they will become ' more critical and their level of expectation will IThe "20 Points to Know About Impact Fees” increase. This article briefly notes 20 nontechnical cover the advantages and disadvantages of points of which one should be aware. 111 impact fees to both the public and private sectors. TA has conducted over 500 impact fee fit Impact fees are viewed as a free revenue IIand development oxaction studies for jurisdic- ,, the country. source without any constituency requirement. tions and school districts throughout Y ITA's impact fees have never been challenged. Impact fees may be voted in without an election, TA has also critiqued impact fees on behalf ofIII private sector clients. In all cases the impact usually apply only to new developmentment(which fees were eliminated or reduced. The services does not yet exist) and are perceived to exclude IIIfor which TA has analyzed impact fees include current taxpayers. Therefore, impact fees are a the following: fairly painless and free revenue source since there I •roads • parks and recreation is no obvious increase in cost to current voters. • water •police III • sewer • fire ;',,� Impact fees pertain only to new capital • libraries • general government which directlya r.III • schools •transit facilities benefit the payer II The states in which TA has conducted impact fee Many people still believe that impact fees can be studies include the following: utilized for capital facilities which benefit existing p 111 •Arizona • Iowa • Pennsylvania residents. However, expenditures utilizing impact •Arkansas • Maryland •Rhode Island fees must show a direct benefit to those paying. II •California •Mississippi • South Carolina Under some statutes, an existing facility can •Colorado • Montana Texas generate impact fees if it was oversized to serve II • Delaware • New Mexico •Utah • Florida • North Carolina •Virginia the new development. g p •Georgia • Ohio •West Virginia 111 • Idaho • Oklahoma •Wisconsin The impact fees collected must be spent I Please call TA at 800-424-4318, visit within a reasonable time period. www.tischlerassociates.com, or e-mail us at IITAFiscal@tischlerassociates.com to obtain A mandated or general rule-of-thumb is about six further information, receive the reprint, "Impact years, although ten years may suffice. In most cases 111 Fees Understand Them or Be Sorry,”our TA the jurisdiction must have a good idea that the Fiscal &Economic Newsletters, or to discuss 111 TA's impact fee and other consulting services. (continued on next page) I I I I /it money will be spent within the reasonable time 747 Planning departments are probably r period for a specific facility. This encourages the most appropriate center for managing capital improvement programs to be prepared. impact fee activity. I 41The electorate may think that impact fees The calculation of impact fees is closely related to will pay for all new capital facilities, therefore land use and rational nexus. Planning departments negating the need for higher taxes. are generally the most appropriate center for managing activity. Impact fee calculations are not This expectation by the electorate could lead to primarily an accounting or engineering exercise. long term negative political consequences. Even if Because rational nexus requires one to show a I impact fees are eligible to pay for all capital facili- direct benefit of the impact fee to the capital ties, which is highly unlikely, they will not negate facility or the particular service, land use issues are I the need for higher taxes due to operating costs. very important.Also, projections, usually provided by planning departments are very important. In I I Educate the electorate on what impact jurisdictions where there is an active planning I 111 fees do and do not accomplish. department, this department will probably be the most appropriate center for managing activity. This I CO Educate the electorate on what impact fees does not preclude other departments, such as do and do not accomplish. finance and budget, from playing an integral part. I Impact fees relate solely to capital facilities for ' Current levels of service must 1 new development.They do not pertain to rehabili- be met I tation, retrofitting, or replacement of existing capital facilities.Also, the greater cash cow of 4Current levels of service must be met unless I operating expenses must be explained to the there is a plan to address existing deficiencies. electorate. Otherwise, their expectations will be I artificially high. There is a tendency for communities and their consultants to assume the adopted level of service roit The amount of impact fees must be for the impact fee study. You can not extract a I politically acceptable. higher level of service and commensurate fee The amount that is politically acceptable will vary solely from new development unless there is an I by state and jurisdiction. If an impact fee of$1,500 existing plan to address deficiencies generated by is the politically acceptable amount, while the the current population. I maximum justifiable is $8,000, it may not make II sense to pursue some impact fees. This depends on I Do not rely solely on departmental how much revenue can be obtained by impact fees assumptions. 111 and/or other sources. ti- 1_,-== Do not rely solely on departmental 4 The community should be growing. assumptions; instead, obtain your own background information. A 3-5% growth rate may allow the community to raise a reasonable amount of revenues and also Because departments are not familiar with the show the need for additional capital facilities due requirements of impact fees, they are unlikely to to growth.A very low growth rate will generate clearly understand the difference between adopted minimal revenues and new capital facilities may and existing levels of service, service delivery areas I not be needed in the foreseeable future for and their relationship to existing and new capital most services. facilities and several other issues. If the right questions are asked, they should be able to provide I II Ithe information. The most fail-safe way to ensure 1$1 What are the realities of charging this is to obtain your own information from nonresidential development? 111 the departments. In many states the jurisdiction may not discriminate \tt, Analyze the capital improvement budget. between different types of land use for the same service. In one county, a road impact fee was not IIThe potential impact fee revenues will need to be implemented because the officials did not wish to related to the capital improvement budget or capital add another fee to nonresidential development.This Iimprovement element. It is important for the particular jurisdiction wanted to attract as much 1111 analyst to be familiar with this budget and its nonresidential development as possible.The validity,both short and long term. question of charging nonresidential development IIshould be raised and answered near the outset of 0,, Be familiar with the possible geographic the study in order to avoid extra work if the answer IIIservice areas in order to comply with is no. rational nexus. As the development community becomes more to-` Be aware that some new home buyers are 111 concerned about pass-throughs due to tighter a ready residents within the jurisdiction. II markets and fiscal constraints, they are more likely In some jurisdictions 50-70% of new home buyers to look at the geographic service areas and their are trading up within the same jurisdiction.The Irelationships to their project. There is a tendency reality is that these people have been paying for for jurisdictions to have larger service areas than capital facility needs through their existing tax base Imay be appropriate. The service areas will vary by from the time they were in the community and are I type of activity. now being asked to pay a second time.As a point of information, elected officials should understand 111 'tCan a jurisdiction provide the needed this. capital facilities? eThe recommended impact fees should have some 1,4 Decision makers should be aware of the relationship to what the jurisdiction can actually "intergenerational equity" issue, a negative • provide. Whether it is due to time lag, backlog of aspect of impact fees. Iexisting facilities, debt ratios or political con- In many cases, impact fees mark the change from Istraints, the impact fee work will be diminished if intergenerational equity to site-specific equity. the jurisdiction cannot provide the needed capital Many of us and almost all of our parents lived in a I facilities (assuming that impact fees do not pay community where the capital facilities were paid as 100% of the new cost). part of the regular tax burden. The use of impact Ifees and other exactions means that those who it'cf Beware of granting credits. move into the community are now buying into the • In some state statutes, the future tax payments of a capital facilities with a one time fee. IIhouse or nonresidential property which are utilized for debt service of a particular capital facility will II Educate elected officials on 111 need to be credited on a discounted basis against 111 impact fees. I the impact fee amount. Even in states where this is not required, the "spirit"of impact fees is to avoid 6, Educate elected officials on impact fees. IIIany double payments. Therefore, credits will be For many elected officials the term impact fee granted in most cases. means a new revenue source that can be utilized in • tight times.The only thing they may know I IWhat are the realities of charging nonresidential development? (continued on next page) u` 1111 about impact fees is that existing taxpayers will Garbage In -111 II not have to pay them. However, there are important GarbageOut. impact and minuses to the use of fees whichll have been noted above and which should be con- 04 ,! Garbage In - Garbage Out. veyed to elected officials. ! ■ The above 19 points focus more on the non- NI Including a public/private sector technical issues; however, they allude to a number I advisory group mayease the of technical issues, such as rational nexus.As . . II acceptanceprocess. noted, communities and development groups will p become moresophisticatedsubstan- regarding the I tio tiation of impact fees.The relationship of level of Including a public/private sector advisory process. service, geographic areas, capital improvement 1111 group may ease the acceptance p p p budgets, and comprehensivep lans are all critical in Using this type of group educates everyone on the devising a solid impact fee study. Perhaps most II openness of the process and reasonableness of the important is the need for the analyst to "get his feet III data as well as providing a means to reveal,before dirty"by reviewing the local data to ensure that it is the end of the study, any major oversights which valid to be included in the study itself.An adopted I might have been made. Tischler&Associates, Inc. recreation plan does not necessarily mean the data recommends thisrocess to its clients and in over is valid for impact pact fee calculations. Overcrowded 111 90% of the cases it is accepted. By coming to school conditions may need to be reflected in the 111 closure with such a group prior to the final report, level of service definitions. Garbage in will result there are fewer acrimonious hearings and less in garbage out. II chance of litigation. I I BULK RATE rik, 11 Tischler & Associates, Inc. U.S.POSTAGE PAI D ■ 115 Providing Solutions for Growth PERMIT#FREDERICK,,MD II 4701 Sangamore Road•Suite N210•Bethesda,MD 20816 Also:Pasadena, CA I www.tischlerassociates.com Il 1 COST OF GROWTH SERVICES a • Fiscal Impact Analyses 1111 • Impact Fees • Capital Improvement Programs 111 • Revenue Strategies • Market and Economic Analyses 11• Growth Policy Studies • Fiscal and Economic Software ill (800) 424-4318 U A Reprint from: Planning Magazine U Points o now ouImpactII ,‘ a 111 I I I FEES— is [ od Development UNDERSTAND THEM ■ TIE MOW ASSOCIATION Of OWE ORDERS OR BE SORRY i Dear Reader: by Paul S. Tischler This article is from the National Association of II Home Buildersuarterl magazine,Land q Y Development. Tischler&Associates,Inc.,(TA)is a nyone who has developed land in the last 10 to 15 Ifiscal,economic,and planning consulting firm years knows that the popularity of impact fees as a specializing in fiscal impact analysis,impact fees local government revenue source has skyrocketed. The illand revenue strategies. Our other major services are three major reasons for the proliferation of fees are state market feasibility studies,economic development and local limitations on tax hikes; federal, state and local Ianalysis,capital improvement programming,and mandates increasing costs without a concomitant increase growth policy planning. in accompanying revenues;and perhaps most importantly, I the great reluctance of elected officials to raise taxes. TA has prepared over 500 impact fees for the Impact fees are especially appealing because they are 11 following services: •Schools •Police usually passed onto future(absentee)voters.Therefore,it •Roads •Fire I •Water •Municipal Facilities p Development impact fees are •Wastewater and Equipment I •Stormwater •Libraries growing increasingly attractive to •Parks and Recreation •Transit I •Open Space and Trails local .overnmentsDevelopers need 9 p I TA's impact fee studies include those for clients in to understand impact fees if they are the following states: I •Arizona •New Mexico to spot illegal uses and improper •Arkansas • New York II •California •Colorado •North Carolina • calculation of the fees. Ohio •Georgia •Pennsylvania I •Idaho •Rhode Island is imperative that developers understand fees or risk •Iowa •South Carolina becoming the victim of either their illegal use or the I •Florida • South Dakota improper calculation of fee amounts.This article provides •Maryland •Utah some examples of illegal fees,discusses caveats pertaining I p g •Massachusetts •Virginia to the calculation and use of impact fees, and offers a set •Mississippi •West Virginia of recommendations for ensuring the equitable application I •Montana •Wisconsin of fees. IOur private sector impact fee clients include:Home Builders Associations;NAIOP Chapters;Private I Developers; Senior Housing Corporations;and others. Illegal Impact Fees I Not one of 500+public sector impact fees prepared undreds of today's impact fees are probably illegal; et, for two major reasons the fees remain lar by TA has been challenged. However,when TA has ygel y Icritiqued impact fees for the private sector,the fees unchallenged. First,the fee amounts are noticeably small have been reduced or eliminated. We think our and thus are not particularly burdensome. Second, 1111 experience with the public and private sector is developers and builders are fearful of delaying devel- invaluable. opment by bringing a legal challenge against a fee.One of the more blatant examples of an illegal fee is the fee for I _ public Please call TA at 800/424-4318 to obtain further p cart in a California jurisdiction. The impact fee, information or to discuss TA's impact fee consulting calculated only against nonresidential space,pays for art I servicesincludin exhibited in suchpublic spaces as museums. Rationally our impact fee feasibility p analysis,as well as full fiscal impact evaluations. speaking,such a fee—if it is to be imposed at all—should I (continued on next page) I I I I I probably be assessed against residential units. After all,it fees, are assessed and collected to fund only those capital is residents who generally find the time to visit museums facilities whose need is generated by new development. after work or on weekends. Further,expenditure based on impact fee collections must Less subtle and unsupportable examples of illegal fees demonstrate a direct benefit to those paying the fees. I include the imposition of police and fire fees against Under many statutes, an existing facility is eligible for housing, but not against nonresidential development. impact fee financing if it was deliberately oversized to (Impact fees should not discriminate by type of land use.) accommodate new development. Or how about the calculation of a park impact fee based on desired levels of service rather than on lower, existing levels of service? Another example pertains to school impact fees for a geographic area that will not generate the Knowledgeable and willing need for any increase in school facilities in the foreseeable homebuilders must participate in future. Also likely to be illegal is the application ofI hypothetical future student generation rates, which are and evaluate all of considerably higher than the actual rates experienced by the relevant 1 the jurisdiction. Flaws in the methodology of calculating information related to the fees or inaccurate data assumptions can result in hundreds I impact in some cases, thousands of dollars per house in fee determination process. unsubstantiated fees. I ElBe aware that the impact fees collected must be spent Monitor t Process within a reasonable time period. A mandated or general rule-of-thumb holds that about six years is a reasonable I period in which to expend fees, although 10 years may I ncreasingly,state law requires fee-imposing jurisdictions to include representatives of the private sector on fee suffice. In most cases,the jurisdictionoperate must p erate on the Igood faith assumption that the moneywill be spent for p a review or liaison committees. This is certainly an impor- specific facility or facilitythe mandatedperiod in ma .�'pe within p I tant step g sure that private as well as public sector The time limitations encourage or require the preparation interests are accorded the opportunity to participate in the of capital improvement plans. q p p review process. Often, however, p p I the few private sector III representatives are as overwhelmed as the © Educate the electorate on what impact fees do and do other committee not accomplish.As alreadynoted, fees fund only thosemembers by pages and pages of text, reams of data, and capital facilities necessitated by new development. Fee maybe even undecipherable tables. Consequently, theI including its private sector representatives, collections cannot be allocated to rehabilitation, retro- committee,simply takes thepath of least resistance fitting, or replacement of existing and agrees to a p xisting capital facilities. The consultant's methodology, data and technical recom- greater cash cow of operating expenses, not covered bIy mendations. impact fees, must be explained to the electorate. Otherwise,the public will wrongly expect that impact fees I Given that the actions of the committee automatically vest the fees with a measure of credibility,it is imperative can solve the full range of local fiscal problems. that all interested parties monitor the impact fee process. 4 Make certainI If local builders defer their involvement until fee amounts that fees are assessed only to maintain current levels, versus future levels, of service—unless a are determined,they will be faced with an uphill struggle jurisdiction has adopted d a I to amend the impact fee report and its recommendations— p plan to address existing deficiencies and is actually implementing this plan. Some especially if the other members of the committee and the communities and their consultants ten use a lev I larger public have already"bought into"the methodology service thatd to el of is not met elsewhere in the jurisdiction. It is and its data assumptions. illegal to extract from new development fees to payfor a 1 Even though impact fees raise severalquestions p higher level of service unless the jurisdiction is using other regarding their technical aspects,they also point to several funds to bring other parts of the jurisdiction up to this same I caveats that are particularly germane and understandable level of service. to the interested party. A few of these are discussed below. I Ell Do not rely solely on the jurisdiction's113 assumptions; Recognize that impact fees pertain only to new capital instead,obtainyour own facilities that directlybenefit the payer. Manyobserversbackground information.VariousI impact p Y localgovernment still believe that impact fees can be used for capital departments may not be familiar with the p requirements of impact fees and are therefore unlikely to facilities that benefit existing residents. In fact, impact understand clearlythe difference between adopted and 111 111 Nmimmmmmmmm•mmmmmimmmimmm•mmmmmmmgmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmsmmmNmmimmimm 1111 existing levels of service,the relationship between service direct benefit to the development paying the impact fee, . deliveryareas and existingand new capital facilities,and jurisdictions tend to describe larger service areas than may p several other issues. If the builders ask local jurisdictions be appropriate. the right questions,they should also be able to extract the 8 Can a jurisdiction provide the needed capital facilities? needed information. 111 The recommended impact fees should demonstrate some relationship to what the jurisdiction is capable of providing (i.e. Has the jurisdiction been spending much money on Some of the questions to ask are: What this category in the capital improvement budget?). Whether due to time lag,backlog of existing facilities,debt is the basis for the land use projections? ratios, orpolitical constraints, the effort that goes into service areas ascertained to setting an impact fee will be diminished if the jurisdiction How were se Ce cannot rovide the needed capital facilities in a timely p meet the rational nexus requirements? fashion (assuming that the impact fee does not pay 100 percent of the new cost). How were levels of service and cost 9 Understand the importance of granting credits. Under factors determined? How have credits the provisions of some state statutes, the future tax payments of a house or nonresidential property that are for other payments been considered? used to cover the debt service of a particular capital facility need to be credited against the impact amount on a discounted basis.Even in states that do not re re uigranting g g 6 Analyze the capital improvement budget. Potential credits, the e "spirit" of impact fees is to avoid double payments. impact fee revenues need to be related to the capital iimprovement budget or capital improvement plan. That is, there should be capital projects in the plan that can Reality Testing . legitimately use impact fees.It is important for builders to become familiar with this budget and its validity over both 11 the short and long terms. s already mentioned,impact fees are popular because elected officials perceive them as a free revenue 111 ©Be familiar with the likely geographic service areas in source not paid by current constituents. As a practical order to evaluate the rational nexus requirement. In matter, several of the flawed impact fee methodologies summary,rational nexus requires a reasonable relationship gained acceptance because the fee amount ultimately • for the f lilt theproved to be much lower than the amount discussed in the between the need o ac y and use of impact fees directly benefiting those paying. To show a impact fee report. Of course, in some jurisdictions, lower TISCHLER&ASSOCIATES, INC. CALL TOLL-FREE (800) 424-4318 Please send the following: 4701 Sangamore Road,Suite N210 Bethesda,MD 20816 ❑ Reprint"20 Points to Know About Impact Fees" LIReprint"Impact Fees—Understand Them or Be Sorry" (301)320-6900•Fax(301)320-4860 www.tischlerassociates.com ❑ Excerpts from:ICMA IQ Report"Introduction to Infrastructure Financing" Also: Pasadena,CA ❑ Recent TA Fiscal&Economic Newsletters Information About TA Consulting Services: ❑ Fiscal Impact Analyses Name ❑ Impact Fees ❑ Capital Improvement Programs Title Agency Telephone ❑ Revenue Strategies ❑ Growth Policy Studies Street ❑ Market and Economic Analyses ❑ Fiscal and Economic Software City State Zip IN U U fees are subject to annual increases. as part of the regular tax burden. The increasing reliance It is important that the community imposing an impact on impact fees and other exactions means that households U fee is experiencing significant growth. If not, the juris- moving into a community must now buy into the capital diction will be unable to generate enough revenues to make facilities with a one-time fee. 111 the impact fee process worthwhile. Impact fees incur a set of administrative costs and, in most cases, are legally required to be segregated from the general fund by type of Steps to Take account, type of activity, and geographic subarea(whereIII appropriate). For home builders, two nontechnical points are worth rom the outset,a private sector advisory group should III noting. First, several of the homebuyers assessed impact be convened to participate in the impact fee review fee payments are already residents within a given juris- process and to ensure that private interests present their III diction. In some jurisdictions, over 50 percent of pur- concerns as a unified front. Experience suggests that such chasers are trade-up buyers and therefore have been paying groups allow for more rational input into the fee deter- formination helpavoid methodological flaws in NI capital facilities through the property tax from the time process, g they started residing in the community. Elected officials setting the fee,and ensure the application of relevant data. All members of the advisory be aware of this conundrum. committee should be able to III understand the data used to justify the fee. "Garbage in" will produce "garbage out" and will generally lead to 111 In some cases, those preparing the unjustifiably higher impact fees. 11 fees hide behind "sophisticated" Paul S. Tischler is a principal of Tischler&Associates, Inc., (TA)a fiscal, economic and planning consulting firm II models and use them as an excuse with offices in Bethesda, Maryland, and Pasadena, California. The firm has prepared over 500 impact fees forill not to explain the methodology and communities around the country.None of the public sector fees have been challenged. In representing the private III the supporting data. sector, TA has succeeded in reducing impact fee amounts or, in one instance, eliminating a fee altogether. II Second, impact fees give rise to an"intergenerational Note:Please let us know if you would like to receive a copy III equity" issue. Many of us and almost all of our parents of"20 Points To Know About Impact Fees",a reprint from lived in a community where the capital facilities were paid Planning magazine. 1111 a PRSRT STD 111 Tischler & Associates, Inc. U.S.Postage PAID 111 Providing Solutions for Growth Rockville,MD Permit#5832 IIII 4701 Sangamore Road•Suite N210•Bethesda,MD 20816 Also:Pasadena, CA a www.tischlerassociates.com COST OF GROWTH SERVICES 111 •Fiscal Impact Analyses •Impact Fees III •Capital Improvement Programs •Revenue Strategies a •Market and Economic Analyses •Growth Policy Studies a •Fiscal and Economic Software (800) 424-4318 a REPRINT "IMPACT FEES—UNDERSTAND THEM OR BE SORRY" U a '•�I'I j I I ', 0 I'I II SMART GROWTH & FISCAL 01 1 Iel REALITIES (Excerpts ana emen MART GROWTH 9 ,_ __ �, W c i j___._..h by L. Carson Bise, II, AICP association Although smart growth has social,environmental,and other com- - f x; ponents,the general concept is to encourage development in areas having Dear Reader: existing infrastructure capacity and to discourage"leapfrog,"or sprawl; development patterns.The author's consulting assignments with Tischler Tischler&Associates,Inc.,(TA)is pleased to &Associates,Inc.(TA),a nationally known fiscal,economic and plan- present this excerpted reprint from"Getting Smart!" ping consulting firm,have confirmed that smart growth is almost always the newsletter of the Smart Growth Network. The a much more fiscally sustainable development pattern than traditional article,authored by staff member Carson Bise,is sprawl development.This fiscal viability is an important planning con- reprinted with the permission of the International sideration,as a comprehensive plan is difficult to implement if it is not City/Council Management Association(ICMA). fiscally sustainable. This article discusses the general relationships among several factors that influence the fiscal sustainability of growth. TA is a fiscal,economic and planning consulting firm specializing in: ❑ Fiscal Impact Analyses ... a comprehensive plan is difficult to implement ❑ Impact Fees if it is not fiscally sustainable. " U Capital Improvement Programs Li Revenue Strategies ❑ Growth Policy Studies A fiscal impact analysis determines costs and revenues attributable CI Market and Economic Analyses to new development. The analysis should reflect revenues,capital costs ❑ Economic Development Strategies and associated operating expenses. This is in contrast to an economic ❑ Fiscal and Economic Software impact analysis, which evaluates direct and indirect impacts on the overall economy;those impacts are typically new jobs,real disposable To date,TA has conducted over 300 fiscal income and consumer spending. impact analyses and more than 500 impact fee studies,none of which have been challenged. In addition to this article,we offer several other Methodologies reprints which may be of interest. Our TA Fiscal& The two most common methodologies utilized in fiscal impact Economic Newsletters discuss fiscal findings in analyses are the average cost-per capita method and case study-marginal jurisdictions throughout the country,and we also cost method. The average cost-per capita approach is probably the more offer select TA articles excerpted from various popular and more frequently used method for evaluating fiscal impacts. national publications,such as: The reader should take caution, however, when using this approach: ❑ Analyzing the Fiscal Impact of Development because it focuses on average cost per capita or employee,it doesn't con- y g p p (excerpt from the MIS Report published by sider the available capacities of existing capital facilities,and it masks ICMA) the timing of additional facilities required to serve new growth. The case study-marginal cost method is the most realistic method for evaluating ❑ Fiscal Impact Analysis: Reader Beware, Some fiscal impacts. Under this approach,available capacities usually deter- Caveats(excerpt from The Growth Management mine the staging of capital facilities and where variable, and semi- Reporter newsletter) variable,costs can be reflected. ❑ Impact Fees: Understand Them or Be Sorry (article from Land Development magazine) Li 20 Points to Know About Impact Fees(article "The case study-marginal cost method is the most from Planning magazine)ma realistic method for evaluating fiscal impacts. U Fiscal Impact Analysis in Local Comprehensive Planning(excerpt from Planner's Casebook Using a local government's fire department as an example,the dif- newsletter published by the American Planning ferences between the average-cost and case study-marginal methods can Association) be illustrated.The average cost method would divide the fire department ❑ Introduction to Infrastructure Financing(excerpt budget by population,or both population and employment,to arrive at from ICMA IQ Service Report) a level-of-service standard of$X. This cost would be incurred regard- less of where and when development occurred. The case study-marginal Please call TA at(800)424-4318,visit cost approach would evaluate the service response time and,based on www.tischlerassociates.com,or email us at discussions with fire personnel,ascertain whether a new station and/or TAFiscala tischlerassociates.cam,to obtain the apparatus was needed. If not,there would be no additional cost in con- te tints or to discuss TA's fiscal im act evaluations, stant dollars. If there were a need, then a new station or bay would be p p required for the additional apparatus,and there would be a cost for addi- impact fees,and other consulting services indicated tional staff. Therefore,the timing of new development would be critical above. ! and would affect the city's capital needs and costs,operating expenses, and of course,any offsetting revenues. 111 Locational Differences, Costs Maryland,the local revenue structure aids the fiscal sustainability of a sprawl development pattern as well. IIThe demands for government services and capital facilities are closely related to developments'location relative to existing infrastruc- ture. These locational differences relative to existing infrastructure can Annexation Considerations I only be reflected using a case study-marginal cost methodology. Infill Many cities perceive annexations as "cash cows"and choose to enhance the tax base in this fashion, rather than encourage redevelop- ,t I ...the timing of new development would be critical... " ment within the existing city.Annexations are attractive because of the potential for realizing instant revenues from property tax and in many II and new development that occur in areas already served by infrastructure instances,sales and income tax.This is particularly true when situs-based are typically able to capitalize on infrastructure economies of scale,both sales tax (point-of-sale) and/or point of employment income tax is at II capital and operational. This is an important factor given that much of a stake. Costs are only rarely considered because of the difficulty in ascer- community's capital improvement plan is comprised of growth-related taining the likely increased demands for services and the resulting costs. ill projects,resulting in less money for infrastructure replacement and main- These costs often include extension of new infrastructure, associated tenance needs. Often overlooked in the discussion of infrastructure needs operations and maintenance costs,as well as unforeseen costs for such are the associated operating costs,which are the largest costs incurreditems as rehabilitation of substandard infrastructure. In many cases,costs I p gg by capital facilities; annual operating costs typically account for approxi- would be less to encourage redevelopment within the existing city. mately 80 percent of a jurisdictional budget. III "The Dublin analysis raised interesting Revenue Structure a policy questions such as the city's willingness Unlike costs,the physical development pattern typically has little to subsidize some annexation in order to impact on the local revenue structure,except for any - IIIp variations in prop erty taxes resulting from locational differences. Therefore, it is the exercise its control over land uses. " composition of the local revenue structure that mainly affects the fiscal I sustainability. For example, many western states rely heavily on sales For example,TA completed a fiscal analysis of growth, as well as tax collected at the point of sale as the primary local revenue source. With the feasibility of several annexations,for Dublin,Ohio. Because Dublin I this revenue structure,additional retail development is attractive to many is fortunate to have a favorable job-to-housing ratio that is expected to communities.However,additional retail development can happen at the continue into the future,the analysis concluded that new growth within II expense of existing retail space,especially over the long-term. In addi- the city generates net revenues because of the income taxes from non- residential development. It also concluded that all combinations of III "These locational differences ... can only be reflected annexation areas generate average annual net deficits because of the large amount of residential development and the need to extend infrastructure. 111 using a case study-marginal cost methodology. " The Dublin analysis raised interesting policy questions such as the city's willingness to subsidize some annexation in order to exercise its control tion,given the lower wages earned in retail and service jobs,new retail over land uses. I development can exacerbate affordable housing shortages in many com- munities. Conclusion I In states with aggressive local revenue structures,such as Maryland, TA has found that new residential growth pays its own way in most coun- By including a fiscal impact analysis as part of the planning process, II ties because of higher revenues fromproperty,income and transferdecision- makers taxes, the community and local government decision makers can gain a better which are linked to the higher taxable values of new homes relative to understanding of the fiscal realities of different development alterna- the existing base. For buyers to afford these units their average house- tives. With this knowledge, impactsg e,the fiscal can be evaluated alongside I hold income will generally be higher as well,which affects local income non-fiscal issues such as environmental concerns,housing affordability, tax. Although TA studies have found that future land use scenarios jobs/housing balance, and quality of life, in order to make decisions in i reflecting smart growth principles generate the best fiscal results in the best interest of the particular community. III I 8Lev-i7zt7 (008) annntJos DIwouoo(puu post3• IN saipnis Xollod mMO JD• I sscpuy otuouoog puu lax.irw• soi2opp.its anuanaN• SUM6Pald 1uau1ano.idwIi lids�• I s003 pidiuI• sosAii uV pi diuj lUosid• I S33IAH3S HIMOHD AO ISOO I WOJ'SainlOOSSV.[a111.9S1J MMM vJ `vuapvsvd:ow I 9180Z QIAI` PsaqPg•0I ZNI alms.PEON a.iom u1s I OLI ZE85# !weed .�MOJ JO SZ[01jn O Xu1 1�L0.,[ I an`aIIin)1ao ZI rJ .� 1 S .p. d a aced •3uI 4SOTMOSSV 2g I JOROSUIII e6eisod*S l` alS lHSad I 1 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Matt Michels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV12-06-14A, The WLB Group, representing Venture West,requests approval of a final plat for Lots 1-37 in Block 1 of Innovation Corporate Center, located on the northeast corner of Tangerine Rd and Innovation Park Dr. BACKGROUND: • Town Council approved the original Development Plan/Landscape Plan/Preliminary Plat for Innovation Corporate Center on December 20, 2006. • The first submittal of the final plat was received on May 17, 2007. • To date, a portion of the property(Block 1 and Common Area "A") has been graded. • The final plat entails application of property lines to legally subdivide the property. This application does not impact any design components approved as part of the development plan for Block 1. • The development of Lots 2-6 will require Development Review Board (DRB) and Council approval for each block. SUMMARY: )VZCR Zoning Compliance: All design issues were addressed as part of the development plan reviews. The final plat is in substantial compliance with all applicable zoning codes. The conditions in Exhibit "A"represent minor"clean-up" items. Engineering Comments: This plat generally conforms to the applicable sections of the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards and Oro Valley Drainage Criteria manual with respect to minimum platting requirements. The attached conditions of approval represent items of correction and/or addition to complete the plat documents for adherence to minimum survey standards. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: All General Plan compliance and associated design issues were addressed as part of the development plan p reviews. PUBLIC COMMENT: This application has been posted in accord with Town Policies. To date, no public comment has been received. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION _ Page 2 of SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Findings For: 1. The proposal meets all applicable zoning codes. 2. All design issues for the lot layout, open space alignment, and road alignment were addressed as part the preliminary plat review by Town Council. Findings Against: 1. None SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, OR deny] OV 12-06-14A, final plat for Lots 1-37 in Block 1, Innovation Corporate Center, located on the NEC of Tangerine Rd and Innovation Park Drive. Staff recommends that any motion to approve be subject to the conditions specified in Exhibit "A". Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" r)(47 2. Final Plat Sa • S. More Planning nd Zoning Director Cc: Crai: Ci•. ier, Town Engineer David Little The WLB Group,rou Fax 881-5313 1 Jer-_'e Watson, Assistant Town Manager Fred Steiniger Venture West, Fax 722.1166 David Andrews, Town Manager F:\OV\OV12\2003\0V12-03-14A\TC.RPT Final Plat.doc • R Exhibit A Conditions of Approval for OV12-06-14A, Lots 1-37 in Block 1, Innovation Corporate Center 4110, General 1. Address all redline comments. Sheet 2 2. Correct the given length of the north east boundary line for Lot 8. The distance on the plan does information. not match the boundary closure information. 3. Correct the given length of Common Area "A" near Lots 7 and 8 as redlined on thep lan. The distance on the plan does not match the boundary closure information. 4. Add a one foot no-access easement along Innovation Park Drive per the redlines. 5. Correct the OV number on this sheet to "OV 12-06-14A". Sheet 3 6. Correct the square footage called out for Common Area "A". The square footage for Common g Area"A"does not match what is shown on Sheet 2. ,31-- - ma) �R==S1t.38 615 00' ' - 48'3U'01• I NATO/74 LI . . s \ . __:_____________ __________________: 04,„4„,7! 4 ., . .1...._ , 4, .. I, . ___ _____ K, c P^oa m __,_ N 1 _` 4,,.4.0.08,65,17„.•00w u D�-"ea n / L \ �� ani / G o i voia� i,,,,44,,o 1£z�On /< 0 s,413 ;`' \''' 4.*' / • / o OI'� N -' / OO m Il / .).0., III/ , , / ;i w �b o g O c�O c / / �' \'` ,?act.I T 4S3G? , / / / C;\ /,i; / N r /'(� ti / a 4 Q .... U,O 9{0 C-C Of V N,U �J N N A A U A O Ca U W u1 Ut AS 0 ,O g O O W m I cn cn rn rr rs m ppd o d .A D 1J�1, O / , ONi ONi O p c0 O O oi O(Of A O O Vi 2 I '�1 v, f*1 lrl Cn Cn 1p r.,,r',)r.;m ,;., mm" I 00 d • m //, , 4 it, wZa \ / 1*1 /< '°'by a^ '‘,-,k�.,O,,,,-4, N / / /\ �,'a c„ol �oa \ r- �'by0 c„'.0.� o \ \�T. // / tV `3`3�3�3 �'](('')' [n7(� n qoo��' bOpOOI A!/ \ `o w/ / V O'U♦W N 2 O 2@ E3R a,2W N !� / • ,Q N�A3i 8�. �`� / �••(T W -' // • a4.., `'�F 26.69' •i��/ /� \ S aowN rn .c w-N m ?• o cornu ��c„ \ 8' \ \ g'.So'��u;;;: go�gN� �O 0�\ NiN13 03F o \ z L:J •4 / \ Vali ggiiol$88g8g i o0o ti lO�?�°, !s \ 4, / / ,N?O• ,f, q \, / / ��WwrAindiw." �NdwNg�o .ac"o ! � F ! �j / , r ' L=165.02' (;rn rn p''Ng.Nw....nie Nr -y • j \ r / g 8=303.00 m w o w boy w a di7 ?OE '� \ \ \\ d=31'1 2'1 B' / ">.c5,' N log y /\ �v/ C� \ r a°m ,yp/ .....4tkiipp / i Jrs ,' &' �( \ P ^ \ W / / . a 4%,,z,?:!,‘,' /sce,i, /N / // .4, N . • N"�' y / tV?0F c�'a � \N / :74, FA°� O 'y.2v / cp N 1�y9 t N• •/. i �� / N o e�A$44,:74 i e•V.' N t! �o a n // / \ / ,,i; ' . • X/7 .N47.../.14 11'°' �°,b 4.'6:`'• 8 6 lRP /gyp / \ \ \N l \' c�vii I / ,�: / O?X000•• <'N / ' ,..Jf?s / \ \ N< )7, •''/\ ' \ et- v�oC o G1 /`Stich .�-,,,',.. / / �ti. / • / \ X !>!!8o y p O b _b�8 4495 �^,� `ri(S .``�' W r (?J�(!� /NN \\/ ' • ,. - - _z!.— L :; AJNRlv3B / � rp -41°r' 9 '4Q) riirj 0 � ' ,� 8 \ \g',L O cn o�c. ✓Gv - L� \c^,eA Q 10 O h O 'b 0 v7 sO �0 `-q•�s,g�.-24 �`c,�' v /4 i \ 0 ,off ti- 1 ZJ z a yb„ y.4,?,y LT'' �'.�f ''b •°,7e,`'• '1' tip;`' - 1 \\ D ,7*-, zona, ebb1 411 nO��,,,-,,..tz �����-4, ,0 c *'cr Ao.�` -v % \\ pi n�� n C �5,�, '''.4/6 O� �9 �'� tiy��,• ,,,-,,011„,4 ,"'�i / i ti Of\\ CJ4 .','%,,,,,::, :k'68 c22 �Ov 1 X1 0%0 \ \ C4�G'� ,v, • cts 913 o i � b I O �� T �'9' rd0�0 ['Z88.38' 73cn n w n ,C O 10 �, 8`205.00' m piN n b , 0 0 06' �� ���00 G 80'36'00 ?� � b t=i t, d f� ('I i'a.' 'b c,0bc, 76 > \ O _w , yWO \\ '1 nC I W 0) I f N:\185050\NEIGHAPhose 2\FINAL\LOT 1 FNAL\fP-0dwg Plotted: flay.16,2007 i , � FSDz�Op'i*1 -=1�rDjn rZD�r�V.v�!�rv:aO m�n�yO�Of••-*��1rrfr�D-*-11�9" vC,Z9C rnAn1�z eC�r$e)-r.T-D�'r�J�D4V➢,�Z1D;��XA Gpo**o -DZ�r ��iyO x C c}[DF�.� 0�\mC�F�<pprtim���4rjn FD�>r�;*�y r-rm�l;�mp�ziD7 �<D�mv➢A➢�� •p �O f�*01l 0 -0OOCA 5,,,,,-q) N- '3^, O*1 zO OFp OADZ-i O-9n pCDtrm _o�QJO NOI JA , NOCO ,l Q, ! ; W V 'Os - _„,2, 1 CD t1Wzzvso,v_m➢� m Ovzr aCo,111OiQCD Ostl rn O O , ° O';$ $m I om� 0 COommN mnm6n2Om;I61:DCr-, rV1 OV,Fg;i[�OrA�FrOl;pCCpAm :xrn4I NCmXZ�. ➢ -NrA'ODy0m=%13ZOA -Fv,rn! :r; 11nrn o 0< 0< 0 O O.fZ1Z4? mZLnZZ2 � ZRm�;;y81/ dr?Dpi_�$H A Ann4o ornNNmO N6OrA9DO p- * '1'JNrvpr6Ay29� ��aAmo4pm$ zP°°9zmN9° yNr<DFlm (1? D--m ��Co ()" e2L,O: OO-�Zaa $Z9r� m� ON�AgN,6➢V.NppC9DAC2WOR0Ox(o parmpppZODmrNnpCY x -A Pirp y Ti 8 8 DD#it"614rrliql:'''*6rP,>91: 1g,:r1%,iff3,. ,-,<,',,Ipirtptx-r,1 ZGZ qa(m -rnA-ImA2.Ng lZ (5 O Z ¢ - -AD-1' 99iiZ iriI:r9im10,;z3Am0-c�lDYclZrODmAlNMrr6471ipppC(AON'0AD4 •N1rJnOlDWO ; v % :iF,oDOf�f_nDnO �A DEA(Z310GDN:D1gO -1mm D1p'NrDuO (� O tND0 AZrAAQC zOD■JD 1acaIgi--1Ir',F,?:11xgr$,Plr-:11-9-:-itiz74,Evii',I9. Ppi.r,'-'),- -F,-,riE A i7,,,,Orn,,moA °�irFoNrn o Wm ' A� J o AO0�prm !,. §1,1PL(i'`;'`:1,7]:titj:FIg2§-1g:"-(61:PkA,,,r;-1,4', O1q irl, �2C$^DDT Mit �! PP .2.'m. -4D ➢ i vAsd!ai hFiq-;:kZ-M!`::;',;-,'...Ngif,;;htiri',13,4P..1:',/,' � F41§ O� ��mF2gZ6Z�� y o ��<1 g .r2 FAT . rNm j9>p�. 10AASQO-A mmf),� > -<A � ,mpmO �-ii- zo1 N-,DOD=mom - rz 1ma° 0 �➢�20Zn,01�rnYc -_SvmA➢ccyV-ZDD* 2P8ZO Pi rzic,z-i-0Ll oA= g,2 2 p a f.-8 ,6-511, 2>NmvD-1rCDDlmpo ,mmAopmg mMF * N°o m�, Vl_a°-..r <O ° inscvA20OOmcAmn�O2mn0 m;81 AmC2O • o < D_4 c tn• Q , aANmIs roSm1-Nr0-ZNA➢ 94A4F,r k pa -AFA Trig vm- a > c'4',.) ZptN m ('`5^ pA ig Aa00c iz0vmz° mcpn° m�F>roDFO C A *o rOF .�y D pOmnEoc mOoVTVIAC,711, ZA0, -Z��0Cn ra 0Z0 S _f OOm O''-," m *D Zv BO0 o �mmA ADZ I-Cn $A rN DEOry m2O , - x004O +7 � O NZi< ?'°o A $ DIM{ON,aO2 AArm' 2Z DCm kVAO O� m IJ-irO ("onnCn (-;N6-nc V7' � mamm$As r,4m IjOl pZZ A oo0,ra§,m0,5 ,0 <mpmr0OCg;Z ZpDm 999mO) O NZ?Z m<Z1m nt-h N $ oZ 0ptneQ y'DDm *Ii4 < 8F'''' ' °ZWr •PR-• 0 .,N ,/ -- bC yI 0 r�, 9<, om ➢Oz�*p2 C�➢zDm9,DmD�ra: : 9F:::0 zZZ1ai'Xo�i3a{D{A 61ODrD➢o� OD* Z 2I �yA Vh,,m; 1:4:-;:,1 mn ° NAg°mn,Z D0 ' ozzDni6 :44?vf-- N�<v, c �y0b_� —\i ; Ay1 2 ni4 oy O, y 0'DbmA t0VCcpCyO CnO — ' 8D az A ;mmOrDA� Zn!� *NryDGUi. Ajwl � ➢DC-91,,A r1 /-- 6; /` P o^� �n AIdZI D liZrSp0npm 59m� OODmDOZY iO`7 C - O ND A?/22iO.ZZoDrAArnio ! r1omxtel 1/0�, ' \ A DNlO 2 C ,r;_=; yEOm-Z ADm0NC rnmZZ pmW JRl � ' 1a 1 vmm ' ADmo Znn=CaD'DAZE oZnr;FN 9n Zz° y S c05O/' \ ATT $ q r( n)n o0 y n \GeG:)s�'O� q Mmosr m›soqmgap�cme..im -1Dvozm0 DSpgNn ;rAr Sov0�rnm>noxDz FDvvo =c0N ( ',..,,, r,,'" =;CoA-F$$T�N � Amo?N 4 ' s�F,J 1s-� OLc mmmo f*' rm 00• !mPv*"mmOm` ' ,`` // pN$oN s $ccsZNmc)DfA,Om� Amvrnr"C 14 m -mvm8"froF/ I.` ' ' % E-w AD: O z4O000prmmtlm mom xFAmr->z` � O1DZm ➢ zp �g? -,4:681Y2<3 � ON, p.�, `` ;,)-(3`20); C mDm;NN� � mAC�4,D _$ O' ' �,1`` ,v M.6ZOOON � ,' ' `Z bO WI nz0 ii. ‘r F (CM`' DcO)- m 260.,.Sc:,,,, -Ag nzg-i c Q7 73 CO 4111 414. 0") T\ \ , ' ,.-...,,,, •41Ik S -i' „,('t,,,,'''''...?• 4N\ 4;P'Zir '-'1');i1 ./. "9' i 9 P O Hne _. \ •\ .,k. T1 o D 4_ OHO 4” / .). \•,.. . \ \ \\ O b -01,g, / ('�� ”in: \ \\\\\\\ \ / \i\ \ \ �4", �s,bt \ IIN 1 .,., , , , O4773.,,, Iti u,2Li \ \ . \ \ d>4\ \\ V5\\ 6' r- •, o \\ \y`S'\ 4, .y \ 1 r 01 r.,_.\\ \\ c-\\\ - :5 ‘.,\\ \ ,p ,,..,>< cli !fs i $ u \ 1, \ % \,P/ O / °. ./ <> ''''\.15).\\\ !' 1�;\ U S� \ N \ •P,10' ?s / / \8 ``�.� O \\\ °` 1. �.:NN\ > O'l,c,c'011,\ ' // `�, -.))*°6 \ .mss'8\ \\ 'r^8 R >> :.\-',,,,°,0,,`n - \ �_'\ \ psi?SSs> Ir u ` O \ I 4."-'2 \ \\ `\ \\\:,„,-- / N�, oo roe= .£ c,-,9 s /64:-: a ti° m d ��`' •,tiro\ \ 1 / 'E 8 L=80 2g' 00"091=1 &y\ \ LON 05 s � 81N- R733t 50' too,... ,L9 to • 4.4.-,,,i, \ (/'O�>s,,s$, '>.�°c,\` Ki - :',,,, ��r� \ \\\\ fN*1 \ \ d=13.2,15, • 9lLZ�\\f: ......K m , N\ „ •Nlg,,�• Bti�"'4 $ ''i \ \/ /ts', /a.�\\.0 'C.- \ \ �s :yam\\\ \\\ ..4. \ m \N 84.34 ^' ysv��may✓ ?1,61'- bc� iK W *� ,,^,, \• > \/ I''(, '4i \ '� >��`\ •/• " N \ \\\N w n,S05'00 09 W ''• ✓ O? �i°tm„ // \ \ }. 0' rn' '''4i `��\ \ .p:,vW \? g552.55' O D> :e,'''''' N u� • // ,/>;\' \ y$l���''�° 4\ S ',3,:,\ �i 14>-\ \\ �p d,°'w 1,S0500bg•w 1� W ^ • ,/ /,/ / ‘,,k," ‘- \ bs. 1° 6� o \'`�• \ \\ : \\"'-.,: w ; `,'123.51' :N: i/, `'yam <g 9�. o•:4,1.a. ^ \ IS I �6 \6k\ '\ �s�'-7'1,,' q ').„,,,,,,,<::,,',.F:$.: •,�•' -- \ \\ K---; cr , \ m�SOS"00'09' N ',, .n ,, qp`�,'�7. \/\ 9.6.'\ , ��` 7 9 1+ \ �� ,�3f`�c�` 2 /\ \ .4) \\RNs �'F °`'cbn cL 1.1,4 .. / �,� • �~ ��2� \ /'� \ ''' �'\ • N44%. 4 �; „�,rr'c, • 00 0 4 a I(i�N � $ cyJ,c^ \ \/-i �\,,c,,,,`,1,15 �<'' ti4� '5ti O6/ � s 6'�,'01 / i' a%�j + � i' It c�1 ✓��$ r `�!' c�j 6011 .y>"�� ~ \1''> /'-c\ •.,Tr,,-----A, '' y`'�- �ro ,ts1a• 0 96 4 / �9��� \ / pec\. \ 'e>y:6. ,, N.. oS 0 ti 966`.1 �,A�9 tit �\ �` '/ � \ �), �' �� •1` • / �. �O X �' `Ir' 1v 1 o:.1.1. ry p 2 /cS4 8 ' '‘\\\\ y, `d >3��'b W �` V,6. ••'''''- \*9�'L,L / / D v \\\T\ $,�`,�s3', . r— S — _ _ _ —''',;!”- SECTION 31 �n N i\\ \\ ��`�������� 4y4'4OF� / SECTION LINE SECTION 32 - o z -moi b iti g '\\ \ v`''ia 9p. 0 c0 pop_9, Ong \\\ ` / (g ° i , [:1, t I ., ti, \•� 1 � k \\z'`"Lpti `OO 99. 'h I V ° b1b / %? y$IOo.,� .-ii.,, nO -13 27 ..-1 13 i ii,' I;i3 t,ta /c'''•Sr -''''&.,Q,'''',64' t:, Z Cz2 Ov / .c>7.8‘•\ a l'''''EtVti ' ,-,,,°. .c) oc.>''. So• 0 \ CW N N_ V� 71 EY-1 i`g,F,-,4 N9 o �x Va N W 2 C 77 \ N:\185050\NEICN3\Phose 2\FINAL\LOT 1 FINAL\FP-2.dwg Plotted: May.16,2007 _1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Matt Michels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV 12-06-14B, The WLB Group, representing Venture West, requests approval of a final plat for Blocks 1-6, Innovation Corporate Center, located on the northeast corner of Tangerine Rd and Innovation Park Dr., Parcel 223-02-021B. BACKGROUND: • Town Council approved the original Development Plan/Landscape Plan/Preliminary Plat for Innovation Corporate Center on December 20, 2006. • The first submittal of the final plat was received on May 17, 2007. • To date, a portion of the project site (Block 1 and Common Area"A") has been graded. • The final plat entails application of property lines to enable the sale of lots. This application does not impact any design components approved as part of the development plans. The sole purpose is to apply final lot lines for sale. SUMMARY: VZCR Zoning Compliance: All design issues were addressed as part of the development plan reviews. The final plat is in substantial compliance with all applicable zoning codes. The conditions in Exhibit A represent minor"clean-up" items. Engineering Comments: This plat generally conforms to the applicable sections of the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards and Oro Valley Drainage Criteria manual with respect to minimum platting requirements. The attached condition of approval represents an item of correction and/or addition to complete the plat documents for adherence to minimum survey standards. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: All General Plan compliance and associated design issues were addressed as part of the development plan reviews. PUBLIC COMMENT: This application has been noticed in accord with Town Policies. To date, no public comment has been received. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION,____ Page '' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Findings For: 1. The proposal meets all applicable zoning codes. 2. All design issues were addressed as part the preliminary plat/development plan review by Town Council. Findings Against: 1. None SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Final Plat I move to [approve, approve with conditions, OR deny] OV 12-06-14B, Final Plat for Blocks 1-6, Innovation Corporate Center. Staff recommends that any motion to approve be subject to the condition specified in Exhibit A. Cc: David Little, The WLB Group, Fax 881-5313 S- . + S. More, P mining d Zoning Director t Ast \ Craig Civa.'er, Town ngineer 4 ' Jere, Watson, Assistant Town Manager F:\ov\ovinoo3\ov12-03-14A\TC.RPT Final Plat.doc David Andrews, Town Manager Exhibit A Conditions of Approval for OV12-06-14B, Innovation Corporate Center, Blocks 1-6 General 1. Address all redline comments. 2. Add a one foot no-access easement along Innovation Park Drive and Tangerine Road per the redlines. Sheet 9 3. Correct the sheet match line callout. *-H O r- W N N O ;2'''' ') of � � CNa N P" 0 (/)SmC NZN 2 D N N O (O 00 V OI •U -0 W N JO �O 0o V Q1!n a W N J c Cm yC`� �� ;D SD a`�rD��D OA�Dn(�(")-�WVI--{{NN D --{{O D�Op 00 ZD-1 p DO m O�vm<� W J C)OZ f" ORrO{D m ��DF��rnt�rn�F�pZt1 C�2Ar'21 COrnS�UF�2�1�ZDm4z mm�rnZ O��m Zm O�� D- DA--i{ �7--{{ 1�, �Nv fn ''**1� V1 0 Dm v0 -r D f ncnomm �rn m Z I N(n C7{ m rnD v mrn rnD 2� r"•2�p O V-'Nmin^.n;-IDm p OD(�Drn�p�yCjm G�OF�DZ\n:•GAN\Em rn� _v - �nZm< -{( ���rrcc,.77 �m'DD��OZDO�vfm�1 C��r��•(W Zm�vm�mOmO vW�-IT-�D��D 'D ���DZ r,� D �Z�y 1F*lmmm �O�Dm Zg�t oA pC��X< OAD�O� r' �N� O r� n o<�$ Z � nr C'Dx -i � � _ V7�C�OW WO -C p 7p(� CC7C �mZ�A �-t0 rnm vp D mm� m D rn m -�pC OZD A �r i -Z=nl Dm_m mm lD D >Dm� r NND f-'1De! N6r+t D Cr Vm1�r r N Zrn-$ND m O Z�rN Z D08�>DW a��j 0Or Z�v� aOtn VI -� � O�r O m,�utm Z-(m0-- '�C� 9Dy Irr,-; ,,22:-,614.41r0 �pNOZNr�+C � m-9<” Z8O2rp: mI+7 OZDNZ OrnZm [7 - � 21.04F, DnnDO O .,,, c)ZnG�� Op{D0 ,I. � ,r�* < A"is-(D "UVI f*Z�O Z �r*��O 8 � NN � m � Vl"� Z-O-'.IA OD�DmZv� �D�vZm (��.� ;RiZ�� m� Zrp2m '� C G� N cnf grn;- �Z NN C� 1 �Df(/��D N ➢CNDm rr�0� mmaD{O���pC<r7mZNn�N rn�-0�0�Ofn- �Z'U�2--{memvBm� 2CZI�pV rF-�'zz-cnOn�aD Tt n mcZ �" mFz mpl-iSO Of7D mz^vN ZD rnN71--zOmW f➢c42F vm9D(7N O� -IrnAvmm4hojfaNing v�g p N m � omz� r�- N5 � aam -� m � Co zomo ASO= DN me ZcvZtmnm �...vonpr nim-+ z� C �{�yF '��o DOODDOZ rm*7Z� C � mNOD� v��'�Dn't "*7i' -p mAopp � C')v A -.tAPr(� r*lCVODrn _r N �� ON C7 OW -T mmr*l�rnz �DD Zrm'NrnsmpO$ �<O avI.��o' 2CW� Z m�ND3X(nW�R7�Zm C7�(n�Cw -�• ��r�D �➢���'-�m�DrznNlyOCN(n� mrnZrn rnvZ�m r� z Z<W 2� NDZ ZWO " SZmONx�x-(nmaZO COa0, . $ggPr zv gni'�x�-�z c)_2 .�1m;W zap cl mNDirnrn z Abppgmc�`r, 80 N rnzD.. rn azm Wyoz� ZrzmvT >�+'%N g NNNa � �z�NNo�zm z ir�*Fzl'$ ter"��_zmzzgr�`�,��A ��, zIvz�o gmo�Wi`,'�°`O°c°'' Z�5~ � yrv m mz � rn➢ O W -a > m C7 DD W -{ f�mpp r,,!Wili m �ROIONVI �O �p�C Z vF, vDF NZ On82N DDik ; p�ga;:, Nr9 Z-.(DNA A %8' W-A DOf�mf�m NSpL"� Qrn t�f��-11�= vOiZaZ$C�vvcrn7 �mE�oDOVZ.tc)vR�t ��� t_nvxvlC1 g�t< pHOZ �iy '�-v� �Z �wOn� Z� �m � ��m�_b`' m �a NovnNa � go° om z� -� vzo �-r _ r*1 Dn z mDNoa � �'';°-�'' ��mzm zmovNoNimm � 8mc �- yi oaDzrnA ;m�. o . Z����. pm � m �Dr/7 DQpppp �Wp;m -� �{ •r*t 2n �ONi SNDmmN �AD r� �z j�2�� (n'ONOnDrn, ,� w!,ti'p,iin_xc,': Cc)msZCC�-y1pFNNuz)Nv00Vr t2MpO ; V-'!C➢ -ID.i m o-i� pm04054Dn §8g§ W{ iO 'tmOC Z�00� n O{ to-E,:,4ror4(!) i.: 'ogr4rViociii Zm2 � mm z*� nZm D�D6DWS � v�Rln �In 6 m➢nNOl�mm�� OD�O °GO (� �pt'1DAm OD� x�° mmc�-r�*o o�z ��r�i�o_ _mr7*c _ �c.1 � � oo " Dzn�? y' � DG�(�-(7-rz rnrDW ° OOrW,I 0 -rNFpm �jmD 20a-i1yr�•W1^Ami ADSwavW 4Pr*rZ ZO ipr� Ag r C rrW mD rnrnrto��o O DQz Zz 'A � 02C O<p � Wpm m�v^DIW_(��+I�i � � rnw � m N3� � nOG� -�1-i>;Z�'DmNnOf� MPhiri ' C)� 'T7 mC Z<FD Z Nn DFO� O2 ��N°NvO° D<1;_� -{0N "ZI�*➢F� OOut Z DrnmVl v 2I rl*SymsZCD mWvlpr�D G��.1 Z �- mU ONr�r 0��9 (7� `° S �zmAZ A m � �vmzr?m ocii n i DC�{v m _ mn1 ➢ �1 ...7�Z_-,1Zr�N111; Naocnm r�*m F '�om8z np BCW F m9� vrn n Om; mp�N rn �� D w0 Nto 0 rn rm�DnC {DZn NDGm rn � mm zDc� ��rn c)zF� m z � � r�wv� ;v <vrnm Ng �N � � N��N N�� �c)om vT v-iaFN.iDO ZD�� zmo� rn r-�--r� ti mea CmC cn �pp�-- �a ��7 r�AcnmZm�a�i-I Oy c m -Hr,t vOr�z-1aW 3Nrin -rco �z c�zNm ➢NOW O FiDD�; � < DO�ZZZrTm1 F Z 4N8 DNlav� WrIh Ompr�* D-IZrn SZnvnT�I fo0om D -iD ZN59 OC {������ a�gr��1m mOv mv� mmz z = mrn mr�rm�*'*1 a• urzOgvonmm Mr rnr�{nD m� pp -{N-+mt7DvxvNm �mn � 4mp O�'�� 'n�N ° O1� v� ➢rn0o.p.� vmDOri � oZ�r�*C11'Z�� r*tp ...IDZ 28 �o� � � ��° zry*m Oo m C ! v z v� gImD m \-�D� zrn Nz cnc r''�h c ° rm-�� 409,0, Nn1' yo 'm C i�zp—Om->9 vm-m mO vc)�*1 n_N O m'Oc),1Fa -�5c�am- t) f+i -1v v� (nD. x�Zr�N t51�Zm0 v mvzo8�a< �OZZD Irnmmr m•*o� �� �C 1NmcpOi F� n cDn➢D � �� DOmc<vOZDr*v O ,hr+r 1-N ic,Ck1U➢LmCh:Z<-t(n*7�fv :%03 r;zD 3,- �N -1NOpz i� w A-�mO N� T-(N i��c�i 8 m� n �o��D D{rn NNDO�� �rnO��a�r+Iv�SQ �O*r�n may+O\ZZ � � 9 ° wrnm�O?� PP °mm m�` O SO 0. D Z pC 'p rnI15glh' ACCWZNZ Z r nN {- O8 ? OccZmrn��➢ �gal F Z r 9 °ZV8 �CiZDDZ� ��-Oomz['1v � r��2 �mDE g amN DZID orop!FI mrnm1P:11; rnpm� o>atm�a � -mi`�0 m oo M �v > � Z''Ammo ;?p mWo��� m D�-� N Z Mi -4;pd '� iT 141i 82 ;92 �G %6 ��� > � off' "� z ig, c) rn �e c--n{r z a Q I i Z9 ;yfmm� ! l!i Nx D DO ��A 2 C P C") m m rn ��fa F��, O O p � C� O 2- W inI,,Fm� -N rmDZ ZD-I 00nNmN41.3,- O N�O-�7z p � �t ZC mZOpD 'D� Dm220 --i-DD(nDDT �8 v O DD pr:9 _] C D Z 0� � m�i2��� {ODmro2FFczr�bm lN NI�., rno 'C z m z �O O c={vMIR o f rn�cm-�c °, 9 oc -+ c-1 '� c � 1 { � y � c4ioFsc�DD <� ��m `J0 or`' oz b �° i zo� O $ -niv� m �*+ oo =��oxhR,;r-I* iiii vA ccn `����o EDia -� 0 0 � �� �+ � � . �� m '�ma1�! z �oF-+`-�'�� Ntrcn�o� ��� "'�*,c N� u� �cn , < < OO p� p p ZN C '1 A A \ rn D< r1*DD Z gi OC 2 Z18 D D D 'r i)4- � C AV7 C n O ryT NNO nD°I r D � �-1 �'v Z OI v v1.1 9m -� Z2 v Z) O 9 2 9I rr�*2anz A 299 �DC9��� 7 to § Irl -�-{I A R g N -i DZ i mm ``O fni ZZ D <D5 (n 5 ZI4 �1O a •� v N O< a 0 :‘!) z-iek`' 9m -F(O .n D �� DOOf) rCy �ZCOSvyjDR1Z0�'D-ii a A z O1 D Cn n D �jQn :i.1 C C D8 2 mileba-Qmoz �rcn�c{nv >fil{vzr'�0O z;in , gn - v I giZN� 7 ^' vA Om�j z 0 m� °zm=Cr�*mrn O � p z �j � z mW -n '� �8n �1 0 � m D��ma���-Ni�2 rnr0OmZ Z-+ m 8m°pAmb 'Y' Om ZZfnrn OZ� z 8 p�rn h f c'1 �Qin � �z � DrZitCZNDc�rn� °rOj*�D Zn Drnr➢nA�Z-c z � � -r � r� moi➢ o rn m m c)-m � c N o rnN n n m r,tmv •-�zz,3 g < Qrn-vm moNmm;D ren ^' r� m � m � vA oC z�o r asm �vxDz D25��nr�i r•,m2 ;mom v m l'' �o F D z" c') rfr3 (np.rcr)�Fa . o°'-`42mn r181 z zzg D a � T�-1 r�-rC I 2 DZZ����OCp��rOlDOZA ��D m �=�(�'v-iv0 F8 mD Z D -yOW{ NmAD la--p,- v›BigS/pD � m {�� ^ cmirN 1;1,-U N pmF-,)c<mzDvr"rn v"';a a rnDoc)pz. I I � O ;nm Oa OmO(n O A���� �vzDz� t I (TA D c so ,�N D_'t2 Z�F•m D p ? rnm z r {v o C zam➢=Wam fl-p �� ornrntnr n ' I I I D° v � � �O pp�D:r � �rQi� nCrQO0 g'�f r �v�pm� p� rY,(n m O A Om -02(,), ' ,O D 9 m H Drmppo."re 8Ti 0Nm1.f*10 OpA r�r•g11 I C�m� Dpi c� � � p v O oA C �Z7�COrnr���Z NAmvN�mXr�•� Dz z o r�* zm rn o N m rn m ZO��NNO_�D m�moo ocvrair A2 m z rn C o O r�* r� O z �o g m`�'6^�'' z �mzp�mzm 8 °zrnrn �z"'Om�vor�., C rn D D D D D Z < p p rn r� O� mC-1 0mr+t O o9DADZg9 7,1 9rr� mm53NNf*1 '}tDrrr � g C log r. m d. Em g CDNOl�Z-lpytn8 m(mnvmZ� �rN*108h irl x 1;,- F3 z Wry*o� a mr5* Nio��vm oic A o�N7D ,- g m pO11'r4 a22 LA-.4 [11Om , r,+n mgl FFDc/N➢m8,,, ymi Z Ci m S� Zp 2�DZz 9 O6DD1M91 '00 COx vv N >9g0 m oN m mmDS �mz p la oz 9p zv of t, o Z ii 5 52 t , Wc ovDv an- d n 97. i, Amesl 1 -0 yo�Qtas - ➢ Si® mDz o ;moz � cg�- i; Oz r . N 5A W Arn-cl<� Oom m m !nn 4' 0 ; o •1 9y ,!.,E),'= z i �2 C mo2 .1I pZ - O 4!;c1O IElp ,' e". co ----ev D ZBP. 0 o oo 1 'o.rOmr•, -Iv SN � ^ :. ve--ii y Y-rn q .ATrn� 1z - - ------------- H1G � J aoN 9 N 2 OD'O±O,ry 9`p m = > � �ovD- N R psm' �O sI0w .� Oa �°�� Z or N N; m C ° OO Vn!-11;,,PO4,_ o CN Z m o !); �N v � amz = sq,O v.1 4,6°j _ m► ›A-��,5'� ; � L � z . Zv00 � ;cn zsnva rwil .vitsan 11, 1 ,figrnl0oz ° off8' ILzc_ ': /�ir.n mmi =racr4, 2 c DD oN !') b a C cot� a ' 1:_.__01 o-0y ?<`,),(2P.,g z "O rno Nmoo �� c0I {vg g > - nPlS�: ,;• p422-.Og tib a " s z. Wo M g ME yt nk' Zhg ig 1 On o= ::,'3 ..1 ga vZ Wa- SA:4,..1--- 8 Qy cj a5 il ,. O O / N.\185050\NEIGHS\Phose 2\FINAL\FP-N3-SH-1.dwg Plotted: May.16, 2007 o� - C Mm I i D m Z Z A mO�p:� �ti �� O m C i C p c m n v C ; ;z p C 8 D N Z z ,, o 1.' _3 A oo' N a a O p g,c D� A NPnq�� r'a](1a v � moE4og. 22 0 !an va,�ios`o MI ,\ Z O O O� I I NV .,.,1 513-p,..,, ',,,,, I , I I O : Z I iT :; 8 2 rj j R,sp s3is0 o 9 4 4`65.45 pp.M•o' I II O 1 1i•1 'N0.111'S4'E y / \ --1 asp 116.61' .yam, \ to I c = a SI oy5 �'� m I �� I 6.\ 1 'I \E X zo I ♦ o p�i ca �, I n COMMON AREA "A" COMMON AREA ••A" ?p'0?\ tb I S'6£bl L6'90Z1 O ',•�8g 955 401,,-,If'E — — — ,Z9•irb9Z ONIMV6Z.00.00N V9 — — —— • �;1,4�' 4 L1 •�''1 _ SECTION 31 VVV .:L, N h 1C SECTION 32IND CO 0 q I �`9y� ;�pp66�1 r*i Nn I I c,M w oo0 9 Oaifn f�On ooAP m `Q'V /�� �O� E.,, z v +f y, N� ,:(1_,_,:5 V,1{__ �„N 9: Z O n Z O I rOOO1,1O�^ I 4,4 tU ,'.,4ti,� 0` y I la I 4. � I. IMC • mo � fT1 �7y�. Na}�'r � (s.'1.(4 yao I I P�r N S '0).-49). Cb)1.VtN ti.. �1':' P." �•� .t.69:1, oo �' °� COMMON IAREA "B" , '� to< a Z 2 \:::::::.7i., • . ,L£'9Z1• 3.£t,t4.tOS `'005tiv� I I ).4-:,1 ti ii .1 916` ,9£Z� d w .� oo �� I uio yI N � 11,= m1 ;ij r, I'l l __I__ _1O y� , ' N� 1 al O 0 � ti 0OOcaO1 CON � ti iV1"s � b (!c: �; �s tO Itc)(1''1 \ 1oo o �,b .5 -c, > 2 ,C3 ik. 'gio..14 \ o C , t..2.c,o s0 nt 10 cn y � D _ n \C ba b \ C) b O ti CoA \ N �Z s O P-., \ -n ro -s „ N:\185050\NEIGHS\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-N3-SH2.dwg Plotted: May.16, 2007 A moommum.ss C co a) a7 '�ooh. 0 O, 'L G " '0 c ti it Or, cn \ # O 1-3 O f:1 \ ,:QO b :ta' " \ \ '\\zz i$ o `,J= \ \ OQQsm \\ \R�5o \ 0) GIw � \ \ 01 w ooioa��. \* \ `\ O \ \\ \` ��' oo, AN \\ \\ \\ `17., 1\>\\\\\+\\''\\ 64-?‘'‘C74'N NU \ e cA°ti\\\\\\ s�` •SIT -y;16 "' 9. r,r-13 \\ .0\' \ 1".5:14-.36 6.' it tri \ \ 1: :\\\.\19.\\\ tod,4\ :6,. t-4 ;\r^:2 '1\\\IP::\\\c"\\\\\ \ % , v s 00. 1 \ NA \ \\\` \\>-\' '\\\\ \\\\\°°c) \ I \\,2°\\';),,,,,N -1 O N\ \ ` ` AF 000' f \ \\\ \\ 9p�PE,AQ/ rn a \ \\ \\ '9 L \\`q A/,ysF�` /,\ m \ I� a\\ \`\ \ car /// \`\ c� \ \\\ \\\ \\\\1,T / N.-\\ z \ \(.4„,,,,. . ,..,,:_c5,,, '41)4i..19 S.g 1, /- / a u • cv 19,00' �' /' ,0.4.1,,,#4,,, ,' oocn� 034' ?0, C.-- „o .� ,ice �Zp� � / • 8 nj'g �N+SAI 046:!\.„,... 4-%,,p w �N / -.IA / S. / $'(,i� ;D O 2 ,'S Pi 9�,1./.•' ,r•• /0�0 / /r m 7 1 o f,,5 /' / • 8g S TF,y z WM 31 I'' 8. t O m /•. '?.e i / ,.' '�p1o ' SECTION 32 SECTION LINE ..N 2 N /''/.• / 'Si ta. i I ' S _ O Rl 15 n g 1-tZ~ �v �ip. m0 1�7 co Aomti x y,� / 009 �m ��+ z 0 a ' m � X82 Ox W O c N / 41`/ es R� O 0 * 29 ' 4°3 mom$- �m 0O ' Z16,DsnN O tiC • ,nA�� ” R y O co ;', n c, ci 73 vo;E! h w.p— mo 'b • 2,`4.-;:-. 6, t, qs a co O ? "' N "1) a � o s ,O y 0 O 0 NVQ nO� O O msAi`Gip h0J'� O Ei i R.s b b G7 rn PI ,0 CO C. CPI n O yo ..1 "9,10 w-1 o a,,, N:\185050\NEIGH3\Phose 2\FINAL\FP-N3-SH3.dwg Plotted: May.16, 2007 1- o c co- UNSUBDI VID.E'D itinE N 0 n D�4'p0 4. !N'a-v mS" 2 oN0noc m08'oin i zJo< 0 om'S c(-4ia%.0 7 ,0 L t '� L=571 38• R.475.00' 18 -------- — ---- d=48'31 11\ -,,a3P�5 Ac�� IN•N0v47 j0 ! -68 o p Erg / �� - ----------- - ------_� 8.53 kT 1js1s "� \ 5 _ p'99!;---- _-(Puke c 2e .�1.I� q S t• -- - -----L,...462016.8986%.d_--_f Op• S��T 3 �' \ "i Lvi -------- �� _,,,,,,,,,,e- ---- \?.,, `'.1.--, — —c,:tn, — — o Vd --,,,, ,_/- � O D � S :•1 `\ `\1 �S Off. O �� ND 7 \i,.� OMS^ \ �\ ° �So �O, ,13 to gi Dy / ti.0•�O \\?�B\\ O t�.rZ OOV� O \\ \\ I. / 0�V0 a �,� \\ • O *I. +9 \ / / o p1 \ my`' a S C� \ \ 47 / H c 6�' /m � / y U* isq-4O col $,o :1,2,(.1 R / e,,A,/,7 / P N3 / y� y o5 / R if�b u ?o r, rn a O / rn dA _ }g(!):94— 4 `,,O�ti� / �. O M ' / W HO�j / / O �� HS O °0 pp h/ i r'0O0�n / • n N ti. yAO ' ' N� . ••?o• / \ \ v (q)NI. 00 t=it. / \ r�•IV O C / :po / \ \\ migig' / / /o �� 44' / / /awe��°joo� $g / / / CO �°y 0 co / / O/ / 4' / soa o° ' o JBo?a• ' / /�� y /ap� (a / Su,oi� yo ° o4°4' '� / 0al \VA, Za!''b�� xllxjsgo< 4:),--t:.: 0 4,4.2.,°' / l"-0 jOaX47y •49 s.9.°, z§,/ # ,•••• ,o #/ 4. \')/ 1' e \,-,- .- , in.1:44e -c.'...;"' ' _ .f,s'fl-P / / N N m 838 s;a• S+ Fpilp3� �a, j /� \ \( �' -� E2 ng4O ?FPi 4Fp.0 ^s•, i tin s. / $,° Pa�1 / j ) \ �'' '' 48 K /I" ..4 Fi;'• '.. b,jiA,190. • / 4 sio,/n.,...7a., N ni o o�+�o� / ,,6t4.'6:5•''',0 fl 'Y \� \\ �� c a 9, w / ......9?::,-,--AL5 '.o,P� SEE SHEET5 ! • \7'si \ \ N:\1a.`050\NEIGN3\P1gr 2\FWALVP-N3-SN4.deq Plotted:Moy.16,2007 n _ ( / / 0*-1 §wig /c y�ti ' 'PS'? \/' / N\N \\ SEE SHEET 4 v II: � / C-3 r- ,T t121 y ti`��� o. y4' oNoo. / //\ssFNo \\ ��� �,O �y ,o `' 0 roti/ 1 ppm �, // / o,�q,p oo N Q `� r'' 14,.H.r/,`."'''e 4yv y�l y1' ,� b o'1i,,�' 6 '�\. ` % \J�2•�9,p::?-. N i�/' �'/ 'f`•y�0 9Z,„l�N I �'Lls eJ- \ L�°� 95 �3 , / ,�8'ZS \'.^, s�� `T C' 4899�5d3,0°Z \y'P t�� .R, ,cs•sozl $0 '' ��' 's,�, \ LN r c�a ° �''� `� N.. • d yc; \. _ `,� SECTION 3T ZB 4�9Z Oo "BZ,OO.00N��.� G , _ \-\- o ��o S \ \ SECTION 32 SECTION LINE - - S Ao o *.:''.. flqi ewe,% g •••s-',,,. .1, ,?.:,,,,, c, 3mR;° :��oA% _ \ cm. I- /•.//cb� o o p o, \gyp \ fp 3,205 600 'y' / 11 II ii _ O • 00�a /5 �%, '710 o ssa \ p /yi,e N a ; pa,'-, b,1 9; 3 41a1��'\� lZdi ZZd� z z7 v • N s'} �O my / \ �� -4-• z� II\ .:-.-, _ 4. / w:4 d 4 `5.R--C2 RC1 _ 4 Illf 24 O IN*1 nj Oc-�OJ f ��N a,� Fii w /1,'a0�° c7 _ �� m o "c0,4i.£ Q = V _ __T______ ,00'48Z¢a mm LS'L9l"� , -1 sa.ao 9Z5 \s % �s co o° :_!!691�Z A Q B�'oo w otioo�ti5 / gy NONhrp '00g%,�C#�‘ AAS Iv g "ei:i 00 °o9 60 0� O % �� ' q / �,Q 14, �o .c a / / gib • 01Z V I w�• J to m b w ti , b "tip qi i 11 l'ir !!!)ft At4' 94 / no b - Q . L O'�p �,1. g: tiq fiN 0cr� 1v I oy D ;o �" \ ��,8vi 'y ti mZw I' . 0 op 0 Ict obo °j zDna�Orb ti . ����� c n O CD lig ati nbs' ay�o�� 0 PIA-�� bit2 ti b -0 7 .3--„ .,,.4:..'-i, D E ,oma �,1 Nit ,S� -, O DUB �t O b� yob us n tc Nb z >� b tie,. Iii ,Ng t o w $ s ,o o P'o, N:\185050\NEIGHS\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-63-SH5.dwg Plotted: May.16, 2007 1 O f— cum UNSUBDI V IDED • 8'•� '':� 3.p0�o4 ••o /0\L r m�t�- N NC -- NOA�o` 13:_____I_______ 3�5 9`'a ' kQ AOAtN1' - U 1„n 17Noo jmo .o ljj D N� g - - 00'0091=a lair ,£6.509=� p0-S0£=l �' --' / u,,,1:11 c „80,£0.8=0 — / 6c e 3 .00'002,, —. / a f9 V 1.Z --'- .-\--'1:\,'\-'f_3793-7-:,' I f n o 3 o 0 1►�5Q,11'.I. __ — a o�_a —,i oo'�6z --«£4,9L.9=V -a9Z,04.Z-V „SZ.04.Z-V-c,•- o c-3--s_ tav 00.9£9 L=M F`60 00'9£9 l=a .000-V__a�yei !o ne ,98•£8 1=1�——Q--B 0,9 ,9 l•B=I — �8 IN f v N 0 ----- �7�oo• • '' oZ30 a a D IIN \'''''' I o v m I N W m z m O �m ii �m I Z �, o to p -V o; 1\fld SIH1 X9 0` Ci,, d'="' h lyld S.J 84 ,00'2Z �^ NO'd813S CO 0 �o O AO SZ A `°� n NOy813S a g I `ZV m D � � z N " , I zw g 1,i� I �N m o \1.6). t-1- r4 pi I m m IF w cn ,----1— -1--------1 = c m xm �I '-'1c x co E g-m I otn -c-3,2,', irn� F-P 'D� "1 I J ';',;3y I c O �y ,,ss, m u, Dom rn oF ` NO I W; I m _ z 1-'6N M M„Ob,4.00N I • \'t \ 174.19' c g 8Z'l84 `1i k_____22.:L..:_l_______40 ; £'443 cam':'• A aR'8O ��. 0 •�oc t' ssO -31•44'50^ _ _..FP184 ow,'•�, I �”.- FP122 ldj c8ldd `"•—...—..._.,. .. :7 yr..S f��:I Zlldd FP116 lFPi19 bZldjJ Fplpg FP13100 SBldd 981dd I z 1`.-V... rAP!:I5\\�LmI OZici- 676.i !?firip, .—fi —'37Fp13gFP136_ isl COMMON AREA "A" E t 6 I COMMON AREA "A„ 69049 54.rt. w of ldjFp Pim �! �, FP144 P149 1.59 acres i;!., �-P754., 72,078 S ft. Fg -aFPSp F 1.65 acres �o�'' 1:: m °`'` mss,_ ____',',44 9SdjFPFps dj ''S� p `'��� �..,90Zdd :•I m I �,c,. ZSdj£Sd �,�g 0983 .?b•Fp\FP66 oa,Fp7 7,,3_ �Fp F07 ti i'�id� y' ti+•u 57 FP59•••\9 £9dd 6g FP6 p,4 \FPj 154 p7s S8 N,��k. 5 ss•. �.''\ L9d 1 FP71 A 8 " r A::,, FP201 _ �t� `A �''v �" >,, 9Ld3 f\FPBp 9d1 l,�, FP19 "ooad�' oza�., '' ZOldd£ r.(i'••. • o N 9 lBddrPg3\�S 1p azo 163.5' F,o�e7 FP89,� N00'49'40"Wg 88d3`a�9i9fpg3 p9jfA �, M„04,64.00N '�2 M 9£'9l5 A0 Ob 0004 rn E N e 8,69.5 p'1,1X'9'.99 6 99/ Z o r*i m 1 o 4,1 08 00` 83 ��lo FP 04 EN_i t1] :3.4 < 2 m N a o L, SEE SHEET 7 y 4� aG n-2i mj AItiYo v rtJ � �pvZi ']l ''' ' Cli Q o°on•n0 C O O * Io� wa ,7..C:.3. 6Da(,,STb yC go. raitpti3 0 'Eci lA tog Oh o Z �e � 7 10 / o O ', 7'`] Q °' Axa�tQ-'-tm tb m ?; .�.o i 1., \, b > �o 'y W Q rn `4 t- 0 ;11-9 �o 8 VI�t ,,-,1, N:\185050\NEIGH3\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-03-976.2wg Plotted: May.16, 2007 J SEE SHEET 6 ori \ N � 4. Ccom \ I° O sEcnoN 31 G N Kg - 1205.57' BASIS OF BEARING w SECnON 32 SECTION LINE - - _ _ - r�o t7� �� - N00'00'29"W 2844.82' gl° \ TX.',‘,� / G O PU o to BUC SEWER EASEMENT Lori; r/c, ! ���6� F� 'Y ISIN3047,PG.1883 4:,.. x,,,,,,,t;,/, s f n7!A n • �$ D YDp,�i •C3�(//D�/��1 j•• 1;39 0.1201.• O map*2 iFi N •8 1'02.. ' Nn»v ? R�?9.91• / Wy�'�; Ga13951°,2" N� N � acv m a Z I,'< ,1$t \ \ Q - - - ' f R 1..501.54 0 00' 4!; c rn n v '-F..0, .9;), Vg , O O \.-� ^ L39.43' r,�('O ci`�1+ R=900.00' 5.41 4=21'37'44" 3,L£9£.ZOS . •L=256.41 ,£9'S9 N R..900.00' (I) o 6=1619'2V m m = PI N v O rn m ; H � = y 4,.. m q I0 44-1,-% O,+ u•�` 00 591x2! ti ,,0„, 0��.i1 "00 69. r --____ vat 01 ,. .._.7,. ....___ 5Z 4=a • sem, -Lo.' Nbi / o �1 0 „000g.-ce 11 j' z "aaooit,�• / �\ a a ,£t 0L II, R y \ ,LC'910 M"£t,la.LON a �,c" ,4'4� ~� 481862 4 / Q• A ! �• "'r") y ti� sa��o gZ c, 1 �5,' W wcN �''�,� • to �� '>j+ O O o„ o 1l'bs 5R i'Cs7 --! O , io v,. „S„ 6'YZIb' NO.y TIO ,tea Z Z o� zCO o n s-i ti ,L£'9Z1' 3„£1,Lt.LOS "x,00 Z, I� , 1 O gr..Q �,2C8 01-i',--, v' t 73 o .4c. -�y of *4 y UNSUBDIVIDED E nO� �a 0 °' ,Vans--, m ,T-,V.; n 'itI\cab D �� b O T En spy w �y � ✓ y2 c,,� :"Ei 0 :3,03 N:\185050\NEIGH3\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-N3-SH 7.dwg Plotted: May.16• 2007 J i imaimmirmr -1-3- CCM UNSUBDIVIDED a a, ��n '° II i C 1ToC � I INNOVATION PA�f DRIVE ,n . ; io Parm w< - ��259,42' OFT.11616, n S03'11'S4"yy _ PG.263 -T, ,--,-c---. �--- .160.95' _ _ (PUBUC g S03'11'S4"W STREET) A I I }o + iliN I��Q _ to �.p'� � NO3'Ii'54"E _---- ' ____Lj- MI/ 1 6�__t 118.81 ---;00'9i:Z9E / / ------- — o �— I2Vmss ca 1=i — / o� oxo �� C N p xmxyc�i, 1 / / *,-..(c) NnNmy / b v m mIVT1Nm� � I � � 9Nm nmo / 1 s,a �mxO �o�zz aoN wz m w E.I. 05 O III r-;-: D N R1 40' 1 N 2 1 �� �P m I $' N.,, c" w i I w5 H 111 ',-' rt c„ I 30. y 00STBCK 2 m.',3 I BY 1'Til$EPLATA 1 II �L.�o I my m 23 N4 � � ... g II 0 II 'i • / 1 Ii(N n.� N .*`fir A.�X71 I FP112Fp, ...-„,Fl°178 ....T178 9180_FPg81 Fp \.�nog II FP169 ,, �L J�..-�...�,iLldj SLldi �Llt� 6L�d 184 midi f8td �.,� ,,,O l 591d, I I Po --' iI COMMON AREA "A” 72,078 sq.ft. Ega - 1.65 acres ?Oa FPI8$ �,FP191 FpI92 FPI 9.1. FP1 _Ir.198 _ _FP201 2,_-•••wtidN. C 0 I 691 �61d' _,.._..._..,_...�...-...�96 z £6k13 Mai 'L6laJ' _••661d!00Zdi�IAZdj OW 2 ( I I M„0�,1�4:ON N O N tA t -+ � MIA tS 1 atI AA�8� y� : .ii I o oW m2zw g x�� I I n r � oaoo� I I I y 0) o�n�, 'yti , v N'I CO ���io� r 'v o y _` — —1439.25 — — L gEC7►pr 31 — BASIS OF BEARING 1205.57' IFC''''''-'3 r (�O'`iI I SECTION 32 SECTION LINE - - O Ovj N00'00'29"W 2644.82' O IS r 2,4--, b � SEE SHEET 9 6 1,oy�'41 ..';1� to �o 'O D _ R,n \a�t us vo W m m 2 n s Oa- o �t N:\185050\NEIGHAPhose 2\FINAL\FP-53-.8 dwg Plotted: May.16, 2007 I SEE SHEET 6 c)*-1 rD- CIC II nI w II v G W f0I Co CYJ v. NII �\ 1439.25' _ L SECTION 31 BASIS SF BEARING 1205.57' \�` 4 I I SECTION 32 SECTION LINE N00.00'29"W 2644.82' z��� O. I I V r ,7,P,-Ig 4 a ••.fd g 40'�� g flflfl II- w §1S Z (.-g D„,o.l 0� I 82� �mooa2 o z• .4 I I �^n fm oyon?V v cj i I $,I N C nl b ,a O O N O C J<1111 0 0 �u�5. 30.007'HISS'TBLBACK to I 6YAT v I!!! M/ I o fl in I c I 1-3 o P -�ZdR II ci, W, pp � N o E 0o G)o rn I I s,81.00.00, ON .al Z • m c�i Z II C� O -I o Q I �3lo 3. L X339 74' N 41'4%,p0' • R_ rn m -90p pp I I ,8.. 4=21'37'43” z II 1,--256.41' „L£8.S9 OS • 5o dill 0000"0 _JS O W III II '''2 m n III oN N 11 r" m Z I ,z m CO LC:,'- PO 11 II t C m 111 14 11I y II II O 1111 ti N s o 11I W O O � NLti ll A� II .(.° � � ^oll Ii1)-mi-lNomIl ' N � � �//���„w.\ &:.!6).17, _1.O/.N II v. , =111 'J I ..: , ,,,,,,, ,, \ il ..: II I O� I �v N �� \ U U O �' W O Oo y, ,„1,1 Nm \\ 0 <2 bj 0,. ,. o D .41 (=iv. I,0, '49: 's \1 ?o m°• E' I rn -, N 1 tila Zi H Oi ,.£, 4`\ \\ CX7.,9,0 , , \ d,006O” ,L,..-t, M£114.1ON Cb ''6, \ o ' �OOH o a8n�o� ��OOH \ `�16 7 • '° ma box Ra s 1' i °o b awe S9 po. ,L2sz>� 0 3���,��.jos D °per• b y `nN m O DON��R►� -gym rD N n n q; m 2� .�,O t� +So sus [i ?7 O vo "'``�� t UNSUBDIVIDED G� _ .', gi% b tim Z a, w., g1 c'' \ 1 g-,o csroi -, ,o of N:\185050\NEIGHS\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-53-SH9.dwg Plotted: May.16. 2007 GO*—{ - O(TIO U -OL -0"D 'O'�U U -DO �0O A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N ND C m V OJi U A W N O t0 OD J 07 U A W N O�D J O�U A w N O cD 0�V OAi U A W N O t0 00 J U U A w N O c0 OD J Q�U A W N-+O(O CO J m U A W N O cD p V O U A W N W V OD CO A 00 V A W N W ao O)—'Oi cp U N�U N O CO cD cO t0 p W W N(.n O U W O N W U Cn U W p) N C.11 Of V OD J U7 O N V OWi N 1�N N A A c0 Cn m O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z j Z Z O O O N O O O?N Z O N N?O?? O N O O Z Z N O W W U A(n In cn(n Vl(n(n cn In N��N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z_Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z g N O A s O E N t0 O N O A A O O N W N O N W U O J�O U N U N O O O U p O EI A U A N W A U W U W m C U m O V 0 CO O A V N c0 tD 'U1 N N W O A N p ON D Z A U U W N OD p c0 N O c0 W O U c0 U J O A W t0 N W m tD N �c0 N��P Do�O(O W W O m W C1i w U N�A A A N W Uj�O�j N U—•--O U W O W U—N A O W O N U U W U N N W W t0 U�A A U.p`U!A A U pp U Q��p pi N OD A W U Q�W a rn r*iffmni�ninim�fmnir�ni��nimni�gni��r*immg�gc��f�f�mnimnimni�g�g���g��ggmmnim��gmr*inininimr*ininimmmni NMN-71, -P;NNN:=NNNN:=!:NN:=UNHHOMUMMDI: ��rnov�vv-mo-�'a� v�vvvvvvvvv�����-'v�v�v''�„'�� ��'�-*�rn,i�,rnrnrnm�,�,rnrn rn�,rno,p ff .� � � J0 c�D�coocep�cep�c�0'0���"D"D�������J COOw W W W(N WN NN NN n7 N O OO O:0 0 0 OtD CO OD00 WCO m CDODZo M 0 7 U A W N O(D OD J O)U A W N-�O(D 00 J U U A W N-�O cD aD J Q�U A W N O cO 00 J 07 U A W N-�O c0 OD V O>U A W N O c0 N rn Z N W N O O IJ W N O?O N?O p N Z�?Z�Z Z Z Z Z Z Z j Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z in�'"O �O N J W W OD W A W O N U W O J A O p� N O O O O�N A W N H N A 0 0 O O O N O O 0 0 0 O N p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N <� w v -1 IJ IV A W A O A A O W'j Ut N 1 J O�O U A m N c0 Do O Oi N U O N U W N O O A U cD O U O O pNj N W Z 0 0 0 o c O CIi 1>hi O A IJ A A A-�O�O N W D Rt m a"_oc oqlmmri�nimmm r•i mr*i�nini g gmmfgnini�ni�r*im�f gmrrinini�r*inimnimr*immr*if�mninimm�rnnim�r*i��mmm rn rn rn rn rn rn v v;;v v v;rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn;rn m rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn m m rn rn rn m m rn rn rn rn m rn 'D v� �� "p��"D�-D v��� v S���"D�'U"U'D���v� � v S�C§ N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T co cD cp c0 cD cD cD cp 2 T T OD T OD OD OD 2 T s V V J J J J J V f V o O)2 g() 2 O 2 U U U U m J�U A W N O(O CD J Ol U A W N--�O cD W J 07 U A W N O c0 ao J O)U A W N t0 W J O�U A W N-�O cD OD J m U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z_ ZI O N N O O p 0 0 0-'O O O O 0 0�-r O O ?Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z I m O A E U V ,W tp w g A A U U0 0 m N N A O m O p U g p p f OND N O U W U Q7 U U A W O N W O N. �� A V W W A U J O�O V O)m Z W O N U N A J.P V N(�!OD W c0�cD--•cD.p N co(n W p c0 O O�W J CD N p W V O p W NOD A cA0 J O U tA0 U N(Uj�;,IV�N 4i D rn � m�ggmnimr*im m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C� N N rn rn rn rn m m r*i m m rn m m rn r*1 m m m rn�Z D O c.OD J 01 U A W N p E OD J O>U A W N m Z _ D G7 Z(n Z Z Z Z N(n U Z Z N U N�(n N N N N N —1 OJ O CD J V J J O)N O�U W U A A A A A A r DD N W O V N J{.U.p N J N�p O cp Z mr*inimgr*i�m�gmr*irrigmni�mni�r*i r rncnA WN m �r 7.m w rn u,rn rn � _ "472,U N U OO{D Ln, S Z �O Z rn 0 o m D N W V U F1 O -'N pfTl W22 W cD O I'TI Z J DD W r A tA0 U p A D :r h A♦ �" Y d^ I O C+, O .-s.Z 00 hit. 100 'A N O� 16'4,ti20 CSD m ziw o c� O o f awZ O� D m � N �.417;C � Z Ds s, � b 0 Lqir°-'ic8Fzqo m m m,, bad G-i o n O so 0 Co N:\185050\NEIGHS\Phase 2\FINAL\FP-N3-SH10.dwg Plotted: Moy.16, 2007 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7OUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Matt Michels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV5-07-06, Public Art for the Oracle and Hardy Building at 8950 N. Oracle Road. PUBLIC ART REVIEW COMMITTEE (PARC) RECOMMENDATION: The Public Art Review Committee reviewed the proposal on July 2, 2007. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the public art with no additional conditions. Summary: The artwork consists of an outdoor bronze sculpture of an eagle, approximately ten feet (10') in height, to be mounted on a large boulder approximately five feet (5') in height. The art is proposed to be located on the southwest side of the building in a courtyard area. A minimum of $25,210 is required for this project based on an estimated combined construction cost for the Oracle and Hardy Building of$2,520,968. The proposed artwork will cost approximately $24,000 plus the cost the boulder to mount it on and installation. Staff is confident that those additional costs will exceed the 31,200 necessary to meet the 1% requirement. Current Site Conditions: • Parcel Size: 6 acres • General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial/Office • Zoning: C-1 (Commercial) • Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Improvements: • Phase I: 40,727 square foot professional office building. Two stories and a building height of 30' to the top of the masonry pier (25' above the existing (pre-grading) grade, allowable per Section 23.5.B.1.c, OVZCR) • Phase II: a second building pad is proposed for future development of an approximately 20,000 square foot building • Multiple tenants are anticipated, including Pulte Homes Southern Arizona headquarters, a mortgage company and a title company Approvals to Date: the November 1st, 2006, Town Council meeting, the Council voted to approve a development plan for the Oracle and Hardy Building (OV12-06-01). TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION. MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 STAFF REVIEW: The proposed art meets the one percent (1%) of construction cost requirement for the site. As required by Section 27.3, the art work will be available for public viewing more than 40 hours a week. This public art proposal satisfies the requirements for both the Oracle and Hardy Project. PROS and CONS: Pros: 1. The proposal meets the requirements of the OVZCR. 2. PARC recommended approval. Cons: 1. None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Art submittal SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following suggested motions: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, OR deny] OV5-07-06, request for approval of public art for the Oracle and Hardy Building at 8950 N. Oracle Road. aiCt/L-1 Sar S. More, Planning and Zoning Director itxt„(__ IA/f_j/ Je e Watson, Assistant Town Manager r1.4/1 David Andrews, Town Manager cc: Eddie Vergara Fax: 620.0535 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 IOUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Philip C. Saletta, P.E. Water Utility Director Shirley Seng, Water Utility Administrator SUBJECT: Report on Emergency Repairs to Water Main SUMMARY: Water Utility Operations Distributionreceivednotificationfrom Staff Oro Valley Public Works Dept. at approximately 230 p.m. on Tuesday,June 26, 2007 that there was a water main leak on 1st Avenue approximately 200 feet north of Naranja Drive. Staff responded and found the 16-inch E-Zone water main leaking. Water Utility Field Staff y immediate) isolated and shut down the water main. Due to the importance of this water main, the first contractor available, KE&G Construction,was brought in to perform the repair. The 16-inch water main was leaking at a 1-inch copper service line compression fitting attached to the corporation stop on the 16-inch main line. The contractor completed all repairs on Wednesday June 27,2007. In accordance with Town Code Section 3-4-4-D emergency procurement procedures were implemented to complete the necessary repairs. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to complete the repairs totaled $4,372.40. There are funds available in the Water Utility's operating budget for FY 06-07 to fund the repairs. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Emergency Procurement Approval 2) Memo on Emergency Repairs � Shiy Seng, Wate Utility Ad inistrator J44_ Philip C. letta, ater Utility Director at() aulue.4... David Andrews, Town Manager MEMORANDUM TO: PAUL H. LOOMIS, MAYOR FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER DATE: July 10, 2007 SUBJECT: Town Code Section 3-4-4-D, Emergency Procurement Repair of 16-inch Water Main at 1-inch Service Line The Oro Valley Water Utility is requesting Emergency Procurement to Repair a leak on a 16-inch water main at the connection of a 1-inch service line. Attached is a memorandum from the Water Utility Director. Based on the Water Utility's need to have this leak repaired as soon as possible,Water Utility Staff hired KE&G Construction to repair this leak for a cost of$4,372.00. Town Code Section 3-4-4-D (Emergency Procurement) is as follows: Emergency Procurement. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article. The Mayor shall be empowered to authorize the procurement agent to make an emergency procurement of materials, services, professional services, or construction items when there exists a threat to public health,welfare, or safety. If a situation exists which makes compliance impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, an emergency procurement shall be made without complying with the procedures of this article though limited to those materials, services,professional services, or construction items necessary to satisfy the emergency need. A full written report of the circumstances of any emergency procurement shall be filed by the procurement agent with the Town Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A written report in the form of a Council Communication will be submitted to Town Council at the August 1, 2007 Meeting. Please sign approval below and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Approved: 7A:•A'7 7 Mayor Date ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY MEMORANDUM TO: David Andrews,Town Manager FROM: Philip C. Saletta,P.E.,Water Utility Director 0) DATE: July 10, 2007 SUBJECT: Emergency Repairs to Repair 16-inch Water Main at 1-inch Service Line Water Utility Operations Distribution Staff received notification from Oro Valley Public Works Dept. at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday,June 26, 2007 that there was a water main leak on 1st Avenue approximately 200 feet north of Naranja Drive. Staff responded and found the 16-inch E- Zone water main leaking. Water Utility Field Staff immediately isolated and shut down the water main. Isolation of this 16-inch E-Zone main did not put any customers out of water but had a significant impact on the Public Water System as a whole. The 16-inch E-Zone water main provides water to the High Mesa and Tangerine reservoirs as well as the Woodshade booster station which serves the entire E-Zone north of Tangerine Road. Due to the importance of this water main, the first contractor available, KE&G Construction,was brought in to perform the repair. The 16-inch water main was leaking at a 1-inch copper service line compression fitting attached to the corporation stop on the 16-inch main line. The contractor began the repair at approximately 5:00 p.m. and turned off the corporation stop. The main was put back into service at approximately 8:30 p.m. the same day.The contractor completed all repairs on Wednesday June 27, 2007. In accordance with Administrative Directive No. 1, Procurement, Section III.D.4, emergency procurement procedures were implemented to complete the necessary repairs. Attached is a memorandum to Mayor Loomis requesting his approval. Thank you. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 'iOUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 Noy TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Matt Michels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Appointment to the Development Review Board SUMMARY: Recently Town staff received three (3) member resignations from Harold Kandetzke, Marc Panas and Shelley Solomon. Email communications from Bayer Vella and Deanna Ruiz, DRB staff, is attached. Using established procedures as outlined in the Town Council Policies and Procedures, an Interview Panel was formed consisted of Council Liaison Al Kunisch, DRB Chair Mike Zinkin and Town staff representative Matt Michels in order to make recommendations for appointment to the DRB. The Interview Panel conducted interviews of six (6) individuals who expressed interest in serving on the DRB. As a result of those interviews, Ms. Mary Caswell, Mr. Michael Schoeppach, and Mr. Ramon Shelton are recommended for appointment. The following applications are being forwarded to Mayor & Council for consideration and appointment as allows: ➢ Ms. Mary Caswell (new appointment) o August 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008 ➢ Mr. Michael Schoeppach (new appointment) o August 1, 2007 - June 30, 2009 ➢ Mr. Ramon Shelton (new appointment) o August 1, 2007—June 30, 2008 FISCAL IMPACT: None TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Volunteer Appointment Applications 2. DRB staff Email Communications SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Effective August 1, 2007, I move to appoint Ms. Mary Caswell and Mr. Ramon Shelton with terms ending June 30, 2008; and I move to appoint Mr. Michael Schoeppach to a term ending June 30, 2009. 744—{r 041/1-Pli Sarah More, Planning & Zoning Director Jerene Watson, Assistant Town Manager �. David Andrews, Town Manager . -:., ::::_ i.:,---: ---:.. 4, E► A,:r ` Cr A,*ION&I~ a ORO VALLEY VOLUNTEER APPOINTMENT APPLICATION Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form,when completed,will allow us to quickly process your application. A list describing the Town's Boards and Commissions is attached for your reference. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is also attached. Your application will remain on file for two years from date of receipt. Your supplying this data will greatly assist us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town. Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time and must have resided in the Town for 1 year. Please return to the Town Clerk's Office,11,000 North La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,Arizona 85737. Name. -e, 6/2. Last / Fi : Middle Address/ S to ' Zip Home Phonef Business Phone Emaij/ , -%-• Number of Y s in Oro Valley (Must be a resident of the Town for 1 year.) dGownature' P tj,, C Date 5 `'/7 Please ind,tkate#ti board or commission you wish to join: IP/67 Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any boards or commissions on which you have served:(board/commission,civic,educational,cultural,social,etc.) 1-e C ‘e(1(_;?e.,/ce ,/' How does your previous volunteer service prepare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you are applying. _, xze e'e`,/?7-1e le e-7 Have you attended the Citizens Planning Institute? 7„,2._/ Are you willing to attend?4,,; -1.--'' J Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. IF DESIRED,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE ATTACHED www.townoforovalley.com 4/18/06 Volunteer Service/Boards/Organizations • 4 years Development Review Board as member, Vice Chair and Chair • 7 years Vistoso Homeowners Executive Advisory Board—two year Chair • Arizona Planning Association 2 years on the board as citizen planner • Northwest Hospital Oro Valley Leadership Group 1 year • 7 years on the Miami& Miami Beach Convention Bureau's board • 5 years on the Miami Beach Chamber board as a Trustee • Tucson Community Design Academy • AZ Department of Commerce "Conducting an Effective Meeting" • Ccrtificate of Completion Citizen's Planning Institute • Southern Arizona Art's Guild Board one year • Aspire Hospitality Training 3 years as a trainer Previous Volunteer Service Prepare me for the position of DRB Member Being on the DRB for 4 years certainly has given me an education on how to promote harmonious, safe, attractive, and compatible developments following the General Plan and Zoning Codes laid out for our community. 111 Issue There have been several that have come before the DRB the most import and controversial was the Oro Valley Market Place (Vestar) Many hours of site inspections, including a tour of other Vestar properties in Phoenix, study sessions and public hearings took place. The decision of the DRB was to approve the development and architecture. Education background Working for Hilton Hotels for 25 years I went through many training sessions at least three per year. It was my duty as Director of Marketing to guide, train and have my team excel. We were one the major producers in the Hilton family. My personal education came from learning it by doing it. For a women to go from a secretary to Director of Sales of a new Hilton Hotel and then be promoted to Director of Marketing for the world famous Fontainebleau Hilton in Miami Beach, the learning curve was a good one. Though the years I have taken a number of courses in Sales & Marketing,Professional Development. I also taught at the University of Miami a Marketing course for two years. t • [1..' ,"f;7 'tt. At T C Ft. 0 \•t'AS ii,v.':',.-', ,,i.:',;:';-,j,?.. 111 I 4". '�-��Y;:���, ORO VALLEY VOLUNTEER APPOINTMENT APPLICATION Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form,when completed,will allow us to quickly process your application. A list describing the Town's Boards and Commissions is attached for your reference. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is also attached. Your application will remain on file for two years from date of receipt. Your supplying this data will greatly assist us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town. Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time and must have resided in the Town for 1 year. Please return to the Town Clerk's Office,11,000 North La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,Arizona 85737. t Name O , a �1 i G i Gt e I k.ov Last First Middle Address State Zip Home Phone Business Phone Email Number of Years in Oro Valley fyt. /t woo. (Must be a resident of the Town for 1 year.) , shr:p;;nature r - _ ,LADate X..uie V-i .�C � s ion you wish to join: eRei.i i e t.0ease indicate the board or commis � D� �� �P�� Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any boards or commissions on which you have served:(board/commission,civic,educational,cultural,social,etc.) P.ceEc1e1if, U€vcIt Srf4tce i4Vvu it 006 0 i- T — Go(r �eeAg Comm,'1CG i/ C4p/a IS '�ct(Ick✓'� P How does your previous volunteer service prepare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you are applying. Pki ea.5 e. S e eftcx .Lc( yes- 2ob6 6'actual•e. Have you attended the Citizens Planning Institute? V Are you willing to attend? "`-"'' Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. 'e Sem �� �' 1 IF DESIRED,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE ATTACHED 11111111, www.townoforovalley.com 4/18/06 410 ATTACHMENT How does our previous volunteer service prepare you for the board or commission Y appointment for which you have applied? In mycapacity as President of the Verde Ranch Homeowners Association Board of p tY , , . Directors, I have been responsible for chairing meetings of the Board when they considered Architectural Review Committee submittals for individual homeowners. Because Verde Ranch is a new community, literally every homeowner with a rear yard view fence has been required to submit an Architectural Review Form for the g landscap in of their backyard. In addition, a large number of homeowners have submitted Architectural Review Forms for changes to their front yards,the addition of frontp atios etc. The Board of Directors has had the responsibility to balance the individual desires of ap articular homeowner with the overall needs of the community regarding the approval process for these submittals on a number of occasions. In my role g g pp as facilitator of these discussions,the Board has successfully fulfilled its responsibilities in this regard without significant conflict with homeowners, even in those instances when g � the submission for a homeowner has been denied. While these experiences are not as sophisticated as those required of the Development Review Board, the fundamental processes of workingwith people, and understanding and balancing the interests of the parties are the same. In addition to the above experience, as a result of my background as a professional 1111 negotiator and certified mediator, I have developed the skills required to differentiate between issues andp ositions, and to discover the interests of individuals involved in a conflict orp otential conflict and use that information to craft a solution that satisfies the needs of allp arties. I believe this ability would make me an asset to the Development Review Board, given the processes and interactions that Board experiences with both citizens and public officials. Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you are applying. The Development Review Board recently considered a proposal from Architect Robert Page on behalf of Jana and Brian Davies for the approval of development and landscaping plans for a new 5,626 square foot office building at 7780 N. Oracle Road, p g east of Oracle Crossing. That site was zoned R-S Residential Service District. The Board reviewed with Mr. Page issues associated with metering; whether the space would be leased or sold to future tenants; clarification of walkways, signage, parking, architecture, coloralette, materials, elevation and drainage; whether the amount of p proposedpavement avement was adequate for vehicle access and maneuverability; whether sprinklers would be installed in the entire building; and whether the buffer yards were adequate. 10 Satisfied with the responses to the above,the Board moved to approve the proposal. Brief Personal Biography Michael R. Schoeppach My wife, Susan, and I permanently moved to our new home in Verde Ranch in Oro Valley on July15, 2005. Previously, we owned a home in Cannel Pointe just South of Verde Ranch, which we used for five years on a part-time basis. While retired, I remain an associate with ADR Options, a consulting group specializing in providingeffective conflict management and mediation services to public p g sector and non-profit organizations across the nation. I am a certified mediator and the author and co-author of several articles and a book chapter concerning collective bargaining and employee involvement processes. Prior to retiring on July 1, 2005, I served as the Labor Relations Director for the City of Seattle for just over seven years. I managed a Labor Relations Division of eight professional negotiators, two analyst staff members and two support staff members; recommended labor relations policy initiatives to the Mayor and nine City Council members; directed negotiations with respect to the 22 collective bargaining agreements with the City's 29 unions(including Police Officers and Firefighters); and oversaw the day-to-day administration of the described collective bargaining agreements and labor relations processes in the City's diverse Departments (e.g., Seattle Municipal Court, Police, Fire, Seattle City Light, Parks, etc.). Before becoming Seattle's Labor Relations Director, I was a professional representative for public educators in Washington State for twenty-five years. The last p eighteen of those years, I served as Executive Director for the Bellevue Education Association in Bellevue, Washington. I negotiated scores of collective bargaining agreements, and represented educators in numerous grievance and arbitration hearings. I also provided training for union members and management representatives in public education and the private sector in the areas of interest-based negotiations; effective conflict management; group process and consensus decision-making; and employee involvement processes. I was a consultant to both labor and management regarding employee involvement programs, education reform and interest-based negotiations. I graduated from Central Washington University with a BA in Education, a Fifth Year, and additional graduate work in Black History. After graduation, I taught high school English and history for 6 years in Grandview, Washington. Finally, I have served as the President of the Verde Ranch HOA Board of Directors since its inception in February of 2006. In its first year of operation, we successfully transitioned to homeowner governance of our community. The Board has been responsible for all Architectural Review issues for the community. As a new community, an extremely high number of Architectural Review issues have been submitted to the Board for their approval. A significant number of those issues have required the Board to balance the individual desires of a particular homeowner with the overall welfare of our entire community. s ..,-'' <6.4 - - _ _ _,:. :.i.,.. J „,„ , 6) „„ Y r • a a. ---,,,,-;7:4-, • ORO VALLEY VOLUNTEER APPOINTMENT APPLICATION Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form,when completed,will allow us to quickly process your application. A list describing the Town's Boards and Commissions is attached for your reference. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is also attached. Your application will remain on file for two years from date of receipt. Your supplying this data will greatly assist us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town. Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time and must have resided in the Town for 1 year. Please return to the Town Clerk's Office, 11,000 North La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,Arizona 85737. Name S H ez ren.Ai 1-gAkOA1 (RAI) C Last First Middle Address9 Business Phone Email (' Number of Years in Oro Valley 7 5 (Must be a resident of the Town for 1 year.) 7 - - Signature _ ,A,ere..; Date &.4 Dice 2 • ,. _Please indicate the board or commissionP J ou wish to join: /. 'c' i'cL Y D Feta,ice Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any boards or commissions on which you have served:(board/commission,civic,educational,cultural,social,etc.) s C -lt4'cc How does your previous volunteer service prepare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you are applying. S --6.---- /47/4--c1CC( Have you attended the Citizens Planning Institute? � Are you willing to attend? Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. S-e"' 4 111 IF DESIRED,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE ATTACHED www.townoforovalley.com 4/18/06 Past volunteer services: Chairman of Credit Committee for the Grissom AFB Federal Credit Union Member of Grissom AFB Federal Credit Union Board of Directors Division representative for Boeing Employees Good Neighbor Fund (United Way) TaxAide volunteer with AARP and the IRS Member of Oro Valley Chief of Police Advisory Committee How past volunteer service has prepared me for this position. The main thing is how to work with a diverse group of people to accomplish a common goal. Issue considered by the DRB One issue was a revision to the approved landscape plan for Vistoso Memorial Chapel. This should be a routine matter. However, the Oro Valley residents against the chapel before tried to use this approval to block the chapel again. Educational background: BS in Math from University of Southern Mississippi �M MA in Public Administration from Ball State University Work Experience: Spent 26 years in the US Air Force working in the following areas: Aircraft/Avionics Maintenance Logistics Planning Financial Management Spent 13 years working at the Boeing Company in the following areas: Engineering Business Development Financial Management Go"- Ramon Shelton Application for the DRB 4 Adak „sr ORO VALLEY VOLUNTEER APPOINTMENT APPLICATION Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form,when completed,will allow us to quickly process your application. A list describing the Town's Boards and Commissions is attached for your reference. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is also attached. Your application will remain on file for two years from date of receipt. Your supplying this data will greatly assist us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town. Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time and must have resided in the Town for 1 year. Please return to the Town Clerk's Office,11,000 North La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,Arizona 85737. Name (L) ��_ _ Last First Middle Address � Business Phone9/ Email ,?;/(2.1 Number of Years in o Valley (Must be a resident of the Town for 1 year.) Signature - lam Date C' l ©7 Please indicate the board or commission you wish to join: Oen -460) Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any boards or commissions on which you have served:(board/commission,civic,educational,cultural,social,etc.) 6ee e.6 e 14- —civa s Dud cc-14 a7-C- e) ri- c Crj t) How does your previous volunteer service prepare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you are applying. A-k-CL- fV2c (-0 . f _ 4fi-rb I 01,soye C kit5 ttek1at itot u ( ( e Jg 1i CA4-0_6 QPir et_ Have you attended the Citizens Planning Institute? C/ Are you willing to attend? Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. 3 18 I us , iu es S %y1 ( AJ4110 IF DESIRED,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE ATTACHED www.townoforovallev.com 4/18/06 „so, Page 1 of 1 Gransie, Tracey From: Vella, Bayer Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:33 AM To: More, Sarah; Kunisch, Al; Gransie, Tracey; Michael Zinkin; Michels, Matthew; Watson, Jerene Subject: DRB Appointments Hello all.. I spoke with Harold and Mark over the past two days. Harold has resigned (June will be his last meeting) and Mark does not wish to be reappointed due to the demands of his new restaurant... Thanks and looking forward... Bayer lirmr 6/1/2007 Page 1 of 1 Gransie, Tracey From: Ruiz, Deanna Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 PM To: Gransie, Tracey Cc: Vella, Bayer; More, Sarah; Michels, Matthew; Pelletier, Pamela; Ronquillo, David Subject: Resignation of Shelley Solomon Effective immediately, Shelley Solomon has resigned her position as a member of the DRB. Please notify the appropriate personnel of her departure. Thank you. Deanna Ruiz Town of Oro Valley 520.229.4821 Fax 520.742.1022 • -74'..-_.:., -"�. � ,...•.�.'-...'s;.fja-}.r{ ,1�: iti�Z. .hi r - � �L i�`�:ys S i fd - - - - sat ;�,1W 9 • - ,.r.. .*. ..'•: - r� '2 j-2f.E3x':•s. f%r :✓ • .. - rss�.v f'� s a w,i • a fir.. J .`-✓y„-.`t;r'' �:✓.c `fd x ,,��<,; r ikrt r} 4 !' e . iG• �+r��1r }{ - ��'i "�'r •."�',..+'F'.>I ,�� - w'lt #�'`' �."si'}„y -.w. - ''''.'r ✓r.% .�. 41•. �� - -?'�. .'a lx.s!�-}i S.<✓•�+,('!f��:y.�x.'•-.tea�}••! ✓ `lj ecu c .4z ti • ...;:ice•'' �.�; .. .�:'�i`+ � ?/idv�% +/.. ..' 7/11/2007 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Sarah More, Planning & Zoning Director SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Commission Reappointment SUMMARY: Due to an oversight of a Board Member reappointment on the June 20, 2007 Council Communication, I am now submitting Marilyn Cook for reappointment to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) with a term of 8/1/07 —6/30/09. Marilyn was appointed to the Board on November 1, 2006 to fill the vacancy created when Nancy Mager resigned, whose term was to end on June 30, 2007. Marilyn's request letter for consideration for reappointment to the Mayor and Council is attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Reappointment Letters SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to appoint Marilyn Cook to the Historic Preservation Commission with a term expiring on June 30, 2009. j2,C01( arah More, Planning & Zoning Director .k.iene Watson, Assistant Town Manager David Andrews, Town Manager . s t f. j 3 /, 0-en...Z-7-1,-4. -- ✓ Y ,- 0 i �f ie.). '1 . ' .,. ...)/4--- ..1,---Q.--, AL4r24 /1,,e_,-,uri,e...„.A......... —__,._. -/-7.} 7---4„..... LP-7-1,11/1.&-J, --e"- fr f ---iL.z....ei, .., 62..,4-‘-k-,7p-1.-) a of 7� 4,- s TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Matt Michels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Continued: Public Hearing, Resolution No. (R) 07 - 59 , OV8-06-05, The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the addition of new power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive. SUMMARY: At their regular meeting of May 16, 2007, the Town Council voted to continue this item until June 20, 2007 in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to address several questions raised by the Council. The applicant . had previously requested continuance indefinitely. At their regular meeting of June 20, 2007, the Town Council voted to continue this item to the August 1, 2007 meeting, as requested by the applicant in their letter of June 11, 2007, attached. The applicant has prepared responses to the previously-raised questions and is prepared to move forward with their request for a CUP. `,UGGESTED MOTION: I move to [continue, approve with conditions, OR deny] Resolution No. (R) 07 -59 , OV8-06-05, conditional use permit to allow for the addition of new power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive Attachments: 6/11/07 letter requesting continuance Resolution No. (R)07-59 cc: Bob Conant, 622-1950 77//k'ir 77)4.1/1ZIL f6 K-- S ah . More, P ing and oning Director / 1 `' fr,LE it..A,.. Craig CiN er, Town Engineer 0 - .-9ti , Jer4 e Watson, Assistant Town Manager . ruli , David Andrews, Town Manager (IQ THE PLANNINGCENTER tig) a division of TPC Group, Inc. June 11, 2007 Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: OV8-06-05, TEP Tangerine Conditional Use Permit Dear Sarah: The Oro Valley Town Council on May 16, 2007, continued the above referenced project to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 20, 2007. On behalf of TEP, we would respectfully request that the project be continued to the Slaw August 1, 2007 regular meeting of the Town Council, pending further discussions with the Town. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 623-6146 or bconant@azplanningcenter.com. Very truly yours, Robert M. Conant, Jr. Project Manager cc: Robin Valenzuela Tim Johnson Larry Lucero, TEP Laura Pinnas, TEP Illier a 110 s church ste 6320 tucson az 85701 o 520.623.6146 f 520.622.1950 w azplanningcenter.com RESOLUTION NO. (R) 07- 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF NEW POWER POLES AND ELECTRIC UTILITY WIRES, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD BETWEEN LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND LA CANADA DRIVE. WHEREAS, The Planning Center, representing Tucson Electric Power, requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of new power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed said conditional use permit request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 4th, 2007 in accordance with State Statutes, and having made its recommendation of approval by a 4:1 vote to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has duly considered the conditional use permit request and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation at a Public Hearing and finds that it is in the interest of the community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for the addition of new power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive, be granted per Section 9-471 (L) of the Arizona Revised Statutes and that all applicable standards in the OVZCR shall apply thereto said property; SECTION 2. That this resolution and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be revocable. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 1st day of August, 2007. Paul H. Loomis,Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier,Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney TOWN OF ORO VALLEY '''OUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk SUBJECT: TOWN COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES SUMMARY: According to Town Council Policy #8, the purpose of the Council Liaison position to a Board, Commission, or Committee ("Board," collectively) is to allow a Council Member the opportunity to bring Council-adopted policies to a particular Board, and keep the Council informed as to the actions of that particular advisory group. The Council Liaison position was designed to establish or improve the lines of communication between Boards and the Council. The Council Liaison is expected to attend meetings of the Board and then prepare a summary of events to share with the Council as a whole. It is also expected that the Council Liaison, a non-voting member of the Board, would provide the Board members with goals and objectives of the Council as a whole. The attached list identifies the current assignments of Council Liaisons. All Council Liaison assignments will ive an annual review with consideration of assignment rotation. Is the Council happy with the current Liaison Assignments or would the Council like to make any changes? The current Council Liaison Assignments are as follows: Board of Adjustment Barry Gillaspie (Interview Committee Panel Member only) Development Review Board Al Kunisch Finance & Bond Committee Helen Dankwerth Historic Preservation Commission Al Kunisch Oro Valley Citizen Corps Council Paul Loomis Oro Valley Citizen Corps Council (alternate)Paula Abbott Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Terry Parish Planning & Zoning Commission KC Carter Stormwater Utility Commission KC Carter Water Utility Commission Barry Gillaspie Outside Agencies Amphitheater School District Paula Abbott Amphitheater School District(alternate) Barry Gillaspie Legislature; District 26 Terry Parish MTCVB Terry Parish Northern Pima County Chamber Helen Dankwerth ima Association of Governments Paul Loomis Pima Association of Governments (alternate)Barry Gillaspie Regional Transportation Authority Paul Loomis (PAG Representative is required to serve. No alternates allowed.) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the current Town Council Liaison Assignments effective through June 2008. Or... I MOVE to approve the Town Council Liaison Assignments with the following modifications effective through June 2008. aca,Lq, Kat . n E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk David Andrews, Town Manager 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Sandra L. Abbey, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Adopting a Recruitment Process to fill Town Attorney Position SUMMARY: The Town Attorney has indicated her last working day will be October 7, 2007. The Town desires to be proactive in seeking a future Town Attorney; therefore, it is advisable to establish a recruitment process that will enable progress toward filling this position in a timely, cost effective, open and equitable manner. While it is possible to adopt a process involving only internal recruitment, which would lead to the promotion of an existing staff member; or to adopt a process of hiring a professional search firm (headhunter) at a cost of approximately$50,000 to $60,000 (estimated); the option of a simultaneous internal/external recruitment utilizing Town human resources staff to assist the Mayor and Council with selection as outlined in the attachment is proposed as a cost-effective, yet thorough process for making the selection. 'ECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends simultaneous external/internal recruitment as describe in the attachment. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated cost is approximately $5,000 to $10,000 primarily determined by the costs of recruitment advertising and the costs for any out of town candidates who may be brought to Oro Valley for the interview process SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt the process recommended by staff for recruitment of the Town Attorney and to appoint the following 2-3 council members to a selection committee: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Detailed recommendation for simultaneous external/internal recruitment process 14/1. mdie Department Head Town Manager ATTACHMENT Staff Recommendation—Preliminary Step-by-Step process for recruiting a Town Attorney using a simultaneous external and internal advertising system with Town human resources staff providing administrative support to the Mayor and Council throughout the process. Week 1 • Selection Committee appointed to consist of 2-3 Council Members, the Town Manager, the City or Town Attorney from a neighboring jurisdiction (to be determined), and the Human Resources Director. • Human Resources Office distributes Town Attorney Job description to the Mayor, Council Members, and Town Manager for review and any potential updates. • Position Requisition is completed and signed by Mayor Loomis(or delegate) Week 2 • Human Resources office creates and posts internal job posting and creates and places external advertisements in at the following locations: Town Website, Arizona Daily Star, Arizona Republic, Arizona Attorney Magazine, AZ state bar association web-posting(if available), Pima County bar association print or website job posting, ICMA web-site job posting, AZ League of Cities and Towns web-site posting, among others as identified. Week 2-3 • Human Resources Director creates applicant review/ranking tool for use by subcommittee • Human Resources solicits potential interview questions from full council, and prepares a first-round interview question document for use by subcommittee • Human Resources and Town Manager's support staff begin work to schedule potential interview dates Proposed Closing or First Review Date—August 31, 2007 • Human Resources office gathers applications, provides notification to applicants of the receipt of the application materials, and provides information to applicants as appropriate Week 4-5 • Human Resources will screen applications for minimum qualifications, make copies, create folders or binders of applications and resumes for subcommittee members, and provide review/ranking tools for use by subcommittee members. Folders/binders to be distributed to all subcommittee members. Week 6-7 • Human Resources will gather review/ranking tools from subcommittee members and will notify subcommittee members of the top 5 candidates—plus solicit any comments regarding the ranking process. • Upon consensus of top 5 candidates, Human Resources and Town Manager's support staff will work together to schedule interviews, including any out-of-town travel arrangements as required. Weeks 8-12 • Interviews conducted • Sub-committee members to provide recap of interviews to full-council in executive session. • Mayor and Full-Council to determine 1, 2 or 3 finalists to be interviewed by the full council. • Human Resources and Manager's Office staff to schedule finalist interviews. • Finalist(s) interviewed by full council in executive session • Council action in regular Town Council meeting to vote on appointment and direct Human Resources Director to initiate negotiation of employment agreement.