HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (941) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 20, 2006
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PIMA COUNTY
LIBRARY DISTRICT
2. PRESENTATION OF TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FISCAL PLAN
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person
an
with a
disabilityneeds type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at
Y
229-4700.
POSTED: 11-15-06
3:30 p.m.
lh
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Mary Hartz-Musgrave, Library Administrator
Brent Sinclair, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY IGA WITH PIMA COUNTY
FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT
BACKGROUND:
This session was plannedto provideopportunity an o ortunity for Pima County Staff to present information to the Town
Council regarding the new ew Pima CountyFree Library District and ideas regarding the upcoming IGA
negotiations.
In addition, staff is a
attachingprogressreport from the Oro Valley IGA Negotiation Team.
PROGRESS REPORT FROM THE IGA NEGOTIATION TEAM:
An eight member
Negotiation Team selected bythe Town Manager has been assembled to research information
and options for the negotiation process. The Task Force is composed of Town Manager David Andrews, Town
g
Attorney Melinda Garrahan, Finance Director Stacey Lemos, Human Resources Director Sandra Abbey,
Community Development Director Brent Sinclair, Library Administrator Mary Hartz-Musgrave, Jim Kriegh and
Al Cook. The team has thus far met twice and listed below is a summary of information accumulated to date.
1. History of OVPL
Oro ValleyPublic Librarywas initially proposed as a library co-located with Ironwood Ridge
What is now the
'a and Shannon. Funding for the construction of the library was proposed through the
High School at Nar anj
Bond Issue. This project was delayed for many months primarily because of Pygmy Owl
1997 Pima County p J
issues at the proposed Ironwood School site. Further concern over annexation litigation for that area lead to a
Council decision top ursue an alternative location at the Town Hall Complex.
In 1998, the Town Council assembled a broad based Library Technical Advisory Committee composed of Oro
staff from Oro Valley, Pima County and City of Tucson (TPPL). The purpose of this committee
Valley citizens, y
was to lead the planningdesign process and for the library and develop the operational relationship with TPPL.
g
After a series of
initial meetings and researching different scenarios, the Committee forwarded a
the Town Council to proceed with the development of a Phase I, 15,000 square foot library
recommendation to
to be constructed adjacent Operationally,nt to Town Hall. O erationall , the library would have an affiliate relationship with
TPPL whereby the library
is staffed with Oro Valleyemployees, would make acquisitions decisions locally, and
would share in training
and circulation resources with TPPL. In a Joint Council Session on February 22, 1999,
the Town Council provided direction to pursue that course of action.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4
The following provides a bullet-point synopsis of key events leading to present day:
• An Intergovernmental Agreement between Oro Valley and Pima County was approved in August 1999
with Pima County obligating to pay $2,000,000 for the construction cost of the library and Oro Valley
obligating to pay the balance. The IGA also stated a future IGA would be developed to address the
operations and maintenance of the library.
• The Library Technical Advisory Committee (LTAC) established project parameters and interviewed
architects for the project. After an extensive review and interview process, the LTAC recommended an
architectural firm to proceed with the programming and design of the library in December 1999.
• The next 15 months consisted of monthly public meetings, open houses, pubic hearings and
presentations conducted by the LTAC.
• The project consisted of a 25,000 square foot library; 15,000 square feet operational on opening day and
a 10,000 square foot shell that was to be finished out at a later date.
• Ground-breaking commenced July 1, 2001 and construction was completed in July of 2002. The Grand
Opening was held on August 17, 2002.
• In June 2003, the Town commenced programming the 10,000 square foot shell and provided cost
estimates for the professional design services and total construction cost.
• Programming involved meeting with library staff, TPPL staff, Pima County staff, Friends of the Oro
Valley Library and various user groups to develop a space allocation concept addressing the needs of the
library. The concept was then refined to a schematic that graphically represented the floor plan of the
finished library.
• Pima County voter approve a Bond Issue in May 2004 that included $1,100,000 for the finish out of the
10,000 square foot shell.
• Construction commenced in May 2005 and concluded in November 2005. The re-Grand opening was
held on February 4, 2006.
2. Financial Data
The Negotiation Team reviewed a variety of financial data provided by Stacey Lemos, Finance Director.
Information included total capital expenditure provided by Pima County and Oro Valley for the Library, total
operational expenses and reimbursement provided by both entities per year and the total tax payments made by
Oro Valley property owners for the years 1986 through 2006. This information is included as an attachment to
this Communication.
3. Employee Benefits Comparison
Sandra Abbey, Human Resources Director provided a side by side comparison of Town of Oro Valley
and Pima County employee benefits and salaries. This information is also included as an attachment.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4
4. Options Matrix
The Team spent a considerable amount of time exploring a full range of options to address the ownership,
operation ion and control of the Oro Valley Public Library. Below is a matrix that summarizes the range of options
and
er study. Without goinginto a lot of detail, the first option, "QUO", is cryptic for status quo and represents
the current arrangement with Pima County. The second option recognizes the proportion of property tax Oro
property owners alreadycontribute to the Library District, thus negating the need for any further Oro
Valley prop y
Valley contribution. option,Under the third o tion, a hybrid is proposed with joint operational management whereby
both entities negotiateoperationalrecognizing the cost some Oro Valley autonomy. Option four proposes full
operational by
control and ownershipPima County. Under this scenario, Pima County would buyout Oro
' interest in the Librarybuilding. Lastly, option five envisions a new library district separate but
Valley's capital g
compatible with
the Pima CountyDistrict. Under this scenario, future multiple libraries may be operated by Oro
Valley as the community contemplates expansion to the north and south.
This brief summary is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion or critique. The purpose is simply to introduce
these options as a starting point in the negotiations with Pima County.
Options* Operator O erator Employees Facility Owner District Tax TOV Funds
I. QUO
TOV TOV QUO 45%± 55%±
II. QUO PLUS TOV TOV QUO 100%± 0
III. QUO HYBRID TOV/PC TOY QUO 75%± 25%±
IV. PIMA COUNTY(PC) PC PC PC Buyout 100% 0
V. NEW DISTRICT** TOV TOY TOV Buyout 100% 0
Notes:
* All options assume level of service is equal or greater
** Creation of a new Library District for NW Pima County and Southern Pinal County
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 4
NEXT STEPS:
The Oro Valley Negotiating Team met with the Pima County Negotiating Team on November 9 for initial
discussions. The next joint meeting is scheduled in December.
1/(ctA/J,7417-,- 117
ei,....,
Library M?ninistrator
---r
. 11
Community Development Director
2L4,
whit._
Acting Assit Town Manager
Town Manager
Attachments:
1. County Free Library District Tax Payments
2. Cost Sharing
3. Funding History
4. Comparison of Benefits
Town of Oro Valley
County Free Library Tax
1986 - 2006
Town of Oro Valley Tax Tax
Year Net Assessed Value Rate Payments
1986 $26,548,333 0.0855 $22,699
1987 $32,068,497 0.1081 $34,666
1988 $48,793,156 0.1585 $77,337
1989 $53,843,156 0.1704 $91,749
1990 $57,361,643 0.2025 $116,157
1991 $61,090,215 0.2025 $123,708
1992 $65,098,105 0.2025 $131,824
1993 $71,925,888 0.1924 $138,385
1994 $84,327,297 0.2024 $170,678
1995 $119,234,229 0.2124 $253,254
1996 $130,338,334 0.2224 $289,872
1997 $165,265,200 0.2224 $367,550
1998 $178,766,882 0.2224 $397,578
1999 $196,647,641 0.2024 $398,015
2000 $220,687,234 0.2024 $446,671
2001 $257,234,738 0.2124 $546,367
2002 $294,649,424 0.2124 $625,836
2003 $326,699,884 0.2124 $693,911
2004 $358,081,078 0.2124 $760,564
2005 $418,489,154 0.2575 $1,077,610
2006 $463,211,743 0.3675 $1,702,303
TOTAL TAX PAYMENTS $8,466,733
G:\DAVID\County Free Library Tax
L
C)
a)
O
N
ti
O
a)
2
a)
-▪o
C
co
To
Q
'U
C
.E_
C
._..,0
CT3
_0
-0
•.....
(13Q
a)
ID
z O
Qz
2
1-- O 00
Wce Q
0
H O O r� N O co (3) N. O CO CO
J O O O CD CD O CO ti Nr O CD d- r-
J Z J O O N N O N. CD N-
- 0 N- CN O
Q J 4' O L O �- L
i-' O ) 1` 9-' O C6 r-- CO
O Q c O LC) (0 N C O CO - ti C O N- CO Cr)
0 = O N M = N- N c') I- L()
O 0 0 N co Lt) 0 0 CO- co CO
X ' z E tr> to E tr> te E
0QW Q Q Q
LL (X Q
CO =
Z J to
VH
D -_-j to
00v
m 0)
CLC
o .c
N -0 CO (I)
I C «) -0
Z m W CD
O W D
O �, �s N 06 LL
pi c c �
Ce 0 > u) W O cn p Cn
I- O 0 Li- O 0 O
u) x ft, O a--;ctS (�Z .0 cUd. .E a) c ._ co
O �I .� f— o -� � c0 � �cn � O
0 c W p Z c O p c U) p
= D O = = c �
>" .� — U- i O L tL u c C
Q � w � z -0a2 C7 -0 � �
o U Z < O Z u) O -0 J Z
CO CO W a) 0 X m > a) 0 H Ca C 0
J 2 _c Z W - O _c Z co _c Z
Q O a) o U- � o 0 ti. 0 Oa) O U-
Z 0 co J Q U O .J -J O co ..J
o c13 > c �Q,,, w co c c �— H R3 c Q
E _ _ ~
E ° -� O co O O ° .E O
O LOLL E— J Of— U. 1— 1- CLOU- 1--
I
?-,
-,,- ,.. „,..„... ......,..... , ,
oi
CD 1 is ti.
4-0 i
ON 4.•- j ....._i ,±.;
,•,,..;
•,...1,:. co ,
• t. :?.1
-- . - .I. —. i..• U)
1-:i,
.--i
il. 4.....) C 1 =
0
:1:,..•
. :; ?tio
>4 .-'...i: a) ;., co ',km- _ _
.,.
S....... ;:,...: E ,, (_, oci) .,1-
u).,.
0 .:::-'
,..:. Q) '',., 0_ L_ ,.:.
= -;
01°''J
--::
Es mom
1 1Y.•''..
E ., ...
,..,) , h. 0
ci) . in .1_ co c)
4..,.,
N 11 111 Mil 1 1 I I I I (2e i C h. LO N-- 0.,
auC '
(0 0) (C1
a t CO
°D CN C)
C 0
......1
...:,....,..3- __.,
...,..„... u)_;.
= . LaL
,
.4 U = .
Li. '- U ....„
•,..,p,,,,
...,,. .
....
..,..,
0 F. . ..
..1 .
•••...
'--
.....
Cr.. ..
-C3
..,
..- 1.:....A i. , ...
....
LL if,......, co .!;,,, •
s i-..... - co a) (3) - N--
U ;::. (f) ::....1,
„,:,,, ci) 0) (N i . C)
-1.7. a) i co (0 Lo
_1: cp
CI) ,,,,,1•
,..„
,, ... ....
S-. ,......::::: ; ....i 4....., .
7.L)= (0 (0 c- gt"
•
... = . 0) 0) C\1 Cf)
,4.-.
NI--
Clow 1"0
4,
cL. 1
..4
•,.
3ta 6.f .. 64)-
.
• x . 1...
(13 , .71- Lr) co
LU
a) - c, c) c) c)
,. ...., ,... ---
co
(t) :
cD. cp 0 0
_ --:
dro.r.i,,,,t.,. .,,..1 . D . c.) CD CD CD ,,1CD
7-7';''1 ." -:::;ji--:.•.; :
,-, ...... •
< -
•,:-...vt,
---.............._Ba,-....:- ,,......,
.. „ . . ---77447, \ , .,...
1..::. , t T4.,
.. li.I, . \-i,..'4:-:,•.-:.,--;,--zi.
. -. .
.4, .,..___#-I-Ii !: . ..',..-:- 'i.jt;-:. -'-
i; -: : . ;i4-----,-4.-t, ,.• •-..:-- i,-,.,, -:.--..1 -:••
‘,..,4,t,4,:-,.. ..,, ,..-...;,,, :e...-:-..• is :-- _-• ,,.
...---
4-i-~4*-:,--4 1:' :',•::ii..• -v, ..\.'..., , :,-,:,--ii---!-:.- -.,.:-.'.:.,
II L.;; -- 1:' ''''
''' ...,-.N's,
......,.,: ...,,4 ...,-,. ::
,,..,: .7.
., ......1,7i--,- - r -.;-
--kv ':'
g.,..0.,..., . .,.'1..i,:--. :.
-kc..„..,....4.- ...:04L,f, .::
..,.... .
ri.':-.: . : +'i.....:!.1.::41.'
Summary Employee Programs Em to ee Benefits Pro rams for Comparison for
Pima County and Town of Oro Valley
Employee Benefit Town of Oro Valley _ Pima County
Medical Insurance 2 plans to choose from. 4 plans to choose from.
Employee pays 25% of Employee pays anywhere
dependent coverage. If more from 3%to 30% of premium
expensive plan is selected, costs depending on the plan
employee pays "buy-up" selected, and whether
cost. dependents are covered.
Dental Insurance 1 plan available. Employee 2 plans to choose from.
pays 25% of dependent County pays a flat amount
premium. toward either plan, with
employee paying remaining
portion of premium costs
(percentages are similar to
medical insurance)
Domestic Partner Not available Available
Coverage
Retiree Health Insurance Limited availability for Medical and Dental coverage
retiree's not eligible for available at group rates for
Medicare retirees.
Annual Leave 12 days for first 5 years 12 days for first 3 years
17 days years 6-10 15 days years 4-9
22 days years 11+ 18 days years 10-14
21 days years 15+
Sick Leave 12 days per year, which 12 days per year, can be
carry forward into rolled into Annual leave each
successive years if unused year if unused.
up to a total of 60 days.
50% of all days accrued over
60 days are paid to employee
at termination.
Holidays 10 observed holidays, plus 10 observed holidays
birthday annually annually
Basic Life Insurance ye S, FA". swl AbY $10,000 paid by County
Supplemental & Up to $500,000 available
Dependent Life Insurance paid by the employee
Tax Deferred Retirement 457 plan offered by ICMA 457 (or similar plan) Offered
Savings by three independent carriers
Flexible Spending Available per IRS Available per IRS
Accounts regulations regulations
Educational Available Available
Reimbursement
Short Term disability Not offered Available paid by employee
Long Term disability Available through ASRS or Available through ASRS
Metlife
Retirement Plan ASRS, PSPRS, CORP ASRS PSPRS, CORP
EAP Available paid by Town Available paid by County
Wellness Programs Limited Available
Recreational Discounts Not available Available
Subsidized Bus and Not available Available
Carpool Programs
4
a
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION STUDY SESSION DATE: November 20, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: Stacey Lemos, Finance Director
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FISCAL PLAN
SUMMARY:
In response to the Town Council's request for an all-encompassing, global discussion and analysis of
the Town's current and future budgets, staff has prepared the attached "Fiscal Plan" research
discussing the Town's current revenue sources, potential other available revenue sources, and
unfunded Town needs.
The primary focus of this report is on the main operating funds of the Town: the General Fund, the
Highway Fund, and the Public Transportation Fund. In the first section, the report analyzes the
Town's existing revenue sources by defining each and showing the budgeted amount of each in this
year's current budget.
In the second section, the report focuses on other available sources of revenue to the Town which
are not presently utilized. Each of these sources of revenue are defined, estimated amounts of each
type of revenue are shown based on various levy amounts, and the advantages and disadvantages of
each are listed.
The third section of the report discusses the Town's current and future financing needs by defining
what each project/need is, showing estimated one-time costs for the next three fiscal years (where
available), and any estimated on-going costs (where available). Due to the unknown scope and
nature of some items listed in this section and the limited resources available to fully analyze the
costs associated with these, some items do not have costs listed.
The report also includes an Appendix, which summarizes most of the financial data presented in the
body of the report. Finally, an additional attachment is a memorandum from the Town Attorney's
office outlining the legal requirements for instituting selected new taxes and forming special taxing
districts.
The purpose of this presentation is to operationalize both a short-term and long-term strategy to plan
for the funding of the Town's current and future unfunded needs. A short-term strategy can be
defined as spanning over the next 1 — 3 years, and a long-term strategy should address the needs
beyond the next 3 years. Town staff will work together with the Council to define the boundaries of
these strategies to include identifying what types of potential revenue sources the Council is willing to
talk about, what types of revenue sources the Council is not willing to consider, what Town service
levels are acceptable, and form an approach to accomplish the implementation of any new revenue
sources or service level changes that may be a part of these strategies.
G:\STACEY\Council Communic\FiscalPlan 112006StudySession.DOC
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan and Appendix
2. November 9, 2006 Memorandum from Town Attorney's Office
‘&ey --.‘2/;t4J
Stacey Lemma
Finance Director
did alie.uo-
David L. Andrews
Town Manager
G:\STACEY\Council Communic\FiscalPlan 1 l 2006StudySession.DOC
, .
Town of Oro Valley
4 LE Y
lir V
V V
If lir IP
41 *
4 *
A _, ier,,,__,:-.:4),'
0' ;"'41tilleatit.- , 4
°UtiDED A91_
Fiscal Plan
Presented : November 20, 2006
44•R44,,,tailif,,,,Iii,4pt",--1,.:;,-,,,i.,,„:„,,,,,;,,,_,,,- ,:,,..,„„.;.,
,,..,.;
. . .., .- .. •.' `',.,,,,.,'. ...
. .
,, 4-i ..,Is..'''. ...,•,'-',,.',''''',, I
i-,.,.,,,,.,.„,„.,,.......,4,_,,$.„„-..,,.,,,(,4,.i,r,,.,...,•,...,...,.s 4*,...........- v
‘Ir.,,,,,,. ,'••e..4.,f.i 11$*44! ,,,I,
1uis .
k '
,•'__.__.,,..:,,'„__,.:.„_
,.,
,...
.......-
: r;,..,,,:%'ir,.?hitiC.,,i10,1`.4t, :?.):.'7.k''!":.,-.4,'-P ':''''' ',4'''':,'"44';'''''''''.• :',,C-4.4 '4 i l'i"I..''... ''''',, '',
. , ,1,1,;•«, „7,,,,4«r,'''' ,,,,,4,***''''',4.'' 14-- ' %p.a..' '. ,S',,,,:'1,.1 titl.r,,,,,,, ' I
« ,, tiV.
# , ,, ,. 1 ‘ . « - ,•,. 440.,--,''"*.
'- lilt
.41110, At*:
, _ ,'-' • •.,' , - , , 0. '''1/21'•A 4' ,,,, '. ' ...-..ji I 'Mt.; i - -;,, • : ..
0 . ,
' ' ' ' '- '' ' • '7. - 0,',”'«-4.,.,,,,,' '77,72,1 1,4«,,,,„ ,, ,,,,«, ,. , ,
. ,
. TODINI OF ORO uniiii3v ., , . K.-,......,...,. ..,
allall
...na
.. .. . 4, , „.....
1
Town of Oro Valley
Fiscal Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Current Revenue Sources
Local Sales Tax 1
State Shared Revenue 2
Cable Franchise Fees 3
User Fees 3
Grants 3
Pima County Bonds 3
Building Permit Fees 4
Development Impact Fees 4
Court Fines 4
Potential Revenue Sources 4
Property Taxes 5
Sales Taxes Not Currently Assessed 5
Franchise Taxes 6
Existing Tax Percentage Increase 6
Development Impact Fees 7
Stormwater Utility Fees 8
Community Facilities District 8
Improvement Districts 9
Bonds 9
Annexations 10
Reduction of Town Services 10
CIP Projects 12
Disposal of Property 12
Town Financing Needs 12
Summary 16
Town of Oro Valley
Fiscal Plan
The primary operating funds of the Town are the General Fund, Highway Fund, Public
Transportation and the Oro Valley Water Utility Fund. As the Water Utility Fund is self-
sustaining and governed by a Water Utility Commission, the focus of this report will be on the
other remaining Town operating funds.
Budgeted revenue for these funds for FY 2006/07 is $48.5M and composed of the following
sources:
Charges for Other Grants/Pima Co.
Services/Permits 2% Bonds
11% 31%
State Shared
Revenue Local Sales Tax
26% 30%
As the above chart depicts, local sales tax and state shared revenues comprise 56% of this
revenue. All taxes are collected through the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) and
distributed to municipalities based on certain criteria discussed below. The purpose of this
report will be to list and explain the revenue sources currently in use by the Town of Oro Valley
and also other revenue sources available, but not at present utilized.
Current Revenue Sources
"<>•^,:•;><:>:::;:'+.?:::•,;•ti:r':r:i;ss�:'•:2:::fi::;:;;;):\:,::.f.;`.:•:•s.•�c*'•,:• 42'!9.'.;..{i.;�%i•.,`.i4•
.;:1•#;w%•#.• •:�4k:+c)t•,•:•:tH..r,:�:ir:•r:•;:•,:.:r:'.•,2:•::Y,.:::;?•;5:::,,:2.::;2:t.:::.,;:Sr,:..:.:}�C�•�.' ::oy'.{t:nSy::::;:.::•;; 'i
..................:::fix '.:::�:,:,::::::.�:::�::::::::.�:<<::::.�,:.�::::::::.::::::::::::.�::::::::.�:::: ..f:.:•:.>:::::::.;:.,�'`'..•'.$;::. ,.,
Local Sales Tax
Arizona's cities and towns under State law have the authority to establish certain taxes for
revenue purposes. The tax is collected by the Arizona Department of Revenue at the same
time the State sales tax is collected. The local sales tax collections are then returned to the
Town. The statewide average local sales tax rate is 2.25%. Rates range from 1% to 3.5%.
This is the primary revenue category the Town can most directly control and includes retail
sales taxes, construction tax, hotel/motel tax and restaurant/bar tax.
Local Sales Taxes TOV Tax Rate FY 2006/07 Budget
Retail Sales 2.0% $4,050,219
Construction 4.0% 4,957,125
Hotel/Motel (Bed Tax) 6.0% 1,194,251
Restaurant/Bars 2.0% 1,000,000
Other 2.0% 1,816,656
Total $13,018,251
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 1 November 20, 2006
State Shared Revenue
State Shared revenue is passed to Arizona municipalities from five State revenue sources. The
following are sources of State shared revenue:
State Sales Tax
The current State Sales tax is 5.6% and cities and towns share in a portion of the collection
total. The Town receives its share of the State shared sales tax based on the relation of its
population to the total population of all incorporated cities and towns in the State. This money
may be expended for any municipal public purpose.
State Income Tax
This money is distributed based on the Town's population in relation to the total population of
all incorporated cities and towns. The annual amount distributed is based on income tax
collections from two years prior to the fiscal year in which the Town receives these funds. This
money must be expended for a municipal public purpose. In 2006, the State Legislature
approved a 10% State Income Tax reduction which will reduce State Shared revenue
distributions to cities and towns in FY 2009/2010.
Highway User Revenue (HURF)
Also known as the gasoline tax, cities and towns receive 27.5% of all highway user revenues.
Of this 27.5%, one-half of the money is distributed to the Town based on its population in
relation to the population of all incorporated cities and towns in the State. The remaining half is
allocated on the basis of county of origin of gasoline sales and the relation of the Town's
population to the population of all incorporated cities and towns in Pima County. Funds
received from HURF are to be used for street and highway purposes only.
Vehicle License Tax
Approximately 20% of the revenue collected for the licensing of motor vehicles is distributed to
incorporated cities and town. The Town receives its portion of the collections based on its
population in relation to the total incorporated population of Pima County. These funds must
be expended for a public purpose.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
This source of State shared revenue is the State lottery. Distribution from this fund is based on
population, with all cities and towns receiving at least $10,000. Eligible expenditures include
street and highway projects, as well as transit programs. A secondary LTAF (LTAF II) has been
established that receives revenue from the Powerball lottery. From this fund, ADOT awards
grants to cities, towns and counties based on a one to one match or one to four match,
depending on population size. All monies awarded must be used for public transit services.
State Shared Revenue FY 2006/07 Budget
State Sales Tax $3,712,500
State Income Tax 4,230,000
Highway User Revenue 3,138,500
Vehicle License Tax 1,300,000
LTAF 234,183
Total $12,615,183
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 2 November 20, 2006
Cable Franchise Fees
Cities and towns in Arizona have exclusive control over all rights-of-way dedicated to their
municipality which enables the Town to grant franchise agreements to utilities using the Towns'
streets in the distribution of their utility services. There is no specific amount or limitation in
State law. The Town of Oro Valley has an agreement with Comcast Cable which imposes a 5%
franchise tax on the gross proceeds from the sale of cable services within the Town.
Franchise Tax FY 2006/07 Budget
Cable Franchise Fee 5.0% $420,000
User Fees
User fees are collected from Town residents for the use of certain Town facilities and services,
which include the use of lighting in the parks, swimming pool fees and recreation room use.
FY 2006/07 Budget
Swimming Pool $85,000
Electricity 40,000
Miscellaneous 140,000
Grants
The Town of Oro Valley receives numerous categorical grants from the Federal and State
government to assist in the funding of projects such as roadway improvements, public safety
and community services. The amount of assistance as well as the types of programs and
projects for which the money can be expended varies from year to year. The Town relies
heavily on this funding which comprises 15.3% of incoming revenue for FY 2006/07.
Type of Grant Use FY 2006/07 Budget
Federal Public Safety $639,000
Roadways 498,000
State Community Service 29,875
Public Safety 169,000
Other 13,500
PAG Reimbursements Roadways 5,510,811
Other 49,300
Other Community Services 500,000
Total $7,409,486
Pima County Bonds
At four special elections, two in 1997, one in 2004 and one in 2006, Pima County voters
approved $1.498 billion in general obligation and revenue bonds. The proceeds from these
bonds go towards the construction of facilities and land acquisitions for municipalities within
Pima County. The advisory committee which oversees allocation of the funds is made up of
various members including a representative from each Pima County municipality of which Oro
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 3 November 20, 2006
Valley is a member. The proceeds the Town receives from the bonds comprise 12% of
incoming revenue.
Use FY 2006/07 Budget
Library Expansion $71,000
Honeybee Village 100,000
Steampump Ranch 5,000,000
CDO Shared Use Path 595,059
Total I $5,766,059
Pima County is beginning to plan for a future bond election for 2008. Oro Valley has six
proposed projects for this bond election all related to parks and recreation improvements and
land acquisition.
Building Permit Fees
Revenues from this source come from residential building and commercial development. The
permit fee amount is assessed based on the valuation of the project plan and square footage.
FY 2006/07 Budget
Residential Building Permits $1,632,000
Commercial Building Permits 735,000
Development Impact Fees
Development Impact Fees are fees imposed by the Town on new residential development and
are used for roadway expansion projects. The Town currently charges a fee of $2,920 per
residential permit. A recent study of these fees proposes an increase to $3,375 per permit, and
is expected to be presented for Council approval by the end of December, 2006.
FY 2006/07 Budget
Impact Fees $1,489,200
Court Fines
Another revenue source for Oro Valley is the money from fines paid to the Magistrate Court.
This revenue comes from traffic violations and other fines paid for the violation of Town
ordinances.
FY 2006/07 Budget
Fines $200,000
Potential Revenue Sources
/::{f::i:;:}i':?t;?:.'.}:'vn' {..t:ry}:?'J'+>'v}? ..}:k:::?Y1". .•3{: vCwl.
�{ :•;rS,,'.::?}{ti.,t•...}pti•.{`#::?.i:. 33•''•kty',.,{i':..";,in3ty .. :f}
R'":+':ti..{;.}::4:v}?i::i.}}y:.:{;.:�;r{.{..?�(i{:n'}}1:.v.{�{:J,}!.•v:.%}J......n'i'.i:.:Q ../. V'%Ai :N.•...M1 {:
There are a variety of funding mechanisms available to municipalities from Federal, State and
Local sources. This section of the report will focus on revenues which can be raised by the
Town itself. Increasing current tax rates and fees, assessing new taxes and fees, and land
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 4 November 20, 2006
annexations are just a few of available sources. Below is a description of potential revenue
sources, how the revenue is derived, advantages and disadvantages of each, and estimated
revenue amounts.
Property Taxes
The property tax is an important source of local revenue for a majority of Arizona cities and
towns. It has been a traditional means of financing city and town services and is one of the
most stable sources of revenue. Any city or town which wants to initiate a primary property tax
must submit the proposed amount to be raised from the tax to the voters at a May election.
Property tax levies are divided into a primary property tax levy and secondary property tax levy.
The primary property tax levy can be used for any general municipal purpose. The secondary
property tax may only be levied to pay the principal and interest charges on bonds. There are
no limits on the amount of secondary property taxes, while there are strict limits placed on the
primary property tax.
Sample Levy Estimated Revenue Advantages (+)/Disadvantages (-)
Primary: $4,401,109 * + Stable revenue source
$1/$100 valuation + Administered by Pima County
+ Primary tax can be used for any purpose
+ Allows the Town to offer higher level of
service to residents
+ Municipalities may levy both primary and
secondary property taxes depending on the
needs of the community
Secondary: $4,632,117 * - Must be submitted to voters for approval
$1/$100 valuation in a May election, and if approved, does not
take effect until the fiscal year following the
election
- A combined tax rate (including county &
school district assessment) would be
$14.83/$100
- Secondary tax can only be used to retire
debt
- Are subject to constitutional and statutory
limits
* Based on 2006 Assessment Roll from ADOR
Sales Taxes Not Currently Assessed
The Town has the authority to establish certain taxes for revenue purposes. The following are
available options to the Town:
Taxing Source Sample Estimated Advantages (+)/Disadvantages (-)
Tax Rate Revenue
Utility Sales 4% $1,234,815 + Provides much needed funding
Commercial Leases 2% 1,277,657 + Administered by ADOR
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 5 November 20, 2006
Taxing Source Sample Estimated Advantages (+)/Disadvantages (-)
Tax Rate Revenue
Residential Leases 2% $249,475 + Used for any municipal purpose
+ Requires local adoption by Council
Telecommunications 4% TBD - Town residents buy-in
Food for Home 2% 2,505,766 - Cost of doing business in Oro
Consumption Valley becomes expensive
Use Tax 2% unknown - Use taxes are difficult to track and
collect
Franchise Tax
Cities and towns in Arizona have exclusive control over all rights-of-way dedicated to their
municipality which enables the Town to grant franchise agreements to utilities using the Towns
streets in the distribution of their utility services. There is no specific amount or limitation in
State law. The Town has a franchise agreement already in existence with Comcast Cable which
is for 5% of gross sales. Additional funding sources could include agreements with electricity
and natural gas providers as well. An election to approve a new franchise agreement/tax may
be held at any one of the four election dates designated during any year.
Utility Sample Tax Rate Estimated Advantages (+)/Disadvantages (-)
Revenue
Electricity 2% $413,232 + Stable revenue source
+ Ease of administration
+ Terms of agreement can specify
how a fee is distributed amongst
consumers and how its calculated
Gas 2% 206,616 - Franchise agreement cannot be
granted by the Town without a
majority vote in an election
- Franchise fees are typically
passed on to the consumer by the
utility
Existing Tax Percentage Increases
To generate additional revenue, an option available to the Town is an increase in rates to the
already existing tax base. Some cities/towns in Arizona have had great success in having their
communities support an increase in the retail sales tax rates by dedicating this increased
percentage to specific purposes. An example of a successful dedicated revenue source
approved by the voters is in the City of Avondale, a charter city, where the voters there have
approved two 1/2 cent sales tax increases in the past 5 years. In 2001, the voters
overwhelmingly approved the first 1/2 cent sales tax increase dedicated to water, sewer, and
streets improvements. This measure was organized and supported by the City's CIP Committee
composed of 13 citizen members who formed the political action committee (PAC) to advocate
for this issue after seeing the City was millions of dollars behind in funding CIP needs in these
areas.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 6 November 20, 2006
In 2003, the Avondale voters again approved by a wide margin another 1/2 cent sales tax
increase dedicated to funding public safety operations and maintenance and capital needs. This
included police, fire and court costs. This measure was widely supported by the Glendale
Firefighters Union. As a result of these two increases, the local sales tax percentage in
Avondale is now 2.5%.
Taxing Source Current Rate Proposed Rate Incremental Revenue
Retail Sales 2% 2.5% $1,012,555
Restaurants/Bars 2% 2.5% 250,000
Construction 4% 4.5% 619,641
Hotel/Motel (Retail) 2% 2.5% 218,928
I Total $2,101,124
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Time to implement before new commercial - Town residents buy-in
activity comes on line - Cost of doing business/visiting Oro Valley
+ Approval requires ordinance from Council becomes expensive
+ Administered by ADOR
+ Additional tax percentage can be earmarked
for specific purposes
+ Tax burden is spread among residents and
non-residents
Development Impact Fees
Impact fees have become an integral part of local government infrastructure financing. With
the decline of Federal and State grants, impact fees allow municipalities the funding to pay for
public facilities. As many municipalities have a difficult time raising and imposing taxes, impact
fees are beginning to be used for a broader array of municipal facilities, such as public safety,
libraries and parks. The Town currently imposes impact fees on residential building permits,
with the revenue generated used for roadway expansion projects. The table below represents
a comparison to other jurisdictions.
Single Family Residential (per dwelling unit)
P&R Library Public Roads General Other Total
Safety
Gilbert $2,769 $- $1,473 $306 $630 $- $5,178
Marana * 2,142 - - 1,297 2,435 1,467 7,341
Maricopa 303 436 140 3,623 674 - 5,176
Oro Valley - - - 2,920 - - 2,920
Peoria ** 2,368 396 910 6,588 523 - 10,785
Surprise 1,127 266 878 885 314 - 3,470
Yuma - - 485 1,768 322 - 2,575
* represents average fee ** represents North area
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 7 November 20, 2006
Commercial (per sq foot)
Public Safety Roads General Total
Gilbert $0.762 $1.154 $0.333 $2.249
Maricopa 0.210 5.540 0.480 6.230
Oro Valley - - - -
Surprise 2.064 0.410 0.186 2.660
Yuma 1.090 2.464 0.228 3.782
Represents fee for commercial space > 200,000 SF
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ "Growth should pay its own way" - Cost of doing business in Oro Valley becomes
+ Implement before commercial activity expensive
increases
Stormwater Utility Fees
Stormwater utility fees are based on an impervious unit of 5,000 SF. The revenue collected
would assist in the Town's stormwater management program of keeping stormwater clean and
protecting the environment from pollutants accumulated in runoffs. The chart below depicts an
array of stormwater utility fees and an estimate of the potential revenue each would generate
for the Town.
Monthly Fee per Unit $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
Estimated Revenue 570,000 684,000 798,000
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ No longer necessitate funding from the - Town residents buy-in
General Fund
+ Allows for enhancements to the current
program
+ Approval requires ordinance from Council
Community Facilities Districts
Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) allow municipalities the ability to finance public facilities
through the levy of special taxes against the area where services and/or facilities are being
provided. A CFD may be initiated by a petition or through legislative action. The levy of a
special tax and/or authorization to issue bonds for long-term financing requires a favorable two
thirds vote of the registered voters residing within the proposed CFD. Facilities that can be
provided under a CFD include the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any
governmental facilities within the municipality.
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Stable revenue source through the life of the - Before Council can adopt a resolution
bonds declaring the intent to form a CFD, a
+ Significant funding source for large capital petition must be signed by 25% of the
projects property owners within the district
+ Payments collected through assessment of - Once resolution has been adopted,
property tax levy formation of CFD requires 2/3 vote from
+ Limited term residents within the district
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 8 November 20, 2006
Improvement Districts
Improvement Districts are a type of assessment district in which individuals and/or businesses
within a specific area choose to be assessed a fee to improve that area. By pooling private
resources, individuals and business owners collectively pay for activities which they could not
afford on an individual basis. The fee is collected on their behalf by the municipality.
Assessments are levied on individuals and/or businesses on the basis of relative benefit to their
business from the improvements to be funded.
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ District is initiated upon request by - Town administers the fund
individuals/businesses involved - 50% or more of individuals/businesses
+ Town benefits from improvement must be in agreement to form district
without bearing the cost - Term of agreement can last 10 -20 years
Bonds
Bonding is a significant source of revenue for municipalities. Revenue generated from bond
sales must be spent only for the purpose specified in the call for the bond election. The below
discusses the variety of bonds available.
■ General Obligation Bonds: under Arizona law, general obligation bonds can be issued for
general municipal purposes up to an amount not exceeding 6% of assessed valuation.
For Oro Valley, this 6% debt capacity amounts to $27.8 million. Additional GO Bonds
can be issued for specific services such as water, lighting, parks and recreation facilities
and open space up to an amount not exceeding 20% of assessed valuation. With the
recent passing of Proposition 104, the ability to issue bonds for transportation and public
safety facilities is now included in the 20% debt capacity category. For Oro Valley, this
20% debt capacity amounts to $92.6 million.
• Revenue Bonds: this type of bond is used to finance a revenue producing facility. The
bonds are usually secured from revenue produced by the facility for which they were
issued. If these revenues are insufficient to cover the repayment of the bonds, the
municipality is not obligated to provide any tax funds for repayment. This represents a
greater risk to the investor; therefore, revenue bonds have a higher interest rate than
other bonds.
• Street Improvement Bonds: municipalities may also issue bonds for constructing streets
and highways with its jurisdiction. For repayment on this type of bond, the municipality
may use its share of highway user revenues.
• Special Improvement District Bonds: these bonds can be issued by a city or town to
finance improvements in specific areas of the municipality. The property owners
benefiting from the improvements to the area are assessed to cover the cost of retiring
the bonds.
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Significant source of funding for large - Voter approval required for issuance
capital projects - Increases debt
+ The Town has excellent credit rating
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 9 November 20, 2006
Annexations
The annexing of land can greatly benefit the financial structure of a city or town depending on
the specifics of the area such as population and businesses. Once an area has been identified,
the Town estimates the expenditures needed to bring that area up to Town standards as well
as the potential revenue generation. The below identifies annexation projects currently in the
pipeline and their estimated fiscal impact.
Project 1st Year Fiscal 5 Year Fiscal
Impact Impact
Westward Look $450K $2.6M
Foothills Mall/Omni Resort 3.7M 25.2M
State Land (north of Town limits) - -
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Can provide significant funding - Not a simplified process; requires intense
dependent on specifics of area to be paperwork and meeting with residents
annexed - Can require additional Town personnel
+ Stable revenue source (in some cases)
+ Up front costs are minimal
+ Allows Town to plan to higher standards
and control growth
Reduction of Town Services
Another potential revenue source, although not preferable, is a reduction in the level of services
to create additional cash flow. While some services are essential to the safety, operations and
maintenance of a Town, other services are provided to better the quality of life of a community.
Some options to consider in the reduction of service levels are discussed below.
Police Department
The current standard in the Police department of number of officers per thousand residents
equates to 2.04 (based on a population of 44K) with 90 commissioned officers presently on
staff. Based on the Town of Oro Valley population estimates for the next 5 years and in
keeping with this standard, 2-3 officers will need to be added per year. Reducing the standard
to 2.0 officers per thousand residents would relieve the need for additional personnel resulting
in savings of approximately $110k a year, or $540K over a five year period.
Coyote Run
Coyote Run, the locally run, reasonably priced transit service has a staff of 13 employees,
averages 1,458 trips per month for 770 eligible riders. This service is funded by Federal grants,
State Shared revenues, a nominal fee per trip charged to the rider ($4 - $12 roundtrip), and the
remainder supplemented through the General Fund. Throughout the years, the amount funded
through the General Fund has grown due to the expense of this operation and will continue in
years to come. The average cost to operate a one-way route is approximately $25. Increasing
the fares charged to passengers to enable this fund to become self-sufficient would reduce the
drawdown on the General Fund resulting in savings of approximately $370k per year, or $1.8M
over a five year period.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 10 November 20, 2006
Library Services
Part of the expense of Library operations are reimbursed by Pima County through a three year
IGA. These reimbursement rates ranged from 40% to 49% over the past four years. The
Town is currently exploring all options associated with operating the Library after FY 2006/07
when the current IGA with Pima County expires. By releasing the Library operations to Pima
County, the Town could realize savings of approximately $780k per year, or $3.9M over a five
year period.
Parks & Recreation
The Parks & Recreation department offers a variety of programs and services to the community
of Oro Valley. The pool at JDK Park operates from mid-January through mid-November and
hosts over 112,000 visitors per year. The recreation section provides programs, activities and
special events for all ages ranging from fun camps to exercise programs. Over 50 different
programs are offered annually. Savings can be realized by reducing the amount and/or types
of recreation programs offered and shortening the months of operation at the pool. Reducing
the programs by 50% and having the pool open from only April through September could
create savings of approximately $167k per year, or $835k over a five year period.
The above scenarios represent a myriad of potential savings opportunities available to the
Town. Although not desirable options, significant savings are evident as summarized in the
table below.
Department Activity Annual Five Year
Savings Savings
Police Reduce standard of number of officers per $110K $540K
thousand residents from 2.04 to 2.0
Coyote Run Increase fare box revenue to enable fund to 370K 1.8M
be self-sufficient
Library Relinquish operations of Library and turn over 780K 3.9M
to Pima County
Parks Revise pool schedule to operate April through 64K 320K
September only
Recreation Reduce amount and/or types of programs 103K 514K
offered by 50%
Total Approximate Savings $1.4M $7.1M
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Provides funding for other Town services - Reflects negatively on the Town
+ Reduces the amount of additional personnel - Upset residents
required in future years - Displaces current employees
- Affects safety of Town
- Potential liability for Town
Capital Improvement Projects
In FY2006/07, the adopted budget included $1.1M in Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in the
General Fund. This funding will go towards maintaining parks, replacing aging equipment for
the Police force and Information Technology. A percentage reduction in this Plan would
contribute much needed revenue sources to fund other services.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 11 November 20, 2006
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Provides funding for other Town services - Puts the safety and welfare of Town
+ A 50% reduction in CIP would result in residents and employees at risk
$550K savings - As the "pot of money" becomes limited,
departments are less likely to have projects
funded
- Diminishes the value of the CIP process
- Lack of maintenance will create costlier fixes
in the future
Disposal of Property
The Town owns property at 680 W. Calle Concordia which houses many of the Town's
operating departments. Once completion of the Municipal Operations Center is complete, these
departments will transfer operations to the new facility leaving the Calle Concordia site vacant.
Along with this site, the Town also owns 213 acres of vacant land for the future development of
the Naranja Town Site. A portion of this land not used in the Master Plan along with the Calle
Concordia site is real estate the Town could put up for sale.
In addition to the aforementioned sites, the Town also owns 40 acres in the West Lambert Lane
Park that could be offered for sale as well. The potential value would be based on an
appraiser's valuation.
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Property values in Oro Valley are high - The type of usage at the Calle Concordia site
+ Easy, one time transaction could diminish the property's value
- Zoning requirements of sites could reduce
property value
As mentioned above, there are a variety of funding sources available for the Town to consider.
While some of the sources are rather easy to implement, the actual implementation could bring
about ramifications from the community. Some potential sources bring with it significant, stable
revenue generation, but will require approval of the voters to implement.
Town Financing Needs
i k':kv{.vJ{^.^.r•v}:'•�}•r:r::(:i%ti't:'i4?Q?:•`::'Y:v::i:;Y:: •n+:t:::::v'f,{}:{i.;i.}...ivi' •:.AiS:::•i:"4':'T'v'iY>':
.••r,'.,'rx+.t`•'.4..:..•,.a A'{}✓ ;C>ni';'t}`::;\+t+,/.,.;C,.finCG.?.vs<• r.'%:.Ya't. '' ?••'''•%'+."'}'•''r:c:••Y %'r'
Oro Valley's lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of environmental integrity, education,
infrastructure, services, public safety and economic sustainability. In order to remain
responsive to the citizens' needs while maintaining the long-term financial stability of the Town,
considerable amounts of capital outlay will be required. The below table represents funding
requirements deemed necessary for the wellbeing of the Town as a business, as well as a
community.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 12 November 20, 2006
One Time Costs
FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 On Going
Costs
Municipal Operations Center $- $- $10-20M $165K
Steampump Ranch 250K 250K TBD
Honeybee Village 200K - - TBD
Naranja Townsite - - 156M 5M
Kelly Ranch - 10.5M - TBD
Stormwater Utility 114K 110K 110K 887K
Building Safety Reorganization TBD TBD TBD
Increasing Officers/1000 ratio 616K - - 2.2M+
Additional Town Personnel 186.6K 71.2K 71.2K 1.2M+
Creating Procurement Dept 12.5K 20K - 155K+
Creating Risk Management position 5K - - 89K+
Road Maintenance 14M - - -
Pavement Management Program 159.1K 129.1K - -
Asset Replacement Fund 200K 300K 400K -
Electrical Undergrounding 1.5M S.OM - -
Community Relations/Lobbying TBD TBD TBD
Economic Development Efforts TBD TBD TBD
GIS Enhancements 6.5K - - 63K+
Parks & Recreation space needs TBD TBD TBD
Trails Maintenance & Expansion TBD TBD TBD
P&Z Work plan implementation TBD TBD TBD
Council Constituent Relations TBD TBD TBD
Personnel Spacing Needs 99K 82K 82K -
Municipal Operations Center
The Town has acquired 23.7 acres of land for the construction of a Municipal Operations center
to house the Public Works, Water, Transit Services and Parks & Recreation operating
departments. Construction of the building is estimated to begin in FY 2009/2010. This center
will replace the Calle Concordia facility.
Steampump Ranch
Steampump Ranch is the acquisition and restoration of the historic Steam Pump Ranch — the
founding site of the Oro Valley community.
Honeybee Village
Purchase and preservation of sufficient acreage to protect the critical areas of the Honeybee
Village site that are surrounded by planned residential development.
Naranja Townsite
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 13 November 20, 2006
The Town acquired 213 acres of vacant land in 2001 for the development of a recreation area.
The completed site will have a community center, performing arts center, an open area
amphitheater and outdoor recreation and open space.
Kelly Ranch
Kelly Ranch is a privately owned ranch, east of Oracle Rd and south of Tangerine Rd.
Stormwater Utility
Plan, develop and maintain stormwater programs to protect water quality, prevent flooding,
minimize drainage hazards and preserve natural stormwater systems in a manner that ensures
compliance with Federal and State regulations.
Building Safety Reorganization
The Town hired the Matrix Consulting Group to study the processes of the Building Safety
department. There are a number of opportunities for improvement to assist this department in
becoming more efficient and effective.
Increasing Police Standard Ratio
Currently, the Police department has on the force 90 commissioned officers, or 2.04 officers per
thousand residents. In keeping with standards of other reputable communities, the department
has requested for several years to increase the standard to 2.5 officers/1000 residents. To
achieve this level, 21 new officers would need to be hired today.
Adding Town Personnel
As the community of Oro Valley grows, the number of Town employees per capita will need to
increase as well to maintain and protect the welfare of the Town. This includes the 18.5 new
positions approved in the FY2006/07 adopted budget, but not implemented, as well as adding
two police officers per year, keeping with a standard of 2.5 officers per thousand residents.
Implementing Procurement Function
Implementing the recommendations of the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing
(NIGP) will require a change to current procedures and the addition of a Purchasing
Administrator and a Buyer.
Risk Management
Create a position and procedures which oversees the risk management function and safety
training of Town employees.
Road Maintenance Program
Perform preventative and reconstructive work within the Towns roadway system which includes
surface treatments and pavement rehabilitation.
Pavement Management
The staff and software required to implement a pavement management program.
Asset Replacement Fund
The Town has a need to create an asset replacement fund for the replacements of computers,
vehicles, etc.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 14 November 20, 2006
Undergrounding of Electric Lines
For the aesthetics of the Town, burying electrical lines along roadways is a preferable choice.
Roadway projects in the horizon which would benefit from undergrounding of electric lines are
La Canada (from Tangerine to Naranja) in FY 07/08 and Lambert Lane (from Rancho Sonora to
1st Avenue) in FY 08/09.
Lobbying Efforts
It has been requested to determine the lobbying efforts required on behalf of the Town at the
State Legislature, be it hiring additional staff to assume these duties or the hiring of a
consultant(s).
Community Relations
Increase efforts related to improving communication with Town residents regarding Town
issues.
Economic Development Efforts
A development plan which incorporates the recruitment of new businesses, and ombudsman to
existing businesses, and provides continuity with the community's economic goals and vision.
GIS Enhancements
GIS services have become in high demand over the past two years within the Town and the
workload has far surpassed the abilities of one position. Resources are required to assist in
generating maps and analysis, and maintaining data accuracy.
Parks & Recreation Space Needs
As the community requests more and more recreation programs, the problem becomes the
need for space to host the programs. The Parks department leases space from the
Amphitheater School District and storefront property, but these facilities cannot support the
addition of new programs.
Trails Maintenance & Expansion
The Parks department needs to insure the Town's trail plan is implemented and followed as well
as handle trail issues, manage the Adopt-a-Trail program and provide public information, safety
and instructional programs.
Planning & Zoning Work Plan
The activity in Planning & Zoning is steadily increasing due to the vast majority of commercial
activity. To continue the process of guiding the preservation and development of our
community, additional resources will be needed.
Council Constituent Relations
Currently the Town does not have a system for tracking and recording calls from the
community. The ability to track, categorize and respond to citizen concerns in a timely manner
will greatly benefit community relations.
Personnel Spacing Needs
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 15 November 20, 2006
As the number of Town personnel grows to support the functions of operating a community,
the issue becomes a need of spacing. Our current staff levels have our facilities at full capacity.
Until a municipal operations center is built, additional office space is required.
Summary ;
i::j:•j•:i.:'v;iJp":ti'v"'C'.ti+!?F'r:J.t 4i': '•£::•':tr':tl'f.Y,.;:'S•:tif::T::i?Fi•i}ti:•iii:::iv:i:::<iv.
�"::£,•:::'.•:;:•^.:t•..+C\.::.t•t`a..... 2.. ,:;;"4 ,.c.;xk.g;.::::at•:::::...:•...::•:::,::::::.::::.:.•::::::rt:'r'::'r:3::{o;ny;:::::':•::i::t.
'•.:j«,'t.'•:.Ca:7d:5.'•k•;..j:N`:.?:•.`xx..;� ';.•k•jt:+c•°.x'tt+t~.'.'r,�.t••.+.'.•to .::..<.y.?:t•`..,j::j::;tYkY.i:t::t:.::j:::2;`x<•r.:•;.t•x, ij:o:•j:,,:t•S„t•j:i::i:,'!,•'
The Town of Oro Valley uses its many funding resources to balance the needs and welfare of
the community while remaining fiscally sound. It is the Town's responsibility to remain
responsive to citizens' needs, but also be responsible with the financial integrity of the Town.
The funding vehicles in place support a high standard of service and safety, but as the
community demands more, the issue becomes a balance of cost versus service.
To reiterate the earlier revenue chart, 56% of our budgeted revenue of $48.5M comes from
local sales taxes and state shared revenues, and 31% from grant revenue. Each year the
Federal government curtails a number of programs which has revenues available for cities and
towns. In the recent State Legislative session, personal income tax was reduced 10% which
will affect Arizona cities and towns beginning in FY 09/10. The Town has also depended on
construction related activities as a significant source of revenue. In FY 2006/07, construction
related revenue accounted for 21% of the General Fund revenue budget. With such a heavy
reliance on State revenues, grants and one-time revenue sources to support various Town
needs, other resources will be needed to compensate for these shortfalls.
There are a number of opportunities available to assist the Town in financing a higher standard
of service levels. Many revenue sources not currently utilized by the Town can provide ample,
stable revenue. The question then becomes what service levels are the Town residents willing
to accept and what additional services are they willing to financially support.
Town of Oro Valley Fiscal Plan 16 November 20, 2006
.!7,
At
�/d§:
\d\
it,,,,„
.
�y z»
,,
Di.:ma
yr
,,..
r:
„:;::,.:
,,,,,_
1 ,,,,,,, :-.
�\\
'::::,,
�
,,,\/\�
��
I':,,,
\/\
«w�
.,,,y<
�?2
��\
1-
.„,,,,,\.
1.-
CD w
.0
c CO
O CO
GD O 0 >,
> N O a
U •o D , Z .� _ 0 N
m c N c Q)
CO LL- -0 > U 1— c o ca
C N m .� o "E51(/)
N M a) n U
cin
co
a) 2 2 a) w
C• a) L O
O al
p N O
U E a)
L
N
_N
g Q CLT
O 0n (n
O O Q
O cn '( o N •c a) >'
L OL
. 3 48- 2
o O c
Oas c
U A O O
Ci.U .c I— O O
CO o a) ca
m
a >, . 4_4-
N a) m U Q) a)
Eig0)
O O L Q U O .c
O u) w o r n , N
CI O 1.0 c - 200E0P_ 0 = ..._ _ c ,_
a 0 ,a) :8 ci u_ . 1-3.-.. .
,.____ , cn 0 .5 -,3 c. 0
,_ a,
cy, a) = _. 0 u) c
N .._, _„ „i_ . ou() 0 -0
._
cc. cC — U L
'_ N 2 c
_ O a_ coo
> a ' Q U i
E3 " a) = 0 L cn — C =. �' -a) CCS
1(3:: ' (1) C ---.. C
Ct
I— U O = O
tl c = O c�
o U x U
U o N a) as
0 1
I IN
N' N a)
O Tis
o U (n o
--3 V C O C6 LL p N 73 O V) -.
c c
c Rn
� ic
❑O Nr 0o c as
c o a) o
x
O2c a c N
�=�J oo - o >, 2Uc
N U '� L '- 0 • -0 =
ocn »=o — O c
o Z c v
OoacOxa0
E3 (13 u) a)C a U —'♦
C a) a) -0 a) c U c o c,
O
a) > O N(z U ' �c o) a)
L N N N CT C
O
Q a) f- U C CCS H L._
O U O O 00 -0 O
U C� X Ca O N = c (� C x
CO C O '— X C N c 4- CCS CZ
CD cL a) cts o O M U a) 0 X -
--3 L- "-' � cn U O n a) L � c Ca c
O O > O O I— O
N U a) o c +..,
N O U o
0 a) d-
++ O Q) O U O �
N 0 O O 06 N o
07 O �.� N O O cn CCS O o
Cl.) c O O c a) a) p N - O
P.......s. N _ O a) a) 0 -0 = U N
U U' LCL
M C c o o m v c Q Q a)
d p Coc -0cnco .a) �}'
N �- O c N O .O E. m O I— a)
W cn c U
a, O E c D 't �♦ Q 2 C=
C CS
CC-3 C C
N > O
O a)
V O 'c 0
Q
LL > -C CCS U m c
L ', ami O 0 0)ciD
v ^~ •— 0.)
Eg
cU cC1 � c
cm_ co c `- c
❑D N a) c- E c >
I I CD a)
a a) o f
sa
73 ra
4— — u) 0 CO ,...
O L o o >c CD
E E 4D O — U U a) O
N c N -a o
❑I 1 p c p >, CD
-1 1 Z Um as
1 0
o 0 0 0 0c in co o
= o < < < < O O o 0 0 o C) oo O
•
p p N a) a) a) a) N cNi O O N O O O N
> -0 -o -o "0V
a) a) a) a)
V ~ €_c _C _C c
0 0 0 0
CD Cl) Cl) Cl)
T
O \O O\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \3
CO 00 0
N N LnN ONNNNN- O - ,— O
o .-
N N N ND M (Ni (Ni C c6 O O O O
., c
, i
.— -
..
o =
u) m F
i J_ 1a
O O O O O O. O O O O O r O
_ \ \ \ \'\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 O
O Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln N O O
v N N N N N M N N N N N O c5 O O ix
O OI: Z.% i—
o 0 0 0 0
0 S z x N N in �' Ln
4 Ln
in =
1 , F-
'IC o
cn 1 ,
CI
CI.
:)
E � „:::.,
O O o 0 o O O o0 0 0 �o O O o
00000000000000
_ NCU aN N N Ln.N N O N4'd O O O 0 0
0 Eft EP). -o Ln Ln o' C C
2 NNLUO 0
(1) 0 C O N N C C
a
0
VI \ \ �j� \ \ \ � c \ � � W
O O O O O O O O O O IO � O O J
00 M O Ln 00 00 CO 00 C0 00 O N N COo
O O
ALO • L 0 o T- r- D c� \ \ O a)
>, 63 6o W o C Ln Ln \ c C
; ' I C O N (N LU O O
U U O N N c c
.._g
1 i
0 0 0 ,c,::0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0tp-
>, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O
gip —
• cNOOO6c\i66 6d000O ♦c.fi a O O ”oU
w
121 >p Io1— , < NNN COu)
Illk CDMPlu , 1/4.1
■om \ c:*) \ c \^c*: i:. \ \ \ \ \ N
� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o O
0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N },
_ = N 4 O 'd' Ln N N N CO. '• O O O N o o o C
i L- - Ct \ \ E \ c:':' O
> x (Ni N X N N U
3 CO
CI
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIn o X-
C in in 0 Ln;O LU in in LU LU LU 0 N--- Co = O },
" v- .c- Ln Ln r - O x- N- Nr N- r- 0 cU
12
N
I- 0V �- .
o
W > O ") x 0_n
L
0
x I 1 x I i 75 o
a) _O 5 a) I x
co 4 -0
Cl)a) xa) _ Tici CD
a)u) co C c13 >+
coLL- .—,1E u) —ic .9 –92 0 (1) 73 ,--
Hx as X U)ca (.) cU)a C ca t a)D
� (� � .? .2CU U) a) a2 N 0
�c� u) U U cu Q O O0ca Q
-
co
RS L Ca x 1 L RS u)
ti Li_ H O 77)
a 2 o -o ( '�
U 0 a) as IF- _a (a cH a
U
C _ a) c Ecn -DCoEOa) Ua) :_ N 6 a) O a) a) O 0 • a) u)
0551U0°i'c
0u_ 0_ c) D ix it
Rvno 0 0 Sources
Current Revenue Sources
Current FY 2006/2007
Revenue Category Tax Rate Budget _ Process to Change
Local Sales Tax
Retail Sales 2.00% $ 4,050,219 Local Ordinance Change
Construction 4.00% $ 4,957,125 Local Ordinance Change
Hotel/Motel 6.00% $ 1,194,251 Local Ordinance Change
Restaurant/Bars 2.00% $ 1,000,000 Local Ordinance Change
State Shared Revenue
State Sales Tax 5.60% $ 3,712,500 Lobby State Legislature
State Income Tax $ 4,230,000 Lobby State Legislature
Highway User Revenue $ 3,138,500 Lobby State Legislature
Vehicle License Tax $ 1,300,000 Lobby State Legislature
LTAF $ 234,183 Lobby State Legislature
Cable Franchise Fee 5.00% $ 420,000 Specified in Franchise Agreement
User Fees $ 265,000 Local Ordinance Change
Grants $ 7,409,486 NA
Pima County Bonds $ 5,766,059 NA
Building Permit Fees $ 2,367,000 Local Ordinance Change
Development Impact Fees $ 1,489,200 Local Ordinance Change
Court Fines $ 200,000 _ Local Ordinance Change
Potential Revenue Sources
Proposed Estimated
Revenue Category Tax Rate/Fee Revenue Approval Process
Property Taxes
Primary $1/$100 $ 4,401,109 Voter approval
Secondary $1/$100 $ 4,632,117 Voter approval
Sales Taxes Not Assessed
Utility Sales 4.00% $ 1,234,815 Adoption of local ordinance
Commercial Rental Leases 2.00% $ 1,277,657 Adoption of local ordinance
Residential Rental Leases 2.00% $ 249,475 Adoption of local ordinance
Telecommunications 4.00% TBD Adoption of local ordinance
Food for Home Consumption 2.00% $ 2,505,766 Adoption of local ordinance
Use Tax_ 2.00% unknown Adoption of local ordinance
Franchise Tax
Electricity 2.00% $ 413,232 Voter approval
Water 2.00% $ 206,616 Voter approval
An Increase in Existing Local Tax 0.05% $ 2,101,124 Local Ordinance Change
Development Impact Fees TBD TBD Local Ordinance Change
Stormwater Utility Fee/unit $ 2.50 $ 570,000 Local Ordinance Change
Community Facilities District unknown Approval of voters in specific district
Improvement District unknown Approval of voters in specific district
Bonds various Voter approval
Annexation $90K- $25.2M Resident approval
Reduction of Town Services $ 1,400,000 Town Council/Staff
Reduction in CIP Funding -50.0% $ 550,000 Town Council/Staff
Disposal of Town property unknown Town Council/Staff
LEY q,Q/
AeC?:0111111111‘S.)//.
.11141.11111111it..
LINDED
Office of the Town Attorney
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacey Lemos, Finance Director
From: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney; Lexa Mack, Civil Attorney
Date: November 9, 2006
Re: Possible sources of revenue
In response to the need to identify new streams of revenue for the Town, this memorandum has
been prepared to outline the legal requirements for instituting several new taxes and special
taxing districts. The benefit to the Town from each source of revenue is not specifically
examined herein, aside from an assessment of the realities involved in instigating each option.
Property Taxes
Arizona divides property taxes into two categories, primary property tax and secondary
property tax. Property taxes are often referred to as ad valorem taxes, which means any tax based
on the proportional value of something, in this case the property located within the Town.
Primary property taxes are all ad valorem taxes except for secondary property taxes. ARS § 42-
11001(11). Primary property taxes are to be used for any and all general operating expenses of
the municipality. Secondary property taxes are those levied "to pay the principal of and the
interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness or other lawful long-term obligations
that are issued or incurred for a specific capital purpose by a municipality, by or for special
taxing districts and assessment districts other than school districts and community college
districts, or levied pursuant to an election to exceed a budget, expenditure or tax limitation."
ARS § 42-11001(15).
C:\Documents and Settings\slemos.OROVALLEY\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Memo-Revnue.doc
Primary property taxes are subject to constitutional and statutory limits. Under the current
version of Article IX, Section 19 of the Arizona Constitution, a municipality may not levy
property taxes in an amount greater than 2% of the amount they could have levied the previous
year. As Proposition 101 passed, the Constitution will be changed to set the base amount for
property taxes at those actually levied in 2005, with a 2% yearly increase allowed beginning in
2007. Under either version of the constitutional provision, taxpayers may vote to allow taxation
beyond the limitations set forth in this section. ARS § 42-17051 sets forth a formula that
determines the maximum rate of tax a municipality may set for any given year. The results from
the calculations provided by statute determine the maximum amount of taxes that may be
collected within any given jurisdiction, which in turn affects the maximum amount that may be
levied the following year. Municipalities are not required to assess and collect up to the
maximum limit allowed.
In the case of a municipality that has not previously levied a primary property tax, such
as Oro Valley, the issue must be submitted to the voters for approval. ARS § 42-17056. If
approved, the tax amount submitted to the voters becomes the base for determining the
maximum tax for subsequent years. The issue of instituting a primary property tax is a May
election ballot issue and if approved, takes effect the fiscal year following the election. The
specific process of ordering the election mirrors the process for a bond election, beginning with
the Council adopting a resolution ordering an election be held no later than thirty(30) days from
the election.
Secondary property taxes have no constitutional or statutory limits on the amount that
may be levied. However, as stated above, secondary property taxes may only be used for very
specific purposes. While primary property taxes may be put towards general operating costs,
secondary property taxes may only be used to retire the principle and interest on bonded debt a
municipality has previously incurred. In addition, although the amount of secondary property
p Y
taxes levied may not be limited, the amount of indebtedness a municipality may incur through
g
bonds is by the Arizona Constitution. Similarly, while levying a secondary property tax does not
require approval by the voters, issuing and redeeming bonds does require an election.
Municipalities may levy both primary and secondary property taxes depending on the
needs of the community. Essentially the institution of either would require some form of an
election, whether approving the primary property tax or the issuance of bonds which would be
Page 2 of 9
later followed by the levy of a secondary property tax. Primary property taxes must conform to
the limitations set forth by the law, while the only restriction on secondary property taxes is the
amount of debt previously incurred by a municipality through bonds.
Use Tax
A use tax is essentially a sales tax charged on items bought outside a taxing authority's
jurisdiction, but used, consumed or stored within the jurisdiction. By statute, use tax rates are to
be set at the same rate as the sales tax. ARS § 42-5115. For example, the state currently levies a
5.6% sales tax, as well as a 5.6%use tax on purchases of tangible personal property made
outside the state. Municipalities may also impose a use tax on items purchased outside of the
municipal taxing jurisdiction. The provisions for doing so are contained in the Model City Tax
Code at Article VI.
Within the Model City Tax Code, there are several exceptions to the use tax which
include items less than $1000, charges for delivery, installation, or other customer services,
charges for repair services, separately itemized charges for warranty, maintenance, and service
contracts, and several others contained in the Code. Additionally, if a municipal sales tax was
charged on the item by another jurisdiction, the use tax does not apply. There are also several
Model and Local Options included in the use tax exemptions section of the Code, which afford
municipalities the opportunity to tailor the use tax to their needs. Several municipalities in
Arizona impose a use tax, but almost as many do not. The benefits to doing so are encouraging
purchases within the municipality and increasing revenue. Use taxes are typically difficult to
track and collect, which is a factor for many jurisdictions when deciding whether or not to
impose the tax.
In order to institute a use tax, the governing body of a municipality must adopt the
portions of the Model City Tax Code that apply to use tax. This would entail the adoption of the
applicable Local or Model Options within the code by ordinance. There is no state law
requirement for a public hearing on the matter of instituting a use tax, nor a requirement for an
election. ARS § 42-6006 provides a municipality may submit the issue of a use tax or similar
taxes or fees to the voters, but imposes no such requirement. The Oro Valley Town Code does
require a public hearing prior to the adoption of any ordinance. OVTC Section 2-5-3. Since the
Town uses the Arizona Department of Revenue to collect its taxes, notification of the use tax
Page 3 of 9
adoption would need to be sent to the Department 60 days prior to the effective date to allow for
proper collection. Other notice would need to be sent to the Municipal Tax Commission and the
League of Arizona Cities and Towns should the Council adopt the use tax.
Franchise Fees
Municipalities may enter into franchise agreements with public utilities operating within
the city or town that specify how the utility will conduct business. Public utilities include gas,
electric and water providers. Telecommunications providers are governed under a different
statutory scheme that is addressed below. Included within franchise agreements may be what is
referred to as a"franchise fee" or "franchise tax" that is essentially a fee for the use of municipal
right-of-way. Presently, the Town of Oro Valley does not have a franchise agreement with any
utilities. Besides lost revenue, the town is also lacking a uniform approach to how these
companies will provide services, how new delivery systems will be established and who is
responsible for repairs to streets and sidewalks when they must be cut into for repairs.
Implementation of franchise agreements is somewhat complicated. Under A.R.S. §9-
501,
a franchise agreement cannot be granted by the town without a majority vote in a regular or
special election. Because these agreements are, overall, a positive step for any municipality, it is
very rare to see an agreement fail at election according to sources at both major utilities (SWG
and TEP). Franchise fees are typically passed on to the consumer by the utility, which is in part
why an election is required prior to a municipality granting a franchise. The terms of the
franchise agreement, however, may specify how a franchise fee is distributed amongst
consumers and how it is calculated, i.e. per bill amount or per usage. The duration of a franchise
agreement may be no longer than twenty-five (25) years. ARS § 9-502(E).
The process begins with Oro Valley staff members negotiating with the major utilities
and drafting agreements. The agreements would then be presented to the Council. Upon the
Council's approval, the agreements would be put up for a vote. After passage, the franchise
agreements become effective as to the town and the various utilities.
As previously stated, telecommunication providers are governed by a different set of
statutes than other public utilities. A municipality may not require a telecommunications
provider have a franchise or license, but may enter into franchise or license agreements with
telecommunication providers if done on a competitive basis. ARS §§ 9-501(B), 9-5 83(A)(B). In
Page 4 of 9
addition, municipalities may not charge the same types of fees normally associated with
franchise agreements. For example, a municipality may charge a telecommunications provider a
fee for placing underground facilities within public highways if the provider supplies both
interstate and intrastate services, but may only charge the fee for the portion of the facility
related to interstate services. ARS § 9-583(C). Collecting franchise fees from
telecommunications providers in Arizona has been difficult if not impossible. Should a franchise
agreement be negotiated with Qwest, for example, it would still be subject to the statutory
election requirements that affect all franchise agreements.
Notwithstanding Arizona law, the federal Telecommunications Act and judicial
interpretations thereof have made it practically impossible for municipalities to enter into
franchise agreements that include a fee with telecommunications providers. The case law that has
developed in this area is voluminous, and more or less boils down to one point: the federal law
preempts any state or local law that allows for the assessment of franchise fees. Realistically
speaking, franchise agreements with electric, gas and water providers are far more like to be
viable sources of revenue than telecommunications franchises.
Special taxing districts
Municipalities have several options under ARS Title 48 for raising revenue through
bonds for public improvements and community facilities. There is a constitutional limit on
certain bonds in that municipalities may only incur indebtedness up to 6% of the taxable property
within the municipality without the assent of a majority of the property taxpayers. Upon a
majority vote of the electorate, a municipality may incur additional debt up to 15 %of the
taxable property value, or up to 20%to supply water, light and sewers and to acquire land for
parks and preserves. There is currently a ballot proposition that would include acquisition and
development of public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency facilities and streets and
transportation facilities in the 20% debt limit, upon voter approval.
General Public Improvements and Improvement Bonds
Under §§ ARS 48-571 et. seq., municipal governments may create general public
improvement districts for the purpose of constructing and/or improving roadways, tunnels or
subways, sidewalks and related structures, sewers and other drainage/waterway related
structures, lighting apparatus, off-street parking areas and/or pedestrian malls. The Council must
Page 5 of 9
first provide notice of their intent to order an improvement, either by resolution or ordinance. If
the Council determines the improvement will have more than public benefit, they may create an
improvement district to which the costs of the improvement will be charged. The municipality
cannot assess the costs of the project that have a general public benefit, but may assess a portion
of the costs deemed to benefit the property contained in the district.
The resolution of intention must then be published. Within fifteen(15) days of the final
publication, a majority of the property owners that front the proposed improvement, or in the
case of a district the owners of a majority of the property contained within the district, may make
a written protest that is to include a description of the property and the amount of frontage owned
by each person protesting. A protest duly filed will act as a bar for six (6) months on any further
proceedings in making the contemplated improvements. This bar may be overcome, however, if
the owners of one-half of the property encompassed by the improvement file a request to have
the work completed. In the case of an improvement district, a majority of the property owners
within the district may file a protest as to the work or as to the proposed assessment for the work.
If a protest is filed as to the assessment, the Council must then hold a hearing on the objections at
which their decision to either modify or affirm the assessments proposed is final. If the
assessments or boundaries of the district are modified, a new resolution of intent must be passed
and published as described above. Once the protest time has passed with either no objections
having been filed or with the Council having found the objections to be insufficient, the Council
must adopt a resolution ordering the improvements and/or establishing the improvement district.
In order to pay for the upfront costs of any improvement ordered by a municipality,
bonds may be issued and then paid off through special assessments. Should this be the intention
of the Council upon deciding to undergo an improvement,the resolution of intent must include
information regarding the issuance of bonds. All monies generated through the issuance of bonds
must be kept in a separate fund to be used for the designated improvement only. All assessments
collected must also be kept separately, and used only for the purpose of paying the interest and
principal of the improvement bonds.
General Improvement Fund and Investment Bonds
ARS §§ 48-631 et. seq. grants municipalities the authority to incur bonded indebtedness
to create a"general improvement fund". Funds raised through these bonds may be invested in
any bonds issued for public improvements, the cost of which will eventually be paid through
Page 6 of 9
special assessments. An election must be held to determine is such bonds should be issued,
which is instigated by a resolution ordering a special election. The resolution must include such
information as the proposed used of the proceeds of the bonds, the amount of principal, the rate
of interest and fix the date of the election. After the Council passes a resolution, it must then be
published and posted. Bonds issued under these provisions must be payable between 10 and 20
years in length, issued in denominations between $100 and $1000, and signed by the Mayor and
the Clerk.
Community Facilities Districts
ARS §§ 48-701 et. seq. provides that municipalities may form community facilities
districts for the purpose of making public infrastructure improvements. Public infrastructure
improvements include planning, designing, constructing, acquiring, renovating, converting,
improving and/or installing sanitary sewage systems, water systems, drainage systems, public
roadways, multi-use pathways, public buildings, lighting systems, traffic systems and other
similar projects. Upon deciding public convenience and necessity require such improvements,
and upon receiving a petition signed by 25% of the property owners in the proposed district, the
Council must adopt a resolution declaring its intention to form a community facilities district.
Prior to adopting the resolution, a general plan for the district needs to be filed with the Town
Clerk describing the general area included in the district and the improvements proposed.
Upon passage of the resolution of intent, the Clerk must send notice to all property
owners within the proposed district that a public hearing on the matter will be held, as well as
posting notice in the newspaper. Property owners have until 5:00 pm the day preceding the
hearing to file a written objection with the Clerk. All written objections will be heard at the
public hearing and the Council shall decide whether to form the district or not, or to modify the
boundaries or general plan for improvements. The Council will order the forming of the district
by resolution which shall state whether the district will be governed by the Council, ex officio, of
if a governing board shall be appointed. If the total area of the district shall be 600 acres or more,
the board shall consist of five (5) appointed members to be determined by the Council, as well as
the length of there appointments. Upon passage of the resolution, the Council submits the issue
for a vote by the property owners affected by the formation of the district.
Once a community facilities district is formed, the district board may decide to issue
bonds to fund public infrastructure improvement projects. Under the statutory provisions
Page 7 of 9
governing community facilities districts, the board may issue general obligation bonds, revenue
bonds, special assessments, or secondary property taxes.
General Obligation Bonds
General obligation bonds may be issued by the district governing body to provide
funding for any public infrastructure improvement included in the general plan for the district. In
order to issue general obligation bonds, the governing body must order an election to submit the
issue to the qualified electors of the district. The election may occur at the same time as the
formation election, if it is known at that time that general obligation bonds will be issued.
Thereafter, secondary property taxes are levied against the district property to pay off the interest
and principal on the bonds. These funds are to be kept separately from general operating funds of
the district.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds may be issued for any public infrastructure purpose within the district
general plan and then paid off with sales tax revenues generated by the district. Revenue bonds
may be issued at any time after the district is formed, provided the governing body holds a public
hearing and approves the issuance of the bonds by resolution. No district wide election is
required for the issuance of revenue bonds. Since these bonds are not considered a debt of the
district or municipality, the constitutional limit on public indebtedness does not apply. Statutory
provisions of this article also state that no holder of a revenue bond may compel exercise of the
taxing power of the district or municipality to pay the bonds or interest thereof.
Special Assessments
The governing board of a community facilities district may issue special assessment
bonds for public infrastructure improvements in the same manner as described above for general
improvements. The board may order a special assessment by resolution. No election on the bond
issue need occur, but time must be given for property owners to object to the assessment and
hearings must be held on any objection filed with the Town Clerk. These bonds are paid for by
the levying of a secondary property tax on the property within the district.
District Taxes
The governing board of a community facilities district may simply decide to assess
property taxes to pay for the public infrastructure improvements designate under the general
plan. In order to accomplish this, an election must be held on the issue of whether to levy the
Page 8 of 9
r
property tax. At a maximum, a tax of this type may only be equal to $0.30 per$100 of the
assessed value of all real and personal property in the district unless a higher rate is approved by
the voters.
Page 9 of 9
r-,-_
6 , 4
..
....,,,",.............'-
• . ' 41 ,
t
,ri ,r • ' ...,
Ilk,
,..
'
,.
. '.,.
• -, . ,„,
... .. , ,.. . .
P ,.,,,P.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<•,,,„- 1
1171
iiiiimil
, - :1•,. ---4.4Ztio.., v. __
E *
0,
(11/1)
_
, .....„,
...„.„,.., .
.w.....
, ..,
=
, a
(III)
,
.,( , , 0
, , - •P
X • 4,0!". !,;-:
0
in . ..., ,.... ,..
• C #'t. ::,-,,„,e.„ , 7" c i ,-- -, = , -- 7r
*.a.0100 ,, r-
.
CIJ z ,..: , :...:\,,,, , m
m , -',,,,,' ',,,, ,',P,:,,.,.. , .<
0 i \ , iiimmh
r _ . - :::::',.-..,*17.•
.....„.
° il' \-',.:\‘;,,,,,,,,c;;;;„4„ -.:.
' '
NJ
:. ,
,-..
...,9
-
ammit
Ns)
CI
. =0
illitill)
'i Et
CiN 111111.1111111
CI)2
ct)
L,.....0 . %<
... .;...
4._
-c- _
t
. _.
. .....
1*
, .
; . .
'111P Ii
• ' ,
Mil
1111111M. III
En
r/
CV
'4,-.19{-.19 /Gro/ : ,moi' �,
%
?0 4°,9%46;7 J
411—'s miCP
4.fai 41 s ,...?
•J J� � �, 1. :, ,,,,:^
..,
* .14..,,,,i, , =
* HI lit) n
c
0 0
= .....1
r-i- ....1
0,„) * a) (11D
r-t- =
= =
O.. 71 (-1-
-■
(-110 IIIIIIIIIIIIIINI■
= Cii)
* 0)
X (1)
CD =
(1)
nri)
* _■
= ("D
c
0) n = (ID
c
Ft 2 (ND (i)ri- CD 00 CD (f)
c
CI 0 ....1
0.)
u) c r)
rem) ..1aln n v)
0 rip3 v)
L .....___ ______„.
..„__ ...44 4 •••,4
moms■
V) . -
=1.. :'
o ,,,
■NI) o 114, >i+
...... I Oki
\ t l f
11/4
1:„.*s
\,
• • • • 0
GI) C (-)
(f) r-
.7 r* 0 ri)
CU CD= _,..7 � n
r-1- (ID (ID CD C
V) .....1
CD 71 cn (i) ...1
D'" 0)CD -
(i) 0) CU
CD
= -, r1
n
CD
cn
cn= Q. H X
......•
CD XIX CD
CD t".1)
71 <
CD
CD (ID
CD = =
C) C C
CD (ID
• -T1S • • (i)
ri) CD
(D 0 CO "1-0 0Q
& CD c • c 3
C ___•—
rt- -n
CD Q. CD r)
t- - -•
-n 0 = (..) (D
_. -0 to
O t1)
CD 3 -0 c
CD CD
= __is cr1 r1
r-t 3 .<
-
� —• oo
3 0
CU
-0 _
- -4
lQ. 4 -(D V) i
r)
, „
. ,
,..
.„
fir/ p
/ r. 4.
r
1 if;;
�t
10 ; 1
� ' Ili
�,l ,
4 .
• • fb . • • > • • .**;
n (r) o n M 71 (f) v) -CI 1
0 fl-
(D --1 xCD MI(D
3 o
, < (1) _•
cl) v) ou
= u) (D -0
3 ai (i) MIMI=M n (in (I)
m m -C1
c * 0
p al =
co m-
........• ci. --I P- 0
= o) (I) cu .<
r-l- 3 —1 al x r-i-
-Z al
_.., a) u) al —i (D
—i
= x
0) x(/) 0)
m c r-1-
n •
• `Ca) -r `—' X Icml� prt (I) �
-•• iliz mu n
m ri)
cl)
a(/) � rny. r�-ra) ,
, 73
0 al (D
71 to
_.• (i) =
(i) (D [D rt
r-1- (D
V) %< (1)
F). =
• • • • • • (0
__,•
o n 70 m � o � (/)
(i) -0
--c3 0_ = = p 0
o -0 c (D a_ ,
(i) nx m o
fl' -6'. O sa): CD n
o
cto = 0 3 (D
-.1,1 r-t- = (D
(f) 0 V) (1)
10 -h =
"V� o 0
(D * -,•
= r-r
'Z'
c (i) n'
• . . . •
n -0
Z i m
1--1
CD -• 0,)
i,
--c) .....1 CIJCf)...
n
-TI(n ......•
0 .2 0 r-t- -,•.(n
(ID = -•
r) al =
o_ rip
-0
0)
(l) _'(1) = fa,i) ...1
...... r-1-
-• ......•
1-1 .....1n (I) _
2 = CD n
..
(1)
CD .....1
(1) CD
, =
co
0.. 0) <
(1 (ti pi
al c -
._•
(f) 0
(ND
rD = (1D
Q.
v)_•
(i'D
I
CD
CD
(l)
1
,. .
, "V cgel, •
44:1(N 11Y *.:*
04;31s>:', :.
t 1/,';1,Z
ilitt44- '
,.1:::
i
04)0
'�y
:1: ',. '. 41(''' "T. \
....-s,
ti`r
+A 1f
4
_1-r
_if ,
I I I I I ►+�.J
-n (D X (D -I 7:J
o
(1) 0 0 V) 0
(D'V 1":12) CD (I) 71),(D �
D'
CU
=I)
0--- =
ri" -I =
rim'
Q) =
(D CI) (D
(D ...1
CD
LO CZ:
0
CD
CD C Q) `C 0
n 0
el
cu
Q) n
Q)
p n
,i_l
CD-a el � �(D
73C
a- V)
CD Q) (D � CD
C7
(D-
D'"
n CU
DI" CT
CD CD
0
"a � (ri
-
CD
0 CD � ....1r-1-
0
= _.,1
rD
al
C:1; (D_
CU ...........
D
C n ca.
(& r
.,
V
VVV
C —.
xi _i.(1) i, O p,
E-J-..
o FtFr-
r-t
C'D C... `C CD
CDCt_
--s D rt: 71CD
• rt. -- CD (f)(i)
r-f- (1) r-r
—I o2
Q.)
0) —
X CD -H 3
et)(f) X
H ti)
CD r-t Emmy
X (D
r-1-
CD
tin
%<
n Q DQD n O1,7 G) �. :_ci gh Eci RI
6- crii),Q° ccn � O -h
3
z ms — = 0- el n En 0
_..., 171
'Cs r": rl .0 Z CD p
CD O _ cD
—h �° CD cn c0 2
—• cD Ni)
cw n
3 n (f) el CI)
0 ... 73 — 0 m V) 2 C'D CI) ci) 0 r-t 0
DCD
CD
_11 a= n O V). O—h CD (-itD C aT H --%
' —O - �.
-+, n• D � % C-
-, CD
I -o c
0OCD CDrrt . 04CD n ' ('DI ; (-t: 0
-.< CD T1 c O ice. 10
rD
CD r* — .q ca, ii) n -T O
0 IST 1-71nCD 4,
o\
a) _.•
_ 0 = Q) --h
ir
CD (1) 0 ' t
CD � �'' %, J, I, '' ''' '' ti
r* rn
r
(i) E"
tCh
3 rl
0
0 (-)
cl.) =
....1
0
3
cL
t I)
5 c
Q)
n a)
r)
(-) --1
--1 :<7 c c ej,<
(Di LO
t� Cn
CI) (7"
73 -t0
ginwin.
2
Can
CO
0 Ms
emir.
mai
co
CU
emar.
x (7)
( 11)
UM
•<
Q) < c
� o . . . 0 z O DEs� � rn
C13
9° ") = 5
(1 2,t 52° s.- --1 L_.•
3
� n� 0
o 0 0 0 �' 0
� o• � a-I
0 nn0 0 _,,=. al (D
CD
Fi'
•�
= 3
90
� � CD 747
Cp p r-r52°(f) � p--h *
� � � =
3
cn �, �G = � 0 o � X cin
a-
_41 CI
0
0
z 5 n n
si
..,,,,„,
c -0 0
= 3 0 =
07:
--1 t i o) rD
c
Fi" n) rD (14-
< ms
= (to 3
0)
_. ._.‘ <
%,‹ z
cc, ,= x 0- -0
0
to00
0
iii
___
°
..___.,.Lo
�� � � �.;�•"7 � ,. �
om'`S3 ,' ! Q
,Cp = CD � �
..,•
,� � ,om a .,..-1 ON a :4 er\