Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1024)         AGENDA  ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION MARCH 6, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Town Council, the Council may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.        REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   COUNCIL 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   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS   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.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members   2.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Financial Update through December 2018   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - February 20, 2019   B.Resolution No. (R)19-08, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Oro B.Resolution No. (R)19-08, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Pima County for the funding of traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program   C.Resolution No. (R)19-09, authorizing and approving an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Phoenix Police Department and the Town of Oro Valley Police Department for the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force   D.Approval to amend the 2019 Council Liaison assignments by adding a Council Liaison to the Budget and Finance Commission   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)19-04, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 21 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND SHORE CLIFF DRIVE   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-10, PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE WATER RATES FOR THE ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY   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 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: 2/27/19 at 5:00 p.m. by pp 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. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for 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. If you 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 and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience”, which item number and topic you 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 step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please 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. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members Information Subject Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members Summary Historic Preservation Commission Eric Thomae June 2013 - December 2018 Louis Hiett May 2018 - December 2018 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Adam Wade September 2014 - December 2018 Thomas Carle January 2015 - December 2018 Tim Overton January 2016 - October 2018 Joseph Erceg January 2017 - June 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Greg Hitt June 2018 - December 2018 Charlie Hurt January 2015 - December 2018 Don Cox January 2017 - December 2018 Thomas Drzazgowski September 2012 - December 2018 Stormwater Utility Commission Frederick Wayand January 2015 - December 2018 David Parker January 2013 - December 2018 Water Utility Commission Thomas Kibler January 2016 - September 2018 Bill Leedy January 2017 - September 2018 Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Financial Update Through December 2018 Information Subject Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Financial Update through December 2018 Summary Attachments Council Communication - December 2018 Financial Update  Attachment A - General Fund  Attachment B - Highway Fund  Attachment C-1 Community Center Fund  Attachment C-2 Troon Cash Flow  Attachment C-3 Troon F&B  Attachment D - Water Utility Fund  Attachment E - Stormwater Utility Fund  Attachment F - Summary All Funds  Attachment G - Gen Fund Local Sales Tax  Town Council Regular Session Meeting Date: 03/06/2019 Requested by: Stacey Lemos Submitted By: Wendy Gomez, Finance Department: Finance Information SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2018/19 Financial Update through December 2018 RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the General Fund (see Attachment A), revenues collected through December totaled $19.3 million or 49.6% of the budget amount of $38.9 million. Year-to-date expenditures through December totaled $18.7 million or 44.7% of the budget amount of $42.0 million. In the Highway Fund (see Attachment B), revenues collected through December totaled $1.8 million or 44.2% of the budget amount of $4.1 million. Year-to-date expenditures through December totaled $1.4 million or 29.5% of the budget amount of $4.6 million. In the Community Center Fund (see Attachments C-1, C-2 and C-3), revenues collected through December totaled $3.0 million or 44.4% of the budget amount of $6.7 million. Year-to-date expenditures through December totaled $3.1 million or 47.3% of the budget amount of $6.6 million. In the Water Utility Fund (see Attachment D), revenues collected through December totaled $11.6 million or 59.1% of the budget amount of $19.6 million. Year-to-date expenditures through December totaled $9.8 million or 47.8% of the budget amount of $20.5 million. In the Stormwater Utility Fund (see Attachment E), revenues collected through December totaled $706,156 or 20.7% of the budget amount of $3.4 million. Year-to-date expenditures through December totaled $506,472 or 15.1% of the budget amount of $3.4 million. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Attachment A shows General Fund revenues and expenditures through December, as well as year-end estimates for each category. The estimated year-end projections in the General Fund are as follows: Revenues $38,514,181 Less: Expenditures ($40,732,534) Estimated Decrease in Fund Balance ($2,218,353)* *The estimated decrease in fund balance is due to the planned, budgeted transfer of General Fund one-time surplus funds earned in FY 2017/18 to the Capital Fund for future capital projects per the Town's adopted financial policies. General Fund Revenues  Local sales tax collections in the General Fund total $9.9 million or 50.8% of the budget amount of $19.4 million, and are projected to come in on budget at this time. Please see Attachment G for a monthly tracking of General Fund local sales tax collections, including construction, utility and bed tax collections.  License and permit revenues total $1.0 million or 47.2% of the budget amount of $2.1 million, and are projected to come in on budget at this time.  State shared revenues total $5.8 million or 49.6% of the budget amount of $11.7 million, and are projected to come in on budget at this time.  Charges for services revenues total $1.3 million or 52.2% of the budget amount of $2.4 million. These revenues are estimated to come in over budget by about $89,000 or 3.7%. This anticipated overage is due in part to previously collected Court security fees, which are being utilized to complete the security-related components of the Courthouse remodel CIP project. The corresponding expenditure for these components is included in the year-end estimate for General Administration. The overage is also attributable to farebox revenues and zoning & subdivision fees.  Federal grant revenues total $206,604 or 34.7% of the budget amount of $596,162. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $127,000 or 21.2%, due to previous Counter Narcotics Alliance task force officers returning to the Town's Police Department operations.  State grant revenues total $37,854 or 31.9% of the budget amount of $118,800. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $44,000 or 36.9%, due mainly to budgeted funding for transit van cameras, of which the Town ended up receiving last fiscal year. The corresponding budgeted expenditure for the cameras has been removed from the year-end estimates for the Transit Division in the Public Works Department.  Other intergovernmental revenues total $643,115 or 35.6% of the budget amount of $1.8 million. These revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $400,000 or 22.2%. Of this amount, $224,000 is attributable to the discontinued school resource officer contract with Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, as well as capacity that was included for a potential school resource officer at Leman Academy. This variance is offset by a corresponding reduction in estimated personnel expenditures for the Police Department. The remaining amount is attributable to Transit reimbursements from the IGA with the Regional Transportation Authority.  Interest income revenues total $231,534 or 154.4% of the budget amount of $150,000. Potential fluctuation in these revenues should be expected; therefore, the year-end estimate remains on budget at this time.  Miscellaneous revenues total $150,974 or 49.2% of the budget amount of $306,750. These revenues are expected to come in over budget by about $87,000 or 28.5%, due to insurance recoveries and sale of assets.  Please note that the remaining fund balance from the Bed Tax Fund of $617,856 is now reflected in the beginning fund balance for the General Fund, as opposed to a transfer into the fund. General Fund Expenditures  General Fund expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $1.3 million or 3.0%. Of this amount, about $590,000 is due to estimated personnel savings and about $360,000 is attributable to estimated operations & maintenance (O&M) savings. Capital outlay is expected to come in over budget by about $30,000. This slight overage is due entirely to the use of Court security fees for the Courthouse remodel CIP project, as referenced in the revenue discussion above. The remainder of expenditure savings is due to an estimated reduction in the transfer out to the Highway Fund, which is the result of an increase in expected highway user (HURF) revenues. Please refer to the Highway Fund discussion below. The General Fund is expected to end the fiscal year with a total fund balance of about $14.4 million, or 35.3% of projected expenditures. HIGHWAY FUND Highway Fund Revenues  State shared highway user funds total $1.7 million or 52.6% of the budget amount of $3.3 million. These revenues are estimated to come in over budget by about $328,000 or 10.0%, per the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. This is due to a one-time allocation called for in state statute, as well as partial elimination of the annual HURF sweep to fund Department of Public Safety operations.  As a result of the additional HURF funding, the subsidy transfer from the General Fund has been reduced by approximately $328,000.  State grant revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $38,000 or 23.2%. This is due to vacant roadway construction positions that, when filled, would have been billed to PAG and the RTA for reimbursement. This variance is offset by a corresponding reduction in personnel expenditures.  License and permit revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $15,000 or 30.8%, based on year to date collections. Highway Fund Expenditures  Highway Fund expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by about $329,000 or 7.1%. Of this amount, $250,000 is attributable to the Tangerine/1st Avenue Safety CIP project, which is expected to roll over into next fiscal year. Approximately $65,000 is attributable to projected personnel savings, while the remaining amount of about $14,000 is due to anticipated O&M savings. The Highway Fund is expected to end the fiscal year with a fund balance of about $720,000. COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Attachment C-1 shows the consolidated financial status of the Community Center Fund with all revenues and expenditures from Troon and Town-managed operations. Attachment C-2 shows the monthly line item detail for the Troon-managed operations, specifically revenues and expenditures associated with the golf, food and beverage operations. The totals in the revenue and expenditure categories in Attachment C-2 tie to the Contracted Operating Revenues and Expenditures in Attachment C-1. Attachment C-3 shows the revenues and expenditures for the Troon-managed food and beverage operations only. Community Center Fund Revenues  Revenues in the Community Center Fund total nearly $3.0 million or 44.4% of the budget amount of $6.7 million. Contracted operating revenues from Troon total $1.4 million and Town operating revenues total $433,339. Local sales tax revenues from the dedicated half-cent sales tax total $1.1 million or 47.6% of the budget amount of $2.4 million.  Local sales tax revenues are estimated to come in over budget by about $35,000 or 1.5%, due mainly to restaurant/bar collections.  Town operating revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $135,000 or 11.9%. This is due to tennis revenues, which were budgeted as recreation program revenues pending final contract outcome. These revenues will instead post as monthly rental payments to the Town. Please reference the offsetting savings in the expenditure discussion below.  Contracted operating revenues from Troon are estimated to come in under budget by about $22,000 or 0.7%, due to member dues and food and beverage revenue. Community Center Fund Expenditures  Expenditures in the Community Center Fund total $3.1 million or 47.3% of the budget amount of $6.6 million, and are estimated to come in under budget by roughly $240,000. This variance is primarily due to contract payments that were budgeted for tennis operations. As mentioned in the revenue discussion above, tennis operations will instead be accounted for as monthly rental payments to the Town. The remaining expenditure variance is due to estimated savings in contracted operating expenditures. The Community Center Fund is projected to end the fiscal year with a surplus of about $200,000 and a positive fund balance of $134,000. WATER UTILITY FUND  Revenues in the Water Utility Fund total $11.6 million or 59.1% of the budget amount of $19.6 million, and are projected to come in on budget at this time. Expenses total $9.8 million or 47.8% of the budget amount of $20.5 million. Expenses are estimated to come in under budget by about $890,000 or 4.3%. Of this amount, $840,000 is attributable to CIP project cost savings and/or planned project delays, while the remaining $50,000 is due to anticipated personnel savings. STORMWATER UTILITY FUND  Revenues in the Stormwater Utility Fund total $706,156 or 20.7% of the budget amount of $3.4 million. Revenues are expected to come in under budget by $2,000,000 due to grant funds for the Catalina Ridge channel repair CIP project, which will roll over into next fiscal year. Expenses total $506,472 or 15.1% of the budget amount of $3.4 million. Expenses are estimated to come in under budget by about $2,050,000 or 61.3%. Of this amount, $2,000,000 is attributable to the Catalina Ridge CIP project, while the remaining $50,000 is due to anticipated personnel savings. All revenue and expenditure estimates are subject to change. Please see Attachments A and B for additional details on the General Fund and Highway Fund. See Attachments C-1, C-2 and C-3 for additional details on the Community Center Fund. See Attachment D for additional details on the Water Utility Fund and Attachment E for additional details on the Stormwater Utility Fund. See Attachment F for a fiscal year-to- date consolidated summary of all Town Funds. See Attachment G for a breakdown of monthly local sales tax collections for the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information only.   ATTACHMENT A December YTD Financial Status General Fund % Budget Completion through December --- 50.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: LOCAL SALES TAX 9,878,234 19,437,418 50.8% 19,437,418 0.0% LICENSES & PERMITS 1,008,004 2,136,096 47.2% 2,136,096 0.0% FEDERAL GRANTS 206,604 596,162 34.7% 469,607 -21.2% STATE GRANTS 37,854 118,800 31.9% 75,000 -36.9% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 5,812,343 11,708,575 49.6% 11,708,575 0.0% OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 643,115 1,805,900 35.6% 1,405,460 -22.2% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,257,135 2,408,862 52.2% 2,497,925 3.7% FINES 60,302 120,000 50.3% 120,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 231,534 150,000 154.4% 150,000 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 150,974 306,750 49.2% 394,100 28.5% TRANSFERS IN - 120,000 0.0%120,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 19,286,099 38,908,563 49.6% 38,514,181 -1.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2,036,517 4,450,555 45.8% 4,333,676 -2.6% CLERK 200,479 444,559 45.1% 414,826 -6.7% COMMUNITY & ECON. DEV. 1,237,860 2,869,324 43.1% 2,743,269 -4.4% COUNCIL 120,367 210,494 57.2% 203,910 -3.1% GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1,266,282 2,696,700 47.0% 2,771,400 2.8% LEGAL 359,151 793,567 45.3% 773,423 -2.5% MAGISTRATE COURT 399,889 884,385 45.2% 873,266 -1.3% MANAGER 547,037 1,251,370 43.7% 1,247,578 -0.3% PARKS & RECREATION 1,559,047 3,606,586 43.2% 3,519,644 -2.4% POLICE 7,650,292 16,557,555 46.2% 16,115,680 -2.7% PUBLIC WORKS 1,492,992 3,518,946 42.4% 3,363,846 -4.4% TRANSFERS OUT 1,877,713 4,700,514 39.9%4,372,017 -7.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 18,747,625 41,984,555 44.7% 40,732,534 -3.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 538,474 (3,075,992) (2,218,353) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (A)16,589,312 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(2,218,353) ENDING FUND BALANCE **14,370,959 (A) Includes remaining fund balance from the Bed Tax Fund in the amount of $617,856 and remaining fund balance from the Impound Fee Fund of $3,814 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision FY 2018/2019 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 12/2018 Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Dec FY 19 Monthly Report 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT A December YTD Financial Status FY 2018/2019 ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Dec FY 19 Monthly Report 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT B December YTD Financial Status FY 2018/2019 % Budget Completion through December --- 50.0% Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget REVENUES: LICENSES & PERMITS 15,664 48,700 32.2% 33,700 -30.8% STATE GRANTS 29,254 165,000 17.7% 126,767 -23.2% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 1,730,268 3,291,659 52.6% 3,620,156 10.0% INTEREST INCOME 37,351 50,000 74.7% 50,000 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 1,545 3,000 51.5% 3,000 0.0% TRANSFERS IN - 550,000 0.0%221,503 -59.7% TOTAL REVENUES 1,814,082 4,108,359 44.2% 4,055,126 -1.3% Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATION 204,930 478,693 42.8% 464,828 -2.9% TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 672,896 3,134,882 21.5% 2,819,915 -10.0% STREET MAINTENANCE 487,697 1,012,461 48.2%1,012,461 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,365,523 4,626,036 29.5% 4,297,204 -7.1% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 448,559 (517,677) (242,078) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 960,719 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit) (242,078) ENDING FUND BALANCE ** 718,641 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision Highway Fund F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Dec FY 19 Monthly Report 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT C-1 December YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through December --- 50.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: CONTRACTED OPERATING REVENUES Golf Revenues 544,046 1,272,523 42.8% 1,316,509 3.5% Member Dues (Golf) 352,422 868,848 40.6% 798,694 -8.1% Tennis Revenues 77,964 - 0.0% 77,964 0.0% Food & Beverage 293,055 755,148 38.8% 691,136 -8.5% Merchandise & Other 99,515 217,168 45.8%207,513 -4.4% 1,367,002 3,113,687 43.9% 3,091,816 -0.7% TOWN OPERATING REVENUES Daily Drop-Ins 12,595 25,000 50.4% 34,000 36.0% Member Dues 350,844 695,000 50.5% 727,500 4.7% Recreation Programs 39,459 360,750 10.9% 165,000 -54.3% Swim Team/Swim Lessons 3,709 21,000 17.7% 16,209 -22.8% Facility Rental Income 26,641 37,400 71.2% 61,380 64.1% Concession Sales 92 250 36.8%250 0.0% 433,339 1,139,400 38.0% 1,004,339 -11.9% OTHER REVENUES Local Sales Tax 1,134,196 2,384,558 47.6% 2,419,149 1.5% Real Property Rental Income 19,502 19,502 100.0%19,502 0.0% 1,153,698 2,404,060 48.0% 2,438,651 1.4% TOTAL REVENUES 2,954,039 6,657,147 44.4% 6,534,806 -1.8% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: CONTRACTED OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 1,041,872 2,020,319 51.6% 2,072,238 2.6% Operations & Maintenance 1,312,852 2,579,027 50.9% 2,496,096 -3.2% Equipment Leases 187,718 407,936 46.0%414,768 1.7% 2,542,442 5,007,282 50.8% 4,983,102 -0.5% TOWN OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 318,640 769,329 41.4% 769,329 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 106,151 486,590 21.8%271,800 -44.1% 424,791 1,255,919 33.8% 1,041,129 -17.1% CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,633 50,950 5.2% 50,950 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 133,999 253,999 52.8% 253,999 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,103,865 6,568,150 47.3% 6,329,180 -3.6% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (149,826) 88,997 205,626 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (71,563) Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)205,626 ENDING FUND BALANCE **134,063 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2018/2019 Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget Year End Estimate * Community Center Fund Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget Year End Estimate * F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Dec FY 19 Monthly Report 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT C-2TROONEl Conquistador Cash Flow StatementActualActualActualActualActualActualActual Original Budget ForecastJul-18Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18TOTALTOTALTOTALRevenues:Golf Fees, net of discounts37,622 40,532 77,218 58,993 102,521 97,280 414,166 969,832 1,037,677 Trail Fees & Member Cart Fees15,036 15,102 15,183 14,556 18,163 16,304 94,344 225,160 207,021 Golf - Group Services- 136 783 - 440 - 1,359 1,733 2,190 Range, Rentals, Other Golf related5,052 5,162 4,466 4,730 4,773 4,402 28,585 61,650 58,069 Golf Lessons 330 780 300 110 70 632 2,222 6,748 4,947 Income - Golf Schools 1,210 - 900 485 325 450 3,370 7,400 6,605 Total Member Dues 55,466 52,613 53,302 62,707 60,880 67,454 352,422 868,848 798,694 Other Member Income 7 44 87 181 185 10 514 - 514 Swim/Tennis Revenues 26,291 21,188 30,485 - - - 77,964 - 77,964 Income - Other (non - golf) 159 97 14,636 132 241 - 15,265 2,000 15,265 Merchandise, net of discounts 8,895 8,175 11,631 11,204 16,003 27,828 83,736 215,168 191,734 Food and Beverage, net of discounts 39,360 30,419 55,075 51,114 51,993 65,094 293,055 755,148 691,136 Total Revenues 189,428 174,248 264,066 204,212 255,594 279,454 1,367,002 3,113,687 3,091,816 Cost of Sales:COS - Group Services Golf- 135 701 - 440 - 1,276 1,733 2,107 COS - Golf Lessons 264 221 240 112 (32) 507 1,312 5,398 3,492 COS - Golf Schools 1,465 (1) - 340 260 - 2,064 5,250 4,329 COS - Service Commissions 17,056 16,375 18,503 88 - - 52,022 - 52,022 COS - Merchandise, net of discounts 6,521 6,405 8,586 20,858 10,601 19,143 72,114 130,874 138,253 COS - Food & Beverage 14,025 15,500 19,287 18,773 20,067 22,651 110,303 275,730 253,749 Total Cost of Sales 39,331 38,635 47,317 40,171 31,336 42,301 239,091 418,985 453,952 Gross Profit 150,097 135,613 216,749 164,041 224,258 237,153 1,127,911 2,694,702 2,637,864 Operating Expenses:Payroll 138,348 139,002 140,513 142,037 140,745 128,560 829,205 1,620,967 1,654,783 Employee Benefits 33,784 31,309 32,117 34,437 30,015 31,578 193,240 374,952 384,879 Employee Related 2,902 3,234 4,674 2,481 3,792 2,344 19,427 24,400 32,576 Advertising & Marketing 9,562 10,833 10,540 7,602 10,286 14,943 63,766 119,052 119,191 Repair & Maintenance 25,989 28,983 78,387 68,726 14,503 24,509 241,097 402,854 399,305 Operating Expenses 16,637 15,193 22,511 22,666 20,514 19,358 116,879 235,082 232,534 Total Operating Expenses 227,222 228,554 288,742 277,949 219,855 221,292 1,463,614 2,777,307 2,823,268 Operating Profit (77,125) (92,941) (71,993) (113,908) 4,403 15,861 (335,703) (82,605) (185,404) Leases - Carts 9,282 9,282 9,282 13,041 13,041 13,041 66,967 156,368 163,200 Leases - Equipment22,670 20,975 19,277 19,277 19,277 19,277 120,752 251,568 251,568 Utilities109,701 102,537 124,226 120,681 79,563 46,787 583,495 1,257,525 1,161,984 Fixed Operating Expenses 141,653 132,793 152,784 152,998 111,880 79,104 771,213 1,665,461 1,576,752 Gross Operating Profit (218,778) (225,734) (224,777) (266,906) (107,477) (63,243) (1,106,916) (1,748,066) (1,762,156) Insurance 98 98 98 98 98 98 588 1,194 1,194 Fees, Permits & Licenses 100 510 54 17 11 76 768 335 768 Base Management Fees 12,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 66,000 144,000 126,000 Bad Debt375 - - - 1,013 (220) 1,168 - 1,168 Total Other Expenses 12,573 12,608 12,152 10,115 11,122 9,954 68,524 145,529 129,130 Net Operating Income (Loss) (231,351) (238,342) (236,929) (277,021) (118,599) (73,197) (1,175,440) (1,893,595) (1,891,286) 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT C-3 ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET MONTH MONTH Y-T-D Y-T-D FOOD & BEVERAGE REVENUE 65,094 68,206 292,764 357,067 TOTAL REVENUES 65,094 68,206 292,764 357,067 COST OF SALES 22,651 23,754 110,303 132,285 PAYROLL & BENEFITS 38,352 40,388 212,173 234,286 OPERATING EXPENSES 8,150 8,483 36,672 46,870 NET INCOME (LOSS) (4,059) (4,419) (66,384) (56,374) EL CONQUISTADOR INCOME STATEMENT CONSOLIDATED - RESTAURANT/GRILLE - DEC 2018 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT D December YTD Financial Status FY 2018/2019 Water Utility Fund % Budget Completion through December --- 50% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,576,546 3,183,500 49.5% 3,183,500 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 47,209 62,333 75.7% 62,333 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 542 - 0.0% 1,000 0.0% BOND PROCEEDS 3,200,000 3,200,000 100.0% 3,200,000 0.0% WATER SALES 6,750,985 13,152,900 51.3%13,152,900 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 11,575,282 19,598,733 59.1% 19,599,733 0.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATION 6,974,503 11,439,279 61.0% 11,439,279 0.0% ENGINEERING & PLANNING 817,747 4,584,097 17.8% 3,744,097 -18.3% OPERATIONS 1,993,178 4,452,877 44.8% 4,402,993 -1.1% OTHER FINANCING USES 2,581 2,581 100.0%2,581 0.0% TOTAL EXPENSES 9,788,009 20,478,834 47.8% 19,588,950 -4.3% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 1,787,273 (880,101) 10,783 Excludes non-cash outlays for depreciation & amortization * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 12/2018 Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Dec FY19 Fund Update_Water Utility Fund 2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT E December YTD Financial Status FY 2018/2019 Stormwater Utility Fund % Budget Completion through December--50% Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget REVENUES: STATE GRANTS - 2,000,000 0.0% - -100.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 705,109 1,407,000 50.1% 1,409,157 0.2% INTEREST INCOME 837 2,000 41.9% 1,300 -35.0% MISCELLANEOUS 210 - 0.0%210 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 706,156 3,409,000 20.7% 1,410,667 -58.6% Actuals thru 12/2018 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget EXPENDITURES: PERSONNEL 326,601 768,987 42.5% 724,468 -5.8% OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 149,714 328,362 45.6% 328,362 0.0% CAPITAL 30,157 2,254,500 1.3%243,618 -89.2% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 506,472 3,351,849 15.1% 1,296,448 -61.3% Does not include non-cash outlays for depreciation SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 199,684 57,151 114,219 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ATTACHMENT FConsolidated Year-to-Date Financial Report through December, 2018 FY 2018/2019FY 18/19 Capital Leases/Left in AccountsBegin Bal. Transfer OutThru Dec 2018General Fund - Unassigned 15,147,450 19,286,099 19,286,099 1,877,713 12,527,346 4,204,539 138,028 18,747,625 15,685,923 General Fund - Assigned 1,441,862 - 1,441,862 Highway Fund - Committed 960,719 1,814,082 1,814,082 1,051,247 314,276 1,365,523 1,409,278 Seizure & Forfeiture - Justice/State 402,290 34,397 34,397 22,210 83,176 13,989 119,375 317,312 Community Center Fund (71,563) 2,954,039 2,954,039 321,717 318,640 2,460,875 2,633 3,103,865 (221,389) Municipal Debt Service Fund 88,735 71,538 881,094 952,632 7,610 902,054 909,664 131,703 Oracle Road Debt Service Fund 7,477 169,309 169,309 166,439 166,439 10,347 Alternative Water Resources Dev Impact Fee Fund 7,878,052 767,979 767,979 75,575 18,302 93,877 8,552,154 Potable Water System Dev Impact Fee Fund 6,013,007 411,958 411,958 1,191 654,167 266,613 921,971 5,502,994 Townwide Roadway Development Impact Fee Fund 2,296,534 471,250 471,250 4,235 4,235 2,763,549 Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Fund 272,087 134,653 134,653 - 406,740 Police Impact Fee Fund 653,982 50,519 50,519 - 704,501 General Government Impact Fee Fund 3,555 20 20 - 3,575 Capital Fund 3,323,727 384,502 3,168,199 3,552,701 35,000 2,346,431 2,381,431 4,494,997 PAG/RTA Fund 695,684 283,132 283,132 486,588 486,588 492,228 Water Utility9,680,488 11,575,282 11,575,282 2,581 1,529,650 3,295,996 500,771 4,459,010 9,788,009 11,467,762 Stormwater Utility759,242 706,156 706,156 326,601 149,714 30,157 506,472 958,926 Benefit Self Insurance Fund 736,508 1,723,164 1,723,164 1,831,821 1,831,821 627,851 Recreation In-Lieu Fee Fund 15,718 - - 15,718 Energy Efficiency Project Fund 86 - - 86 Total 50,305,639 40,838,080 4,049,293 44,887,373 2,202,011 15,775,694 12,459,772 4,195,302 - 5,794,116 40,426,895 54,766,118 Fund RevenueOther Fin Sources/TfrsTotal InDebt Service Total OutPersonnel O&M Capital ContingencyF:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Attachment F - Summary All Funds2/18/2019 ATTACHMENT GGeneral Fund Local Sales Tax Collections FY 2018/19CATEGORYJULYAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNETOTALConstruction Sales Tax 432,755 355,783 480,092 457,613 380,468 341,104 2,447,815 Utility Sales Tax 284,416 315,680 310,763 300,228 246,348 206,155 1,663,590 Retail Sales Tax 521,613 511,157 528,681 526,398 543,458 656,373 3,287,678 Bed Tax 99,199 97,926 98,236 89,109 124,675 180,525 689,670 All Other Local Sales Tax *198,583 200,462 187,826 206,134 234,808 245,773 1,273,588 TOTAL 1,536,566$ 1,481,008$ 1,605,598$ 1,579,482$ 1,529,757$ 1,629,930$ 9,362,341$ FY 2017/18CATEGORYJULYAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNETOTALConstruction Sales Tax 547,514 469,050 456,125 443,115 664,593 459,268 439,368 384,045 282,895 451,750 441,960 513,767 5,553,450 Utility Sales Tax 202,208 429,402 290,283 310,764 256,734 231,300 227,032 242,373 218,602 207,317 203,785 230,245 3,050,045 Retail Sales Tax 541,876 478,942 481,677 505,094 502,326 629,823 801,494 557,783 521,796 624,106 551,219 535,133 6,731,269 All Other Local Sales Tax *202,678 219,584 186,445 184,144 200,359 198,807 210,620 267,704 257,943 282,817 242,283 240,054 2,693,437 TOTAL 1,494,276$ 1,596,978$ 1,414,530$ 1,443,117$ 1,624,012$ 1,519,198$ 1,678,514$ 1,451,905$ 1,281,236$ 1,565,990$ 1,439,247$ 1,519,199$ 18,028,201$ * Note: Does not include cable franchise fees or sales tax audit revenuesF:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2018-2019\2Q\Dec\Attachment G - Gen Fund Local Sales Tax2/18/2019    Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Minutes - February 20, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve, with the following changes) the February 20, 2019 minutes.  Attachments 2-20-19 Draft Minutes  2/20/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular / Study Session 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AND STUDY SESSION February 20, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice -Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Winfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings. COUNCIL REPORTS No Council reports were received. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT No reports were received. ORDER OF BUSINESS 2/20/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular / Study Session 2 Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS There were no informational items. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of the Oro Valley Police Department’s new K -9, Diesel Oro Valley Police Department Commander Jason Larter gave an overview of K -9 Diesel and introduced Diesel's handler, Kevin Peterson. Commander Larter also recognized Oro Valley business owner and resident Lisa Bayless for her gracious donation which paid for the purchase of Diesel. 2. Recognition of Winning Entry for "Show Us Some Love" Contest Mayor Winfield gave an overview of the "Show Us Some Love" contest and recognized Daniel Scoblink who was selected as the winner of the contest for his poem about Oro Valley. Mr. Scoblink received a prize package, worth more than $200 that included a $75.00 gift card to the El Conquistador and $50.00 gift certificate to Harvest, free passes to Tohono Chul, as well as other Town of Oro Valley swag and gifts . CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - January 28 and February 6, 2019 B. Appointment(s) to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Budget and Finance Commission (BFC) C. Resolution No. (R)19-04, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Transportation for maintenance of a sidewalk, landscaping, irrigation, walls and handrail along State Route 77 (Oracle Road) from Suffolk Drive to Magee Road as part of the River Road to Calle Concordia Improvement Project D. Resolution No. (R)19-05, authorizing and approving the Oro Valley Water Utility to enter into the Arizona Water and Wastewater Agency Respons e Network (AZWARN) Mutual Aid Agreement among members of the AZWARN 2/20/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular / Study Session 3 E. Resolution No. (R)19-06, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of March 2, 2019, to May 31, 2019 MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Rodman and seconded by Councilmember Piña to approve Consent Agenda items (A) through (E). MOTION carried, 7-0. REGULAR AGENDA 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL CODE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)19 -07, DECLARING THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE 18 -1, DEFINITIONS AND ARTICLE 18 -8, EXCESSIVE NOISE CAUSED BY ANIMALS OR BIRDS; VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES, AND SECTION 18-8-3, EXCESSIVE NOISE - IMPOUNDMENT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)19 -03, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE 18 -1, DEFINITIONS AND ARTICLE 18-8, EXCESSIVE NOISE CAUSED BY ANIMALS OR BIRDS; VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES, AND ADDING SECTION 18 -8-3, EXCESSIVE NOISE - IMPOUNDMENT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Rodman and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to approve Resolution No. (R)19 -07, Declaring the Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 18, Article 18-1, Definitions and Article 18-8, Excessive Noise Caused by Animals or Birds; Violations; Penalties, and Section 18 -8-3, Excessive Noise-Impoundment Order to Show Cause, a public record. MOTION carried, 7-0. Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles presented item 1B and gave an overview of the code change request. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item 1B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in support of item 1B . - Oro Valley resident David Raffety - Oro Valley resident Valerie Wagley - Oro Valley resident Joan Breiden 2/20/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular / Study Session 4 Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Rodman and seconded by Vice - Mayor Barrett to approve Ordinance No. (O)19 -03, amending the Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 18, Article 18 -1, Definitions and Article 18 -8, Excessive noise caused by animals or birds violations; penalties, and a dding Section 18-8-3, Excessive Noise - Impoundment Order to Show Cause. MOTION carried, 7-0. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Piña and seconded by Councilmember Rodman to adjourn the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. MOTION carried, 7-0. STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 6:31 p.m. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY & RECREATION CENTER AND GOLF COURSES *The Town Council will hold a listening session within this agenda item in order to hear from members of the community. The Council may discuss this topic but will not be ma king any decisions on the Community and Recreation Center or golf courses . Discussion ensued amongst Council and s taff regarding the item 1 . Mayor Winfield spoke regarding the Oro Valley Community & Recreation Center and golf courses. 2/20/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular / Study Session 5 The following individuals spoke on item 1: - Oro Valley resident Greg Kisher - Oro Valley resident Kate Harrison - Oro Valley resident Dan Murr - Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen - Oro Valley resident Richard Tracy - Oro Valley resident Bruce Richards - Oro Valley resident Michael Schoeppach - Dave Brown - Oro Valley resident Kim Krostue - Oro Valley resident Lindsey Hunter - Oro Valley resident Steve Jones - Oro Valley resident David Weber - Oro Valley resident Dick Johnson - Oro Valley resident Jack Stinnett - Oro Valley resident Jeff Weir - Oro Valley resident Betty Danker - Oro Valley resident Rob Wanczyk - Oro Valley resident Bruce Baca - Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna - Oro Valley resident Fred Swiderski - Oro Valley resident Roger Applen - Oro Valley resident William Benedict - Oro Valley resident Jill Gomery - Oro Valley resident Chuck Glickman - Oro Valley resident David Grigstem - Oro Valley resident Christine Fapp - Oro Valley resident Dave Heiczak - Oro Valley resident Linda Davis - Oro Valley resident Linda Clark ADJOURNMENT Mayor Winfield adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m. __________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular / study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 20th day of February, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2019 . ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk    Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Requested by: Jose Rodriguez  Submitted By:Jose Rodriguez, Community Development & Public Works Department:Community Development & Public Works Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)19-08, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Pima County for the funding of traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program  RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed IGA will provide funds in the amount of $32,678 (Exhibit A) to Oro Valley to upgrade traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program. Funds will be distributed in three fiscal years: $16,090 in FY2019, $8,294 in FY 2020 and FY2021. The Town intends to purchase 4 traffic signal back-up batteries at an estimated cost of $8,000 each.   In order to release funds to the Town, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is required between the Regional Transportation Authority and the Town of Oro Valley.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The RTA Transportation Safety Subcommittee is composed of Pima Association of Government jurisdictional members. The subcommittee reviewed the available funding and established a jurisdictional funding disbursement for each jurisdiction in the region.  The distribution was based on the number of traffic signals in each jurisdiction, less any signals used for pedestrians, fire or other warnings.    The Town of Oro Valley owns, operates and maintains 21 traffic signals and 2 High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks and therefore was approved for $32,678 in RTA funds for upgrading traffic signal equipment - back-up batteries.   Traditionally, the Town has utilized gel cell lead-acid back-up batteries which has long been industry standard; however, their performance has proven to deteriorate with long-term exposure to high temperatures. In addition, the lead-acid in the batteries remains an environmental hazard. As an alternative back-up battery, the nickel-zinc battery was developed, which has been successfully implemented since 2013, and has no fire or environmental risk while withstanding exposure to high temperatures. This alternative offers several safety benefits and operational efficiencies. The weight of the battery packs are 28 lbs., less than half the weight of the lead-acid battery. in addition, the non-toxic components allow for safe and easy installation and maintenance.    The $8,000 price for each nickel-zinc battery makes it cost prohibitive to upgrade all batteries at once. Therefore, the Town has gradually been upgrading the back-up batteries from gel cell lead-acid to nickel-zinc as funding becomes available or when a new traffic signal is installed. Of the 21 traffic signals within Oro Valley, 6 have the nickel-zinc back-up batteries and 3 (along La Cholla Blvd.) will have the nickel-zinc back-up batteries as part of the project improvement. With this IGA, and its three year distribution, the Town has identified the intersections of First Avenue & Naranja Drive and Tangerine Road & Innovation Drive as being the recipients of the new batteries purchased with the first year's funding allocation. The intersections receiving a battery from year two and three funding distribution have yet to be identified. At the time of the future out-year funding distribution, staff will assess the intersection with the highest need to receive the new battery. This assessment will be based on the future and current condition of the existing gel cell battery. The reason for the future determination is that conditions vary and we need to assess current status of the batteries at that time.   As with other RTA projects, the Town will request reimbursement for the purchase of traffic signal equipment from the RTA via the IGA. Exhibit A lays out the funding through 2021. It is anticipated that this IGA will be amended to account for additional funding after fiscal year 2021 to account for future RTA funding. FISCAL IMPACT: None – The RTA will reimburse the Town for the purchase of equipment. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve / deny) Resolution No. (R)19-08, authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County for the funding of traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program. Attachments (R)19-08 Resolution - Funding for Traffic Signal Equipment  IGA  IGA Exhibit A  Funding Distribution  F:\RESOLUTIONS\2019\R19-08 IGA RTA traffic signal equipment 2019.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/sb/080508 RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF PIMA COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR FUNDING OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UNDER THE REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE TERMS OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 48-5312, the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County (RTA) is authorized to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements for joint and cooperative action with the Town of Oro Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, The Town of Oro Valley is authorized to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements for joint and cooperative action with the RTA; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley (the “Town”) is authorized by A.R.S. § 9-276 to establish, improve and construct roads and bridges; and WHEREAS, A.R.S.§ 48-5301, et seq., authorizes the RTA to act as a regional taxing authority for the purpose of funding multi-modal transportation operations and improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan approved by the voters at the special election held in Pima County, Arizona, on May 16, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to utilize RTA funds to in the amount of $32,678 to upgrade traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program of the course of three fiscal years; and WHEREAS, the Town intends to purchase four (4) traffic signal back-up batteries at an estimated cost of $8,000 each in the next three fiscal years; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town of Oro Valley to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, with the RTA to utilize RTA funds to upgrade traffic signal equipment under the Regional Traffic Signal Program which includes the purchase of four (4) traffic signal back-up batteries. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: F:\RESOLUTIONS\2019\R19-08 IGA RTA traffic signal equipment 2019.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/sb/080508 SECTION 1. The Town Council of Oro Valley does hereby approve the Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, by and between the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley. SECTION 2. The Mayor and other Town administrative officials and employees are hereby authorized to take such steps necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. SECTION 3. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 6th day of March, 2019. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ____________________________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: F:\RESOLUTIONS\2019\R19-08 IGA RTA traffic signal equipment 2019.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/sb/080508 EXHIBIT “A” Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF PIMA COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM; EQUIPMENT This Agreement (hereinafter “the Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County (“RTA” or “the Authority”), a special taxing district formed pursuant to Title 48 Chapter 30 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), and the Town of Oro Valley, a body politic and corporate of the State of Arizona (“the Lead Agency”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952. RECITALS A. A.R.S.§ 48-5301, et seq., authorizes the Authority to act as a regional taxing authority for the purpose of funding multi-model transportation operations and improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (“the Plan”) approved by the voters at the sp ecial election held in Pima County, Arizona, on May 16, 2006. B. The governing board of the Authority is composed of representatives of each member of the regional council of governments in accordance with A.R.S. § 48-5303. C. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 48-5304 (12), the governing board of the Authority has sole authority to implement the elements of the Plan. D. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 48-5304 (13), the governing board of the Authority shall coordinate the implementation of the Plan among the local jurisdictions. E. A Regional Transportation Fund was established by the Arizona Legislature per A.R.S. § 48-5307 to be the repository for those funds collected for the purpose of funding the transportation projects identified in the Plan. F. The Authority is authorized by A.R.S . §§ 48-5304 (16) and 48-5308 to administer and distribute the regional transportation funds to the members of the Authority and to sell bonds in furtherance of that purpose to fund those projects or programs identified in the Plan. G. The Lead Agency is authorized by A.R.S. § 11-251 (4) or A.R.S. § 9-240 (A) (3) to design, maintain, control and manage public roads within the Lead Agency’s jurisdictional boundaries. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 2 H. The Lead Agency may have a legal contract with one or more jurisdictions within Pima County empowering the Lead Agency to perform roadway and other improvements outside the Lead Agency’s jurisdictional boundaries. I. The Lead Agency, with funding from the Authority, wishes to undertake the design and construction of improvements to the Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment (“the Project”). J. The Project is one of the transportation projects included in the Plan or is eligible for funding as part of a categorical program included in the Plan. K. The Authority intends to fund the Project under the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and has entered into this Agreement for that purpose. L. It is the policy of the Authority to require that a lead agency be identified and an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) be approved and entered into by the Authority and the lead agency before requests for funding reimbursement or payment can be processed by the Authority. M. The Town of Oro Valley has been identified as the Lead Agency for the Project and will be responsible for all aspects of project implementation including, but not limited to, planning, project management, risk management, design, right of way acquisition and construction, advertisement, award, execution and administration of the design and construction contracts for the Project. The Authority’s role is limited to providing financial support to the Lead Agency for the Project, as described herein. N. The RTA’s Administrative Code will control all payments and other procedures unless otherwise specified herein. O . The Authority and the Lead Agency may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint and cooperative action pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-951, et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town of Oro Valley and Authority, pursuant to the above and in consideration of the matters and things set forth herein, do mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the responsibilities of the parties for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the Project and to address the legal and administrative matters among the parties. 2. Project. The Project consists of upgrades to traffic signal equipment, as more fully depicted in the attached Exhibit A, including the following: a) Detailed project scope and schedule. b) Project budget and cost breakdown of items eligible for reimbursement by the Authority including any proposed billing of staff time directly attributable to Project. c) Total amount of RTA funding allowed for the Project plus a breakdown of any other regional, local, federal or state funding available. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 3 d) Designation of Project phases, if applicable, and any additional related agreements. e) Estimated construction start date and duration of construction. f) Projected timeline. g) Identification of the Lead Agency’s duly authorized representative for signing and submitting payment requests. 3. Effective Date; Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by both parties, and shall continue in effect until all improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement are completed, all eligible reimbursement payments to the Lead Agency are concluded, and all warranties applicable to the Project have expired . Due to the potential for changes in funding allocations, it is anticipated that this Agreement will need to be amended during the following time frames in order to coincide with the two -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding cycle: • Spring 2021 • Spring 2023 • Spring 2025 4. Responsibilities of the Lead Agency. a. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for the design, construction and/or installation of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and all applicable public roadway, traffic signal, and street lighting design and construction standards. Design Standard s are federal, state, county or municipal standards for engineering, traffic, safety or public works facilities design. Examples of Design Standards include the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and Federal Highway Adminis tration standards for highway engineering and construction, the Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, the Pima County Roadway Design Manual, the Pima County Department of Transportation /City of Tucson Department of Transportation Pavement Marking Design Manual, and Pima County and municipal design guidelines for roadway lane widths and level of drainage protection. b. If consultants or contractors are employed to perform any portion of the Project, the Lead Agency shall be responsible for the contracts for design and construction of the Project and shall select the consultants and contractors to be used on the Project. The Lead Agency shall immediately provide to the Authority copies of any and all contract documents and related materials upon request by the Authority. The Lead Agency shall retain the usual rights of the owner of a public contract including the authority to approve changes and make payments. However, any changes to the Project which would result in the final project cost deviating, by ten or more percent, from the Authority’s budget amount for the Project, must be approved by the Authority in advance of those changes being made, regardless of the fact that the Authority will not be paying for them. c. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for all traffic management and public safety, including public notification, during construction of the Project. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 4 d. The Lead Agency shall operate and maintain the improvements during and after completion of construction. e. The final cost of the Project shall be that amount necessary to complete the Project including any unanticipated work incorporated into the Project by change orders and amendments executed by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for all Project costs in excess of the RTA funds contributed to the Project. f. The Lead Agency shall exercise its power of eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property needed for the Project. g. Inasmuch as the RTA’s role is limited to Project funding, the Lead Agency agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by Arizona law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the RTA and its Board and officers, from, for, and against, any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities or penalties, brought by or on behalf of any persons or entities, arising out of the Lead Agency’s activities in performance of its obligations under this Agreement or use of RTA’s resources, as described herein, regardless of how such claims are worded or styled, and regardless of the specific c ause of action or type of claim asserted. This subsection shall survive termination of this Agreement. h. The Lead Agency shall require its contractors performing any portion of the Project to name the Authority as additional insured and additional indemnitee with respect to insurance policies for general liability, automobile liability and defects in design in all of the Lead Agency’s contracts for the Project. The Lead Agency shall also require its contractors to name the Authority as an additional beneficiary in any performance and payment related assurances posted for the Project. i. Monthly, the Lead Agency shall be responsible for preparing and submitting to the Authority reimbursement requests (invoices ). Said requests shall be signed by a duly authorized representative of the Lead Agency and shall include sufficient background information documenting payments made to contractors, vendors or any other eligible costs identified in this Agreement or the RTA’s Administrative Code. The Lead Agency must retain and certify all vendor receipts, invoices and any related Project records as needed and ensure that they are available for review for a minimum of five (5) years after final payment is made unless otherwise specified herein. j. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for submitting a status report describing its progress and adherence to the Project scope, schedule and budget. Progress reports shall be submitted to the RTA monthly. k. The Lead Agency shall adhere to the RTA Administrative Code, including the requirements for a Project Charter (where applicable), a Project Closeout Meeting (Roadway Element Projects) and reimbursement limits. l. Prior to any construction bid solicitation, the Lead Agency shall provide a complete set of Project documents to the RTA, including all plans and specifications, the engineer’s cost estimate, and a listing of all funding sources. The Project may not be advertised prior to written confirmation from the RTA that the Project is compliant with RTA requirements, and that funding is available for the Project. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 5 m. All right of way remnants from properties acquired with Project funds shall be disposed of in accordance with RTA Policy. All proceeds from the disposal shall be returned to the RTA for expenditure on RTA eligible expenses. In the event the disposal of the property occurs after the Project is completed, the funds shall be returned to the RTA for reallocation to other projects. This subsection shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5. Responsibilities of Authority. a. Upon receipt of reimbursement requests, the Authority shall convey to the Lead Agency RTA funds in the amount specified in the Exhibits, on a reimbursement basis , unless otherwise specified herein. All payments and reimbursements shall follow the policies outlined in the RTA’s Administrative Code. b. Reimbursements will generally be based on the Project schedules established by the Lead Agency and contained in the Exhibits. c. The RTA staff will review all payment requests to confirm that the request is for reimbursement of costs incurred by the Lead Agency for the Project. If the Authority determines that additional information is needed, the Lead Agency will be notified of the request for additional information within five business days of the receipt of the invoice by RTA. d. Upon approval of the request by RTA, the invoice will be processed for payment within thirty days of the invoice being accepted as complete. e. RTA shall provide all necessary cooperation and assistance to its fiscal agent to process all payment requests from the Lead Agency. 6. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for material breach of the Agreement by the other party. Prior to any termination under this paragraph, the party allegedly in default shall be given written notice by the other party of the nature of the alleged default. The party said to be in default shall have forty-five days to cure the default. If the default is not cured within that time, the other party may terminate this Agreement. Any such termination shall not relieve either party from liabilities or costs already incurred under this Agreement. 7. Non-assignment. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign its rights under this Agreement to any other party without written permission from the other party to this Agreement. 8. Construction of Agreement. a. Entire agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, are hereby superseded and mer ged herein. Any exhibits and the Recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. b. Amendment. This Agreement may be modified, amended, altered or changed only by written agreement signed by both parties. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 6 c. Construction and interpretation. All provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to be consistent with the intention of the parties as expressed in the Recitals hereof. d. Captions and headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to affect the meaning of any provision of this Agreement. e. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof is declared invalid or void by statute or judicial decision, such action shall have no effect on other provisions and their application, which can be given effect without the invalid or void provision or application, and to this extent the provisions of the Agreement are severable. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid or void, the parties agree to meet promptly upon request of the other party in an attempt to reach an agreement on a substitute provision. f. This Agreement is subject to cancellation pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 38-511. 9. Ownership of Improvements . Ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed pursuant to this Agreement shall automatically vest in the Lead Agency upon completion of the Project. 10. Legal Jurisdiction. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as either limiting or extending the legal jurisdiction of the Lead Agency or the Authority. 11. No Joint Venture . It is not intended by this Agreement to, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to, create any partnership, joint venture or employment relationship between the parties or create any employer-employee relationship between the Lead Agency and any Authority employees, or between Authority and any Lead Agency employees. Neither party shall be liable for any debts, accounts, obligations nor other liabilities whatsoever of the other, including (without limitation) the other party's obligation to withhold Social Security and income taxes for itself or any of its employees. 12. No Third Party Beneficiaries . Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care different from the standard of care imposed by law. 13. Compliance with Laws . The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, standards and executive orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement. a. Anti-Discrimination. Neither party shall discriminate against any employee or client of either party or any other individual in any way because of that person’s age, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, political affiliation, disability or national origin in the course of carrying out the duties pursuant to this IGA. Both parties shall comply with applicable provisions of Executive Order 75 -5, as amended by Executive Order 2009-09 of the Governor of Arizona, which are incorpora ted into this IGA by reference as if set forth in full herein, including the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-1463. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 7 b. Americans with Disabilities Act. This Agreement is subject to all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101 -336, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and all applicable federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 , as well as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. . c. Workers’ Compensation. An employee of either party shall be deemed to be an “employee” of both public agencies, while performing pursuant to this Agreement, for purposes of A.R.S. ' 23-1022 and the Arizona Workers’ Compensation laws. The primary employer shall be solely liable for any workers’ compensation benefits, which may accrue. Each party shall post a notice pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. ' 23-906 in substantially the following form: All employees are hereby further notified that they may be required to work under the jurisdiction or control or within the jurisdictional boundaries of another public agency pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement or contract, and under such circumstances they are deemed by the laws of Arizona to be employees of both pub lic agencies for the purposes of workers’ compensation. 14. Waiver. Waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed a waiver of any other term, covenant or condition, or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition herein contained. 15. Force Majeure . A party shall not be in default under this Agreement if it does not fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement because it is prevented or delayed in doing so by reason of uncontrollable forces. The term “uncontrollable forces” shall mean, for the purpose of this Agreement, any cause beyond the control of the party affected, including but not limited to failure of facilities, breakage or accident to machinery or transmission facilities, weather conditions, flood, earthquake, lightning, fire, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, strike, lockout, labor dispute, boycott, material or energy shortage, casualty loss, acts of God, or action or non- action by governmental bodies in approving or failing to act upon applications for approvals or permits which are not due to the negligence or willful action of the parties, order of any government officer or court (excluding orders promulgated by the parties themselves), and declared local, state or national emergency, which, by exercise of due diligence and foresight, such party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid. Either party rendered unable to fulfill any obligations by reason of uncontrollable forces shall exercise due diligence to remove such inability with all reasonable dispatch. 16. Notification. All notices or demands upon any party to this Agreement shall be in writing, unless other forms are designated elsewhere, and shall be delivered in person or sent by mail addressed as follows: The Authority: Mr. Farhad Moghimi, Executive Director Pima Association of Governments 1 E. Broadway, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 Town of Marana: Paul Keesler, CD and PW Director Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 8 17. Remedies . Either party may pursue any remedies provided by law for the breach of this Agreement. No right or remedy is intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy and each shall be cumulative and in addition to any other right or remedy existing at law or in equity or by virtue of this Agreement. 18. Counterparts . This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the sa me instrument. The signature pages from one or more counterpart may be removed from such counterpart and attached to a single instrument. In Witness Whereof, the Town of Oro Valley has caused this Agreement to be executed by the ___________________, upon resolution of the ______________ attested to by the _____________, and the Authority has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair of the Board. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF PIMA COUNTY __________________________________ ________________ Michael Hammond, Board Chair Date TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: __________________________________ _________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Date ATTEST: ______ ___________________ Michael Standish, Town Clerk Date The foregoing Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Authority has been approved as to content and is hereby recommended by the undersigned. ______________________________ _____________________________ Mr. Farhad Moghimi, Executive Director Paul Keesler, Public Works Director ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION The foregoing Agreement by and between the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. Section 11 -952 by the undersigned who have determined that it is in proper form and is within the powe rs and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona to those parties to the Agreement. Regional Traffic Signal Program; Equipment 9 Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County: ______________________________ ______________ Thomas Benavidez, Attorney for the Authority Date Town of Oro Valley: _____________ Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date    Town Council Regular Session C. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Requested by: John Teachout Submitted By:Catherine Hendrix, Police Department Department:Police Department Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)19-09, authorizing and approving an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Phoenix Police Department and the Town of Oro Valley Police Department for the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley Police Department is interested in continuing the relationship as an affiliate agency with the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The Oro Valley Police Department has been a partner agency with the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and has utilized the services and expertise of other partner agencies in past child exploitation cases. The Phoenix Police Department is the primary recipient of the federal grant issued by the United States Department of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force utilizes the grant, and funding from the Arizona Attorney General's Office, for the purpose of administering and operating in Arizona. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The goals of the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force are similar to the national policy objectives for the national level of ICAC, which are to: increase investigative capabilities of law enforcement officers in the detection and investigation of qualifying offenses and the apprehension of offenders; increase the number of ICAC qualifying offenses being prosecuted; create a multi-agency task force response to ICAC offenses; and develop and deliver ICAC public awareness and prevention programs. Furthermore, this task force will work to train police to investigate, prosecute, and deter the activities surrounding the exploitation of minors and the utilization of the internet to seek child victims for the purpose of sexual crimes against children. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. Any expenditures made will be reimbursed with grant funding. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve/deny) Resolution No. (R)19-09, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Phoenix Police Department and the Town of Oro Valley Police Department for the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Attachments (R)19-09 Resolution - IGA for Internet Crimes Against Children TF  AZ ICAC IGA  C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@444354B8\@BCL@444354B8.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT/ INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PARTICIPATION IN THE ARIZONA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the Town of Oro Valley is authorized to enter into or renew agreements for joint and cooperative action with other public agencies and WHEREAS, the Town is authorized to establish and maintain the Oro Valley Police Department, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-240 (B)(12); and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Phoenix Police Department assist in the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children task force to help promote a multi-agency response to ICAC ; and WHEREAS, the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children task force will work to investigate, prosecute, and deter the activities surrounding the exploitation of minors and the utilization of the internet to seek child victims for the purpose of sexual crimes against children; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to set forth the terms and conditions to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Oro Valley and the State of Arizona. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, that: SECTION 1. The Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, between the City of Phoenix Police Department/Internet Crimes Against Children and the Town of Oro Valley Police Department for participate in the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is hereby authorized and approved. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@444354B8\@BCL@444354B8.doc SECTION 2. The Chief of Police and other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. SECTION 3. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director, or their duly authorized officers and agents to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 6th day of March, 2019. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@444354B8\@BCL@444354B8.doc EXHIBIT “A”    Town Council Regular Session D. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Approval to amend the 2019 Council Liaison assignments by adding a Council Liaison to the Budget and Finance Commission RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current Council Liaison assignments were approved by Council on December 5, 2018. On January 9, 2019, the Town Council approved Resolution No. (R)19-01, establishing a Budget and Finance Commission. Mayor Winfield is recommending to appoint himself, Mayor Winfield, as the Council Liaison to the Budget and Finance Commission through December 31, 2019. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Town Council Policy No. 8 defines the position of Council Liaison to boards and commissions, which was created in order to allow Councilmembers the opportunity to bring Council-adopted policies to a particular board or commission, and keep the Town Council informed as to the actions and issues of that advisory group. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the new Council Liaison assignment for the Budget and Finance Commission, as depicted in Attachment 1. or I MOVE... Attachments Attachment 1 - Council Liaison Assignments  COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS MARCH 6, 2019 – DECEMBER 31, 2019 Board of Adjustment Steve Solomon Budget and Finance Commission Joe Winfield Historic Preservation Commission Steve Solomon Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Melanie Barrett Planning & Zoning Commission Bill Rodman Stormwater Utility Commission Joyce Jones-Ivey Water Utility Commission Rhonda Piña Outside Agencies Amphitheater School District Joyce Jones-Ivey Legislative District Josh Nicolson Visit Tucson Josh Nicolson Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Josh Nicolson Pima Association of Governments Joe Winfield Regional Transportation Authority Joe Winfield    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Submitted By:Michael Spaeth, Community and Economic Development Case Number: OV1801569 Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)19-04, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed amendment (Attachment 1) to the Oro Valley Town Centre Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning located near the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane (see image at right).  The Oro Valley Town Centre PAD zoning was established in 2001 as a future town center and mixed-use development along Oracle Road. The PAD includes 4 areas (see Attachment 2) ranging from commercial (Area 2) to residential (Area 4), including mixed-use areas (Areas 1 and 3). In 2012, the plan was modified by Town Council to reflect changes in the market at that time with amendments primarily focused on Area 1 (permitted apartments) and Area 3 (eliminated much of the mixed-use integration requirements). Area 4 remained strictly single-family residential and open space (75% of the area) with one access point to Oracle Road at the existing Pusch View Lane bridge.  The applicant's request is to again, "modify the plan to reflect current market demand." The applicant's proposal includes a number of changes in Area 4 (none in Areas 1, 2 or 3). Key elements of those changes to Area 4 include: Increasing the number of lots from 65 to 82 while maintaining a similar development footprint Limiting all homes to single-story Reducing the minimum lot size from 15,000 sf to 6,000 sf Enhanced landscape buffer yards to minimize visual impacts Incorporating a screen wall along Oracle Road to further minimize visual impacts and lessen road noise for future homeowners Moving the access road to better preserve protected hillsides The increase in density is supported by staff because the proposal will:  Have a similar development footprint as the current entitlement preserving approximately 70% of the site as open space and primarily avoiding regulated hillsides Incorporate larger lot sizes (minimum 6, 000 sq. ft. with an avg. 6,600 sq. ft) than the subdivision with the potential to be most impacted by the request, the El Conquistador Patio Homes (minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. with an avg. 4,500 sq. ft.) to the south.  Maintain a similar impact to view corridors from Oracle Road and from adjacent neighborhoods by limiting all homes to single-story and incorporating enhanced natural buffer yards to visually screen the proposed homes. Help improve the long-term viability of retail within the area The applicant's request is consistent with the Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan.   The public participation process has been thorough and productive. Two formal neighborhood meetings and 6 informal meetings with neighbors were held to discuss the project and potential compromises. As a result of the outreach process several key agreements were incorporated into Area 4:  Limiting all homes to single-story to diminish the visual impact of the project Maintaining the previously approved 100-foot natural buffer to the El Conquistador Patio Home development to the south Removing lots in the most visible portion of the property and shifting others to minimize impacts Incorporating enhanced buffer yards to help serve as a visual screen The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request at a public hearing on February 5, 2019. The meeting was well attended with a number of neighbors in attendance. The primary topics discussed at the meeting are listed below:  Density Views  Traffic Environment  More detail regarding the discussion during the meeting is provided below and the staff report and draft minutes are included as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively.  In summary, the proposed changes are an improvement relative to the currently permitted design. A key reason is the plan has incorporated a number of revisions to address neighbor concerns. As such, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the applicant's request.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CONTEXT Site Conditions   Approximately 109 - acres Areas 2, 3 and 4 are vacant, however; immediately north of the property, in Area 1, is the San Dorado Apartments and Shopping Center Characterized by regulated hillsides and wash corridors along the eastern portion of the property Current entitlement preserves approximately 75% of Area 4 as open space Land Use Context The subject property has four General Plan Land Use designation (see image at right). In sync with the General Plan, the property is zoned Oro Valley Town Centre Planned Area Development (PAD). The PAD has four development areas (Areas 1 - 4) which include retail, multi-family and single-family residential uses (Attachment 2).  Previous Approvals  2001: Original Oro Valley Town Centre PAD approved 2012: Amendment to PAD approved by Town Council B. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant's proposal includes changes to Area 4 only. No changes are proposed for Areas 1, 2 or 3 as part of this amendment. The changes to Area 4 requested include the following:  Increasing the number of lots from 65 to 82 while maintaining a similar development footprint and preserving approximately 70% of the area as permanent open space Limiting all homes to single-story Reducing the minimum lot size from 15,000 sf to 6,000 sf Enhanced landscape buffer yards to minimize visual impacts Incorporating a screen wall along Oracle Road to further minimize visual impacts of the development while also reducing road noise for future homeowners Moving the access road to better preserve protected hillsides The proposal includes both an increase in density and a corresponding reduction in minimum lot size in Area 4. Staff is supportive of these proposed changes as the design:  Will have a similar development footprint as the existing entitlement Incorporates larger lot sizes (minimum 6,000 sq. ft. with an average 6,600 sq. ft.) than the subdivision most impacted by the proposal, the El Conquistador Patio Homes (minimum 2,500 sq. ft. with an average of 4,500 sq. ft.) Includes enhanced natural buffer yards to help screen the proposed development Does not have any additional view impacts from Oracle Road or to adjacent neighbors; Can help make commercial more viable.  C. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS The proposal has been reviewed for conformance with the Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals and Policies of the  Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. A summary is included below: Vision "Oro Valley strives to be a well-managed community that provides all residents with opportunities for quality living. Oro Valley will keep its friendly, small-town, neighborly character, while increasing services, employment and recreation. The Town's lifestyle continues to be defined by a strong sense of community, a high regard for public safety and an extraordinary natural environment and scenic views". The applicant's proposal is similar to the existing PAD plan, has addressed many of the concerns of neighbors and has incorporated trails and recreational opportunities for area residents. The request is consistent with the Vision statement.  Guiding Principles The applicant's request is consistent with the following Guiding Principles:  "Preserve the scenic beauty and environment" "Create a complete community with a broad range of shopping, dining and places to gather" "Manage how we grow and maintain high design standards" The applicant's request does not change the mix of uses permitted within the overall PAD which remains a combination of retail, multi-family and single-family residential uses. The proposal also preserves a similar percentage of open space and regulated hillsides throughout the site (70%), ensuring the most significant resources are permanently preserved. All future development will have to be consistent with the Town's high quality Design Standards.  Goals and Policies The applicant's proposal is consistent with the following Goals and Policies:  "Provide diverse land uses that meet the Town's overall needs and effectively transition in scale and density adjacent to neighborhoods" "A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents" "The proactive conservation, protection and restoration of environmentally sensitive lands, natural resource areas and habitats and lands with high scenic value" "A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase a sense of place, community interaction and quality of life" "Neighborhoods that include access and effective transitions to open space, recreation and schools and that are supported by shopping and services which meet daily needs" The applicant's proposal maintains the range of uses within the PAD which will compliment each other and help ensure the long-term viability of the commercial development along Oracle Road. Additionally, the proposed changes maintain a similar percentage of open space and regulated hillside conservation protecting the most sensitive resources on the site.  D. ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS The applicant's proposal is generally consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code. Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) The property lies within the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) though the existing PAD does include several exemptions from these requirements. The applicant's proposal will have a similar or lesser visual impact on the Scenic Corridor compared to the existing entitlement by utilizing a similar footprint and limiting all homes in Area 4 to single-story. Furthermore, the plan incorporates a screen wall along Oracle Road to reduce the visibility of the project and help minimize vehicle road noise The applicant's proposal is consistent with both the PAD standards previously established and the applicable sections of the overlay district.  Tentative Development Plan All rezoning applications require a rezoning Tentative Development Plan (TDP) which establishes the future design of the property, including the lot configuration, the circulation network (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) and open space areas.  The TDP is set as shown in the image below (also in Attachment 5). Any future development applications would have  to be in substantial conformance with this specific layout, otherwise additional public meetings will be required.  The TDP includes the following key elements:  82 detached single-family residential lots  Minimum lot sizes range from 6,000 to 7,200 sf  Single story restriction on all homes Approximately 70% open space 100-foot natural buffer area to existing residential south of the property Screen wall along Oracle Road Enhanced buffer yards in several locations, specifically:  Camino Diestro (El Conquistador Patio Homes development) to the south of the property Oracle Road to the west of the property The new access road 1 access point to Oracle Road at the existing Pusch View Lane bridge Sidewalks and Trails are provided throughout, specifically in the wash along the eastern portion of this Area. The developer will be required to construct improvements to the Pusch View Lane and Oracle Road intersection for access and to increase capacity to accommodate the new traffic generated by this development. Improvements at the intersection will consist of widening for a new east bound through lane, reconfiguration of lanes within the east leg of the intersection, re-striping for a new southbound left-turn lane and ADA upgrades at all corners.  The applicant's rezoning Tentative Development Plan is consistent with the Oro Valley Town Centre PAD.  E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following notice has been provided:  Notification of all property owners within 600 feet Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings Notification to all Homeowner's Associations Advertisement in The Daily Territorial newspaper Postings on the property Postings at Town Hall and on the Town website. Two traditional neighborhood meetings were held regarding the proposed rezoning. In addition, staff and the applicant conducted numerous informal meetings to discuss the project and potential solutions. The Neighborhood Meeting Summaries have been provided as Attachment 6. A brief discussion of the key elements discussed at the meetings is provided below.  Visual Impact - Neighbors had concerns regarding the potential visual impacts of the proposed design. In response, the applicant was willing to do the following to address neighbor concerns: 1. Height Restriction - The applicant committed to limit all homes within the Area 4 subdivision to single-story. The current entitlement allows both 1 and 2 - story homes.  Subdivision design - The initial rezoning application proposed 87 homes within Area 4. The applicant reduced this number to 82 through discussions with neighbors regarding the lots that may have the biggest impact. The applicant also agreed to move lots to help minimize any visual impacts. Enhanced Landscaping  -  The applicant agreed to incorporate enhanced landscaping and additional plantings to serve as a continuous vegetative screen for neighbors, again with the aim of minimizing visual impacts.  Water  - Neighbors were concerned about future water connections in the El Conquistador Patio Home subdivision south of the property. Future connections will be made within existing water easements and will be required to meet all Town requirements.    2. Environmental Conservation and Grading - The request utilizes essentially the same development envelope or footprint as the existing entitlement. As such, the proposal will preserve a similar percentage (70% vs. 75%) of open space and regulated hillsides. 3. Staff has received a number of letters regarding the proposed application which have been included as Attachment 7.  The applicant's proposal was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing on February 6, 2019. A summary of the primary topics discussed at the meeting followed by a staff response (in italics) is provided below:  Density - A number of residents expressed concern regarding an increase in density and any potential impacts to the area.  Staff response: The applicants proposal utilizes a similar development footprint as the existing entitlement and preserves a similar percentage of open space (70% - proposed) vs. (75% - existing). Furthermore, the minimum lot sizes proposed are larger than the neighboring property with the most potential to be impacted, the El Conquistador Patio Home subdivision. Ultimately, the proposed increase in density will not have a more tangible impact on the area than the existing approved site plan. Views  - Numerous questions regarding impacts to the view corridor toward the Catalina Mountains were raised. Staff response: In addition to utilizing a similar development footprint as the existing site plan, the applicant has agreed to limit all homes to single-story. The existing entitlement allows both 1 and 2-story homes. As such, the request will have a similar or lesser impact on view sheds across the property. Traffic - Questions were raised regarding the existing level of traffic on area roads, specifically Oracle Road adjacent to the property, and any potential impacts from the proposal Staff response: The applicant's request is expected to marginally increase traffic along Oracle Road (~6%) compared to the existing plan. The staff report and draft meeting minutes are included as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively.  F. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, there are a number of key factors regarding the proposed rezoning. Those factors include:  The request is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and all applicable rezoning requirements. 1. The request has larger lot sizes than the neighborhood most impacted by the development, as well as enhanced buffer yards. 2. The proposal minimizes visual impacts by limiting all homes to single-story.3. Utilizes a similar development footprint and preserves a comparable percentage of open space and regulated hillsides compared to the existing design. 4. The new access road for Area 4 will have less of an impact on regulated hillsides.5. Considering the aforementioned factors, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the applicant's proposal.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE Ordinance (O)19-04, authorizing and approving the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town Center, based on a finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements OR  I MOVE to DENY Ordinance (O)19-04, authorizing and approving the proposed amendment, based on the following ______________________________.  Attachments (O)19-04 OV Town Center  ATTACHMENT 2 - AREA MAP  ATTACHMENT 3 - 2.6.19 PZC STAFF REPORT  ATTACHMENT 4 - DRAFT 2.6.19 PZC MEETING MINUTES  ATTACHMENT 5 - AREA 4 TDP  ATTACHMENT 6 - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 7 - NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE  AREA MAP ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PAD AMENDMENT (OV1801569) Attachment 2    Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 4. Meeting Date:02/05/2019   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: OV1801569 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE, OV1801569 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed amendment  (Attachment 1) to the Oro Valley Town Centre Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning located near the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane (see image at right).  The Oro Valley Town Centre PAD zoning was established in 2001 as a future town center and mixed-use development along Oracle Road. The PAD includes 4 areas (see Attachment 2) ranging from commercial (Area 2) to residential (Area 4), including mixed-use areas (Areas 1 and 3). In 2012, the plan was modified by Town Council to reflect changes in the market at that time. Though that approval maintained the mix of uses (e.g. multi-family (apartments), retail, office and a hotel site) in Area 3, it removed much of the mixed-use integration requirements which essentially eliminated the possibility of this area ever being developed as a Town Center. Area 4 is strictly single-family residential and open space (60% of the area) with one access point to Oracle Road at the existing Pusch View Lane bridge.  The applicant's request is to again, "modify the plan to reflect current market demand". The applicant's proposal (Attachment 1) includes a number of changes in Areas 3 and 4 (none in Areas 1 and 2). Key elements of those changes include: Area 3  Adding several Illustrative Site Plan concepts (see Attachment 3) in Area 3, similar to those previously approved for Area 1, which depict several different potential layouts depending on the proposed use. The existing PAD zoning includes a Tentative Development Plan (TDP) for all of Area 3. These concepts are intended to supplement the existing TDP (Attachment 4) to provide future developers more flexibility.  Eliminating the requirement that multi-family residential (apartments) are only allowed on 2nd stories above Eliminating the requirement that multi-family residential (apartments) are only allowed on 2nd stories above ground floor commercial. Should the property develop as the multi-family/commercial concept, this will represent a net decrease in the square footage of commercial space that is not being offset elsewhere and an increase in the footprint of multi-family residential. Please note, in staff's professional opinion, this is the most likely development scenario for Area 3.  Increasing the maximum building height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The existing PAD zoning includes a hotel site in Area 3 with a maximum permitted building height of 75 feet. This existing hotel zoning entitlement is not proposed to be changed as part of this amendment. The proposal allows more flexibility for Area 3 while allowing increased density in Area 4 within the previously approved development footprint. The potential decrease to commerical and corresponding increase in multi-family are supported by staff because:  The PAD Amendment approved in 2012 greatly diminished the likelihood Area 3 would ever develop as a true "Town Center" A majority of Area 3 is hidden from view from Oracle Road and N. 1st Avenue, making visibility poor for potential commerical users An increase in residential will help make commercial within the area more viable The changes will provide additional flexibility for future users Area 4  Increasing the number of lots from 65 to 82 and maintain a similar development footprint Limiting all homes to single-story Reducing the minimum lot size from 15,000 sf to 6,000 sf Enhanced landscape buffer yards to minimize visual impacts Moving the access road to better preserve protected hillsides The increase in density is supported by staff because the proposal will:  Have a similar development footprint as the current entitlement preserving approximately 60% of the site as open space and regulated hillsides Incorporate larger lot sizes (minimum 6, 000 sq. ft. with an avg. 6,600 sq. ft) than the subdivision with the potential to be most impacted by the request, the El Conquistador Patio Homes (minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. with an avg. 4,500 sq. ft.).  Maintain a similar impact to view corridors from Oracle Road and from adjacent neighborhoods by incorporating enhanced natural buffer yards to visually screen the proposed homes. Help improve the long-term viability of retail within the area The applicant's request does not change the mix of uses permitted within the overall PAD which remains a combination of retail, multi-family and single-family residential uses. Future development will have to be consistent with the Town's high quality Design Standards. Finally, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan.   The public participation process has been thorough and productive. Two formal neighborhood meetings and 6 informal meetings with neighbors were held to discuss the project and potential compromises. As a result of the outreach process several key agreements were incorporated into Area 4:  Limiting all homes to single-story to diminish the visual impact of the project Maintaining the previously approved 100 - foot natural buffer to the El Conquistador Patio Home development to the south. Removing lots in the most visible portion of the property and shifting others to minimize impacts Incorporating enhanced buffer yards to help serve as a visual screen In sum, as a result of the 2012 amendment to the PAD, the likelihood Area 3 was ever going to develop as a Town Center was greatly limited. The proposed changes improve the future potential of the PAD while having a similar impact as the existing entitlement.  Furthermore, the plan has incorporated a number of revisions to address neighbor concerns. As such, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request.    BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CONTEXT Site Conditions  Approximately 109 - acres Areas 2, 3 and 4 are vacant, however; immediately north of the property in Area 1 is the San Dorado Apartments and Shopping Center Characterized by regulated hillsides and wash corridors along the eastern portion of the property Current entitlement preserves approximately 65% of Area 4 as open space Land Use Context The subject property has four General Plan Land Use designation (see image at right). The property is zoned Oro Valley Town Centre Planned Area Development (PAD). The PAD has four development areas (Areas 1 - 4) which include retail, multi-family and single-family residential uses (Attachment 2).  Previous Approvals  2001: Original Oro Valley Town Centre PAD approved 2012: Amendment to PAD approved by Town Council B. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant's proposal includes changes to Areas 3 and 4. No changes are proposed for Areas 1 and 2 as part of this amendment. The request includes the following: Area 3  The addition of several Illustrative Site Plan (ISP) concepts for Area 3 which will provide the applicant additional flexibility in the future. Similar to concept plans previously approved for Area 1, the ISP's show a range of potential layouts depending on the proposed use (e.g. multi-family/commercial, commercial, commercial/office, office). The existing Tentative Development Plan (TDP) for Area 3 will remain an option, while the new ISP's are intended to supplement that existing plan.  Eliminating the requirement for multi-family residential (apartments) to incorporate ground floor commercial. It is important to note, should this area develop using the multi-family/commercial ISP concept, the design will result in a net loss of commercial space and an increase in multi-family area. Increasing the maximum building height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The current TDP for this area includes a future hotel site with a maximum permitted building height of 75 feet which is not proposed to be changed as part of this amendment. The height increase will affect all other builds in Area 3, including those on the existing TDP and the proposed ISP concepts.  Similar to other developments along the Oracle Road corridor, Area 3 is envisioned as a growth area in the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. Though the possibility of developing this area as a true Town Center was greatly diminished as part of the prior PAD amendment in 2012, the commercial in Area's 1, 2 and 3 are ideally situated at the intersection of two arterial roadways (1st Ave. and Pusch View Lane) and a major State Highway (Oracle Road). Efforts to make these areas more developable are supported by staff as these types of developments are important to the long-term viability of the Town. Staff supports the proposed changes in Area 3 as they will help support existing commercial in the area.   Please note, in staff's professional opinion, the most likely development scenario for Area 3 is the multi-family/commercial combination (Illustrative Site Plan #1) which would result in an overall loss in Area 3.  Area 4  Increasing the number of lots from 65 to 82 while maintaining a similar development footprint and preserving approximately 60% of the area as permanent open space. Limiting all homes to single-story Reducing the minimum lot size from 15,000 sf to 6,000 sf Enhanced landscape buffer yards to minimize visual impacts Moving the access road to better preserve protected hillsides With regard to Area 4, the proposal includes both an increase in density and a corresponding reduction in minimum lot size. Again, staff is supportive of these proposed changes as the design:  Will have a similar development footprint as the existing entitlement Incorporates larger lot sizes (minimum 6,000 sq. ft. with an average 6,600 sq. ft.) than the subdivision most impacted by the proposal, the El Conquistador Patio Homes (minimum 2,500 sq. ft. with an average of 4,500 sq. ft.) Includes enhanced natural buffer yards to help screen the proposed development Does not have any additional view impacts from Oracle Road or to adjacent neighbors; Can help make commercial more viable.  C. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS The proposal has been reviewed for conformance with the Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals and Policies of the  Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. A summary is included below: Vision "Oro Valley strives to be a well-managed community that provides all residents with opportunities for quality living. Oro Valley will keep its friendly, small-town, neighborly character, while increasing services, employment and recreation. The Town's lifestyle continues to be defined by a strong sense of community, a high regard for public safety and an extraordinary natural environment and scenic views". The applicant's proposal is similar to the existing PAD plan that incorporates retail, multi-family and single-family residential development. The subdivision design in Area 4 has addressed many of the concerns of neighbors and has incorporated trails and recreational opportunities for area residents. The request is consistent with the Vision statement.  Guiding Principles The applicant's request is consistent with the following Guiding Principles:  "Preserve the scenic beauty and environment" "Create a complete community with a broad range of shopping, dining and places to gather" "Manage how we grow and maintain high design standards" The applicant's request does not change the mix of uses permitted within the overall PAD which remains a combination of retail, multi-family and single-family residential uses. The proposal also preserves a similar percentage of open space and regulated hillsides throughout the site (60%), ensuring the most significant resources are permanently preserved. All future development will have to be consistent with the Town's high quality Design Standards.  Goals and Policies The applicant's proposal is consistent with the following Goals and Policies:  "Long-term financial and economic stability and sustainability" "A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents" "The proactive conservation, protection and restoration of environmentally sensitive lands, natural resource areas and habitats and lands with high scenic value" "A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase a sense of place, community interaction and quality of life" "Neighborhoods that include access and effective transitions to open space, recreation and schools and that are supported by shopping and services which meet daily needs" The applicant's proposal maintains the range of uses within the PAD which will compliment each other and help ensure the long-term viability of the commercial development along Oracle Road. Additionally, the proposed changes maintain a similar percentage of open space and regulated hillside conservation protecting the most sensitive resources on the site.  D. ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS The applicant's proposal is generally consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code. Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) The property lies within the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) though the existing PAD does include several exemptions from these requirements. The applicant's proposal will have a similar or lesser visual impact on the Scenic Corridor from Oracle Road as the existing entitlement as a result of utilizing essentially the same footprint and limiting all homes in Area 4 to single-story.  The applicant's proposal is consistent with both the PAD standards previously established and the applicable sections of the overlay district.  Tentative Development Plan All rezoning applications require a rezoning Tentative Development Plan (TDP) which establishes the future design of the property, including the subdivision or commercial area designs, the circulation network (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) and open space areas.  Area 3 In this Area, the applicant's proposal includes an approach to the rezoning TDP requirement which affords the applicant more flexibility in the future. While the existing TDP (Attachment 4) will remain an option, the applicant has included multiple Illustrative Site Plan (ISP) concepts (Attachment 3) for this area depending on which type of development is proposed in the future. The concepts include the layouts detailed in the table below:     Multi-family    Office    Commercial Total Sq. Footage Existing Site Plan *X X 105,700  sq. ft.      Illustrative Site Plan 1      X -X 10,000 sq. ft.       Illustrative Site Plan 2    --X 117,500 sq. ft.  Illustrative Site Plan 3 -X X 114,000 sq. ft.  Illustrative Site Plan 4 -X -132,500 sq. ft.  Illustrative Site Plan 5 -X -117,500 sq. ft.  Illustrative Site Plan 6 -X -134,500 sq. ft.  Illustrative Site Plan 7 --X 93,500 sq. ft. Illustrative Site Plan Summary                                   * Only permitted on 2nd stories above ground floor commercial Should future development applications be substantially in conformance with (as defined by code) either the existing TDP and/or any of the approved Illustrative Site Plans, no further public meetings would be required. The plans would be reviewed administratively and can move toward Final Plat and construction documents sooner, an incentive for future developers to submit plans similar to the approved designs. This approach reduces duplication of application processing while allowing for the necessary review as part of this request. Furthermore, this eliminates the potential for duplication of efforts by the applicant, Town Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council.  Each of the concepts provide two points of access; 1) to Oracle Road at the existing Pusch View Lane bridge and 2) to 1st Avenue near the San Dorado Apartments after construction of a future bridge spanning Rooney Wash. Pedestrian and Bicycle connectivity is also provided throughout the development with access to each of these points of ingress/egress.  Area 4 In this Area, the TDP is set as shown in the image to the below (also in Attachment 5). Any future development applications would have to be in substantial conformance with this specific layout, otherwise additional public meetings will be required.  The TDP includes the following key elements:  82 detached single-family residential lots  Lot sizes range from 6,000 sf to 7,200  100 - foot natural buffer area to existing residential south of the property Enhanced buffer yards in several locations, specifically:  Camino Diestro (El Conquistador Patio Homes development) to the south of the property Oracle Road to the west of the property The new access road 1 access point to Oracle Road at the existing Pusch View Lane bridge Sidewalks and Trails are provided throughout, specifically in the wash along the eastern portion of this Area. The developer will be required to construct improvements to the Pusch View Lane at Oracle Road intersection for access and to increase capacity to accomodate the new traffic generated by this development, regardless of which Illustrative Site Plan concept is used in Area 3.  Improvements at the intersection will consist of widening for a new east bound through lane, reconfiguration of lanes within the east leg of the intersection, restriping for a new southbound left-turn lane and ADA upgrades at all corners.  The applicant's rezoning Tentative Development Plans are consistent with the Oro Valley Town Centre PAD.  E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following notice has been provided:  Notification of all property owners within 600 feet Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings Notification to all Homeowner's Associations Advertisement in The Daily Territorial newspaper Postings on the property Postings at Town Hall and on the Town website. Two traditional neighborhood meetings were held regarding the proposed rezoning. In addition, staff and the applicant conducted numerous informal meetings to discuss the project and potential solutions. The Neighborhood Meeting Summaries have been provided as Attachment 6. A brief discussion of the key elements discussed at the meetings is provided below.  Visual Impact - Neighbors had concerns regarding the potential visual impacts of the proposed design. In response, the applicant was willing to do the following to address neighbor concerns: 1. Height Restriction - The applicant committed to limit all homes within the Area 4 subdivision to single-story. The current entitlement allows both 1 and 2 - story homes.  Subdivision design - The initial rezoning application proposed 87 homes within Area 4. The applicant reduced this number to 82 through discussions with neighbors regarding the lots that may have the biggest impact. The applicant also agreed to move lots to help minimize any visual impacts. Enhanced Landscaping  -  The applicant agreed to incorporate enhanced landscaping and additional plantings to serve as a continuous vegetative screen for neighbors, again with the aim of minimizing visual impacts.  Water  - Neighbors were concerned about future water connections in the El Conquistador Patio Home subdivision south of the property. Future connections will be made within existing water easements and will be required to meet all Town requirements.    2. Environmental Conservation and Grading - The request utilizes essentially the same development envelope or footprint as the existing entitlement. As such, the proposal will preserve a similar percentage (60% vs. 65%) of open space and regulated hillsides. 3. Staff has received a number of letters regarding the proposed application which have been included as Attachment 7.  F. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, there are a number of key factors regarding the proposed rezoning. Those factors include:  The request is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and all applicable rezoning requirements. 1. The possibility of a true "Town Center" development was essentially eliminated as part of the PAD Amendment approved in 2012. 2. The new access road for Area 4 will have less of an impact on regulated hillsides.3. The request has larger lot sizes than the neighborhood most impacted by the development, as well as enhanced buffer yards 4. The proposal minimizes visual impacts by limiting all homes within Area 4 to single-story.5. Utilizes a similar development footprint and preserves a comparable percentage of open space and regulated hillsides.   6. Considering the aforementioned factors, staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposal.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to recommend approval the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town Center, based on a finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements OR  I MOVE to deny the proposed amendment, based on the following ______________________________.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - APPLICANT SUBMITTAL  ATTACHMENT 2 - AREA MAP  ATTACHMENT 3 - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLANS  ATTACHMENT 4 - EXISTING AREA 3 TDP  ATTACHMENT 5 - AREA 4 TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN  ATTACHMENT 6 - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 7 - NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE  February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION February 5, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bob Swope, Vice Chair Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Nathan Basken, Commissioner Commissioner Hong arrived at 6:05 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston Planning Manager Bayer Vella Permitting Manager David Laws Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman provided updates on the following: - Two final plats were approved by Council in December - In January, Council denied the rezoning request for property in the Innovation Park February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 2 area, so it will remain zoned as Campus Park Industrial; approved a master sign program in the Placita de Oro shopping center; held study sessio ns on both the State Land potential annexation and the Oro Valley Community Center golf courses; and appointed new board and commission members. - No Planning items are currently on the agendas for February council meetings. - For the March 6 council meeting, two items on tonight's agenda may be heard as well as a final plat case. - There is another tentatively scheduled study session on February 20 for the golf courses. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2018 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to approve the December 4, 2018 meeting minutes as written. MOTION carried, 7-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE, OV1801569 Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Background - Oro Valley Town Centre PAD (Planned Area Development) - Background - Existing Entitlements Area 4 - Applicant's Request - Area 4 - Existing vs. Proposed - Area 4 - Neighborhood Compatibility - Rezoning Request - Review Tools - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. Applicant Rob Longaker of The WLB Group introduced the owner of the property, Patrick Rooney as well as Rick Morris with Richmond American Homes. Mr. Longaker spoke on the following: - History of application and background on his credentials - Reasons for amendments to Area 3 and exclusion from this proposal February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 3 - Changes to submittal document based on the Area 3 withdrawal - Reviewed the infrastructure, traffic impact analysis, transitional buffering, view protection from Oracle Road and compliance with the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD), views from the proposed homes, on-site recreation areas and compatibility with surrounding properties related to Area 4 - The neighborhood meetings that have been held and the resulting changes that have been made to the plan - Existing water infrastructure and water connectivity - Specific changes to the application, what is being removed and what is remaining in the plan Discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. Vice Chair Swope opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in support of Agenda Item 4: - Michael Barclay, Oro Valley resident - Courtland Hall, Oro Valley resident - Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident - Teri Lamour, Oro Valley resident The following individuals spoke in opposition of Agenda Item 4: - Jerry Ward, Oro Valley resident - Lee Saida, Oro Valley resident - Hal Biestek, Oro Valley resident - Tony Beretta, Oro Valley resident - Joseph Fratt, Oro Valley resident - Tom Durham, Oro Valley resident - Don Adams (also representing Jan Adams), Oro Valley resident - Nancy Ward, Oro Valley resident - Kurt Weirich, Oro Valley resident The following individuals spoke on Agenda Item 4: - Bill Gardner, Oro Valley resident - Krystal Graham, Oro Valley resident - Joseph Fratt, Sr., Oro Valley resident Vice Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 Center, based on the finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Basken and seconded by Commissioner Gribb to Amend to add Condition 1 - the applicant will plant additional trees directly adjacent to Camino Diestro in the gap as opposed to along the road in this PAD. Further discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. AMENDED MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town Center, based on the finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements, adding Condition 1 and excluding Area 3. MOTION carried, 7-0. Vice Chair Swope recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Vice Chair Swope resumed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 21 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND SHORE CLIFF DRIVE, OV1801921 Senior Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that including the following: - Purpose - Location - Existing Zoning - Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan - Proposed In-Lieu Fee for Rec Area - Public Participation - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued among the staff and Commission. Hugo Blanco and Ryan Mott with Melcor Developments, and Chris Patton with Rick Engineering, reviewed the following: - Privacy concerns and cross section of eastern boundary - Rivers Edge entrance and impact of headlights Discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 5 Vice Chair Swope opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 5: - Bill Baber, Oro Valley resident - Gary Darst, Oro Valley resident Vice Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Bergsma and seconded by Commissioner Gribb to recommend approval of the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for a proposed 21-lot subdivision on Shore Cliff Drive, finding the request is in conformance with the Design Principles and applicable Design Standa rds. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Posey opposed. 6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO MODIFY AN EXISTING COMMUNICATION FACILITY, LOCATED ON A TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER UTILITY POLE NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CAÑADA DRIVE, OV1802935 - Purpose - Location - Modifications - Stealth Applications - General Plan Compliance - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Carmelina Scigliano with Tectonic Engineering, representing Verizon Wireless, spoke on the reason for selecting this pole regarding service capacity. Discussion continued among the Commission and staff. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Bergsma to approve the proposed modifications to the existing cell tower located on a Tucson Electric Power utility pole, based on the finding it meets all applicable zoning code requirements and design guidelines. MOTION carried, 7-0. February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 1. ELECTION OF CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to nominate Vice Chair Bob Swope as the Planning and Zoning Commission Chair. MOTION carried, 7-0. 2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Bergsma to nominate Commissioner Nathan Basken as the Planning and Zoning Commission Vice Chair. MOTION carried, 7-0. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Planning Manager Bayer Vella provided the following updates: - Upcoming neighborhood meeting on February 7 - The next Commission meeting is scheduled for March 5 - Information on Commissioner memberships for the American Planning Association, including the Arizona Chapter ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Prepared by: Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the regular session Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th of February, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Oro Valley Town Center April 10, 2018 6:00 – 7:30 PM Town Hall 1. Introductions and welcome Meeting Facilitator Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner, introduced himself as the Town’s project manager. Approximately 47 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Councilmember Rodman, Councilmember Hornat, the Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Charlie Hurt and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Bob Swope, Tom Gribb and Melanie Barrett. 2. Staff presentation Michael Spaeth, Current Planning Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included:  Background of the property, including project history  Property information  Applicant’s request  Review tools  Conformance with the General Plan  Next steps in the process 3. Applicant presentation Rob Longacker of the WLB Group, provided a presentation detailing the applicant’s proposal, which included:  Proposed site plan revisions for Areas 3 and 4 including: o New layout (Area 4) o Total number of lots (Area 4) o Smaller lot sizes (Area 4) o Increased building heights (Area 3) o Potential for multi-family residential uses (Area 3)  Conformance with existing PAD standards  Conformance with General Plan policies 4. Public Questions and Comments Listed below is a summary of the topics discussed: 1. Reducing the existing 100 foot setback from existing patio homes Patio Homes 2. Limitations on 2-story homes 3. Future screening of development (e.g. screen walls and increased landscaping) 4. Impacts to existing hillsides 5. Overall lot distribution of new layout 6. Anticipated timing for construction (re: impacts to neighbors) 7. Appropriateness of multi-family (Townhomes and condos vs. apartments) 8. View impacts to the Tortolita Mountains 9. Density in Area 3 10. Water availability 11. Traffic impacts 12. Displacement of wildlife 13. Loss of commercial opportunities 14. Light pollution Mr. Spaeth closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and informed neighbors that staff anticipated a formal submittal soon. Following review of the formal submittal, a second neighborhood meeting will be scheduled. Attendees were also encouraged to contact Mr. Spaeth, the Town’s project manager, with any additional thoughts, comments or concerns. 1 Neighborhood Meeting Summary Oro Valley Town Center PAD Amendment NWC of Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane Proposed Rezoning (PAD Amendment) November 1, 2018 6:00 – 7:30 PM El Conquistador Resort 1. Introductions and Welcome Meeting Facilitator and Project Manager for the Town, Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner, introduced the meeting. Approximately 100 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Council Members Rodman, Pina and Council Member-elect Jones-Ivey and Planning and Zoning Chairman Hurt and Commissioner Swope were in attendance. 2. Staff Presentation Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included: Applicant’s request Application process Review of issues identified during 1st neighborhood meeting 3. Applicant Presentation Brian Underwood of the Planning Center provided a presentation detailing the applicant’s proposal, which included: Project overview Site plan design (e.g., lot layout, access, building heights, location of future commercial, etc.) Design elements addressing previously identified issues and concerns During the applicant’s presentation, a commitment was made by the property owner to limit all homes within Area 4 to single-story and to eliminate Lots 41-43. 4. Public Questions & Comments ` Following is a summary of additional questions and comments: Traffic Circulation: Impact to Oracle Road. Infrastructure: The neighbors have a concern with a sufficient water supply, specifically as it concerns connection to the El Conquistador Patio Homes. Who is responsible for the construction of any required wash crossings (bridges)? Too many homes to have a single access point (Area 4) Are impact fees collected to have development pay its fair share? 2 Who provides the traffic numbers? How can the Town be sure they are accurate? Land Use: Proposal has too many homes. Would rather prefer the existing 65 units be retained. Why not retain the commercial/residential mix in Area 3 to promote a more “Main Street” style development. Will C,C & R’s stipulate only “high quality” designs? Oracle Road Scenic Road Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) applicability of development standards to new proposal The site’s natural beauty should be retained and no additional density allowed. Too many apartments currently, additional units are not needed/desired How will the Town ensure “enhanced bufferyards” are actually enhanced? Could there conceivably be apartments AND a hotel in Area 3? What is the anticipated schedule of development? What happens if the development is abandoned after grading? View Preservation and Environmental Conservation: How close will homes be to Oracle Road and what impact will that have on views of the Catalina Mountains to the east? The proposed development will have a negative impact on the existing wildlife. How long is “Open Space” actually preserved? And how? Other Has a market study been commissioned to determine if the project is even viable? What does the Town “get in return”? How large will the homes be and what is the anticipated price point? Are trails provided and who will be able to use them? It was determined that another neighborhood meeting would not be required as most concerns/questions had been addressed during the meeting. Mr. Spaeth closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and encouraged everyone to contact him with any additional thoughts, comments or concerns. From: kitty <k3952s@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 2:05 PM To: Hiremath, Satish; Waters, Lou; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Rodman, Bill; Pina, Rhonda; Solomon, Steve; Spaeth, Michael; Vella, Bayer; Keesler, Paul Subject: ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE (ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTER PAD) REZONING Case #: OV1800211 Mayor Hiremath, Councilmen and City Planners/Engineers, I was unable to attend the above rezoning hearing. I realize the vacant property will be developed one way or another eventually, so I ask that the request to reduce lots sizes and setbacks (reduce/change lot sizes from 15,000 SF to 6,000 SF and reduce/change setbacks from 100 SF to 50 SF) not be allowed but remain in keeping with the Town of Oro Valley's approved general plan/PAD. Also, please add me to your email notification list. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathleen Schwartz 1124 E. Camino Diestro Oro Valley, AZ 85704 520-888-8288 k3952s@aol.com From: kweirich@comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:42 PM To: Spaeth, Michael Cc: Jacobs, Mary; Weirich, Kurt Subject: Fwd: Oro Valley Resident - Concerns Good Afternoon Michael, I hope that you are doing well. I'm an Oro Valley resident of over 10 years and have some concerns related to a new proposed project at Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane. I understand that there is a "Neighborhood Meeting" tomorrow to discuss concerns. I am likely not going to be able to attend due to my schedule. I noticed on the Oro Valley website that you are the contact for this project. Please see my email below listing my concerns that I sent to Mary Jacobs last week. I spoke to many of my neighbors this past weekend at our HOA meeting in LaReserve and they are very concerned with this development, and many others on Oracle Road, and share my concerns as listed below as well. It would be very helpful if you can please respond that you received my email, at your convenience. I want my voice and concerns to be heard as an Oro Valley resident, not just the developers. Thank you sincerely for listening to my concerns, Kurt Kurt Weirich 1591 E. Deer Shadow Lane Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 520.878.3872 Kurt's personal cell kweirich@comcast.net Kurt's personal email From: kweirich@comcast.net To: mjacobs@orovalleyaz.gov Cc: "Kurt Weirich" <kweirich@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:58:23 AM Subject: Oro Valley Resident - Concerns Good Morning Mary, I hope that you are doing well. I live in Oro Valley, in La Reserve, and purchased my home there 10 years ago. I love the neighborhood and my neighbors. I feel blessed to live on Pusch Ridge. I recently noticed a lot of "Neighborhood Meeting" signs on Oracle Road near Pusch View Lane about another new proposed building project. I understand from these signs that there is a meeting next week on Tuesday night to talk about this proposal with neighbors. I'm not certain I will be able to make the meeting due to my schedule. I may be able to come very late. Is there a way I can share my thoughts with you about another building project on Oracle Road if I can't make the meeting. I am very concerned with this project and against the proposed zoning changes on the Oro Valley Town website that would double the proposed project housing density and raise the building heights zoning already in place near Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane. I know a lot of my neighbors who live near this proposed development in La Reserve are really concerned with all the over-development on Oracle road, loss of Oro Valley's nice nature, beauty and wild animals, the lack of vision to protect our Town's natural beauty, character and resources. Overall, I feel the neighborhood does not support this project and I would like to have my voice heard, not just the developers. This is a very, very special natural area on Pusch Ridge that should be protected and I fear that we will lose the beauty with another building project. Overall, I'm concerned with the large increase in very, very heavy traffic on Oracle Road, the many high density rental apartment buildings being built by developers and new strip malls being built, e.g. fast food restaurants, etc. I had expressed concerns at the OV Town Council a couple of years ago about the San Dorado high density rental apartment development at Oracle and First Ave. The Phoenix developer built the apartments anyway, even though many people did not want the project. Now traffic is very heavy, a lot of rental apartments, strip malls, etc. at Oracle and First Ave. where there used to be a really beautiful view with nice nature when driving into La Reserve. Now the beauty is gone there. As I write this email there is another drive through bank structure going up that blocks the view of the mountains from Oracle Road on First Avenue at Oracle Road. It looks like it is happening again with the new proposed development near Pusch View Lane and Oracle Road. I am a very positive person who loves living in La Reserve. I'm very disappointed with the amount and type of rental apartment high density development and other strip-mall commercial development I see in Oro Valley recently. I feel like the Oro Valley residents don't have a say and the developers are controlling the Town. I am an individual and don't have the developers money to influence things, but I would like to have my voice heard, which I feel is not happening now. I wanted to reach out to you and share my thoughts. I have written to you before and shared my concerns about the over development of Oro Valley, especially on Oracle Road. This is an important topic and concern for the residents of Oro Valley and I want to be heard. Thank you for listening to me and for your help. Thank you sincerely, Kurt Kurt Weirich 1591 E. Deer Shadow Lane Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 520.878.3872 Kurt's personal cell kweirich@comcast.net Kurt's personal email From: Denise Whatley <dfwhatley@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 3:34 PM To: Spaeth, Michael; Town Council; Jacobs, Mary Subject: Oracle Road and Pusch View Lane Dear Mr. Spaeth, Mayor Winfield, all Council Members, Mary Jacobs Mr. Spaeth thank you for the well run community meeting you conducted on November 1 at the Hilton Hotel. Once again, I urge denial of the Oracle Road Pusch View Lane proposed project as submitted. There is no advantage to the Town of Oro Valley and it’s citizens to lower the established standards of quality and stable growth as stated in the General Plan to accommodate the absentee land owner and a second tier developer. The General Plan was approved by vote of the people and must be honored. The land owner has no ties to or interest in Oro Valley, even though he does have the same family name of one of the original land owners, he has never lived here. He is the designated heir to rid all the heirs of the burden of property tax on the property. The property has been on the market for a considerable time, and now he has a contract with a 2nd tier, at best, developer to turn the beautiful land into a high density intrusive project that would have a negative, unsightly effect on the surrounding area. The project offers no value to the Town, it only increases servicing costs. The land is appropriate for top quality single family, single story homes on 15,000 square foot lots as the original plan states. Reducing the lot size from 15,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet is not conducive to, or attractive for long term residency. People who move here come for the space and the privacy of their own land. Additional apartment complexes do not represent stability or long term residency for the area, they only add to the cost of services that must be provided. The Town of Oro Valley is already burdened with projects approved for the benefit of the developer, but not for the people of Oro Valley; the unfinished atrocity of the market place at Tangerine and Oracle Road; the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club building and golf courses and the Pusch Ridge course; the project at Linda Vista and Oracle. These are glaring examples of projects affording substantial benefit to the developer, at the expense of the Town. Please do not allow the proposed project on the Pusch Ridge View land to be added to the list. Thanks to each of you in your efforts to honor the privilege given to you by the people of Oro Valley, to govern for the enhancement of the area and for the benefit of the Town and its citizens. Denise Whatley 981 East Camino Corrida From: Ron Carlson <ronaldwcarlson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 11:05 AM To: Spaeth, Michael Subject: Richmond America-Puesch View Lane/Oracle Proposal Dear M. Spaeth I own a home at 961 E. Camino Corrida. I have a background in land development as a real estate attorney. I find the proposal extremely objectionable in the following respects: 1) Cutting the Setback in half 2) Cutting the lot size by almost two thirds 3) lifting the height restriction to permit two stories. These aspects in combination propose a radical change in the character of the neighborhood and residential development in Oro Valley. These changes would exponentially increase the density. As an attorney representing developers I would often see that raising the height limitation was a response to increased regulation. I support the idea of increased height when parking requirements, landscape requirements limit the developable space on a lot. However when your reduce the setbacks and reduce the lot size you have increased the developable space, so there is no justification for the height increase. My preference would be to see a) no change in the setback; b) no more than a 10 % reduction in the lot size and c) allow height increases only in conjunction with a mass/bulk plain restriction or regulation so that an architectually pleasing look is obtained and no two story boxes result. I own another home in Colorado where Richmond America is headquartered. Their reputation is for building shoddy or cheap low quality homes. Steps should be taken to prevent low quality projects in our community in Arizona. Finally, the developer should be aware that rezoning that does not follow master plan guidelines is subject to litigation. Regards, Ron Carlson    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: OV1801921 Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 21 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND SHORE CLIFF DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to consider a Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for a proposed residential subdivision. Conceptual design review involves cases where the use and development standards (i.e. building height, setbacks, etc.) are permitted under the existing zoning. As such, the focus of review is solely on site design and conformance to the Design Principles and applicable Design Standards of the Zoning Code.   The applicant's request is for the development of a 21 lot single-family residential subdivision on an approximately 7 acre property, located on the northeast corner of Lambert Lane and Shore Cliff Drive (see image to the right). The request includes a Conceptual Site Plan (Attachment 1) and Landscape Plan (Attachment 2). Key elements of the proposal are:  21 single-family residential lots Existing zoning permits this use and density Least intensive use allowed on the property Utilizes development standards similar to surrounding developments A minimum lot size of 6,559 sf (similar to the adjacent subdivisions) One access point off Shore Cliff Drive Approximately 2 acres of open space (includes buffer yards) Pedestrian connectivity throughout the subdivision and to the multi-use path on Lambert Lane Proposed in-lieu fee for recreation area requirement The subdivision design, lot size and layout is similar to the existing subdivisions located east, west and south of the property. Although larger lots exist north of the property they are separated from the proposed development by a hillside, approximately 40 feet high. The Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan conform to the Design Principles and applicable Design Standards of the Zoning Code. As such, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Land Use Context The subject property is designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and is zoned TR (transitional), CB-2 (commercial) and CR-5 (multi-family) in the River's Edge Planned Area Development (see image to the right). The zoning districts reflect Pima County zoning standards that were adopted with the Planned Area Development upon annexation. For the purposes of this proposal, CR-5 standards were used as they are the least intensive and most analogous to the applicant's request.  The existing land use and zoning designations for the property and surrounding areas are provided in Attachment 3. Existing Site Conditions  7 acres Property is vacant Characterized by slopes along the north and eastern portions of the property Surrounded by subdivisions with similar lot sizes Proposed Improvements:  21 single-family detached residential lots Approximately 2 acres (30%) of open space One access point off Shore Cliff Drive Approvals to Date  1994- Annexed as part of the River's Edge Planned Area Development DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Conceptual Site Plan The Conceptual Site Plan (Attachment 1) is for a 21 lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 7 acres. The overall design of the subdivision is consistent with the surrounding developments to the east, west and south with respect to layout and lot size. The larger lots existing north of the property are at a higher elevation, providing a natural buffer from the proposed development. Conceptual Site Plans are reviewed for their conformance to the Design Guidelines and applicable Design Standards in the Zoning Code. A detailed analysis of each is provided in Attachment 4. Notable elements of review include:  Compatibility: The proposed use is the least intensive and most compatible use permitted on the site as the zoning would also allow commercial and multi-family developments. The proposed lot size (6,559 square feet) is similar to the adjacent subdivisions to the east, south and west. Although larger lot homes exist to the north, the subject property is at a lower elevation reducing its visibility and impact to those neighbors. View impacts:  The allowed and proposed building height is 24 feet, not to exceed two (2) stories.  For homes located west of the property mountain views (towards the southeast) will be impacted the most, as they are at a lower elevation than the proposed development. However, the amount and location of two-story homes must be code compliant. The Zoning Code allows no more than sixty-percent (60%) of the subdivision, or 13 homes, can be two-story, no more than two, two-story homes may be located next to each other on the same street, and two-story homes may not be located on corner lots. However, the site design for this project does not feature any corner lots, which are defined by the Zoning Code as, "a lot adjoining two or more streets at their intersection." These requirements are enforced during the building permit process. Drainage: Currently, a portion of the stormwater runoff from this site discharges into a private drainage channel adjacent to the property. The proposed development will capture the existing run-off and convey it within a storm drain system into a culvert located in the Lambert Lane public right-of-way, downstream of  the private drainage channel. Traffic:  The proposed development will have one access point off Shore Cliff Drive. Shore Cliff Drive serves the surrounding subdivisions and is the safest option for access to this site as it has a lower level of traffic flow. In accordance with the associated traffic study, no offsite road improvements are needed as existing roads have ample capacity for the proposed development. Conceptual Landscape Plan The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Attachment 2) is in conformance with the River's Edge Planned Area Development. The Conceptual Landscape Plan includes a landscaped entry, buffer yards along Lambert Lane and Shore Cliff Drive, and preservation of natural open space. Recreation Area The applicant is also proposing to use the in-lieu fee option to meet the recreation area requirement, which requires Town Council approval. Per the River's Edge PAD the recreation area requirement for the proposed subdivision is 5% of the total area (0.32 acres for this subdivision) and at least one (1) passive and one (1) active amenity. Per code, the in-lieu fee is based off the land value and amenities the recreation area would have provided, which in this case is $32,678 (see Attachment 5). In-lieu fees are used for the development or improvement of Town parks or recreational facilities and the proposed fee has been accepted by the Parks and Recreation Director. An in-lieu fee is an alternative option for smaller subdivisions, located in proximity to existing public parks and recreation facilities. Factors considered for approval include:  Size of the subdivision: Per code, subdivisions with 43 or less lots may provide an in-lieu fee for the entire recreation area requirement, upon approval from Town Council. Proximity to public parks: The proposed development is roughly a 1/2 mile away from Riverfront Park Pedestrian connectivity to other recreation areas: The proposed development is connected to Riverfront Park by existing sidewalks and a multi-use path along Lambert Lane. The applicant will also construct sidewalks through the proposed development and along Shore Cliff Drive. The proposed project meets all of the aforementioned factors. Specifically, due to the subdivision size and proximity to a public park, an in-lieu fee is more beneficial for this project than constructing a park. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Two neighborhood meetings (March 2018 and January 2019) were held for the applicant's proposal. The following concerns and responses were provided during the meetings:  Drainage impacts to the nearby privately-owned drainage channel: Drainage from the proposed development will be captured and conveyed into a culvert located in the public right-of-way (Lambert Lane), downstream of the private drainage channel. Increased traffic along Shore Cliff Drive and Lambert Lane: A traffic study was completed in March 2018, showing the amount of traffic generated from the development is minimal and does not require any offsite road improvements. Impacts to views and placement of two-story homes (specifically along the eastern perimeter, which is at a higher elevation than the adjacent homes to the east): The placement of two-story homes will comply with all code requirements. Specifically along the eastern perimeter, the highest lots are over 150 feet away from the homes to the east. Vehicle headlight pollution shining on adjacent properties exiting the proposed subdivision: The applicant proposes dense landscaping near the entrance and a slight curve in the road to assist in reducing vehicle headlight pollution shining on adjacent residences. A summary of both neighborhood meetings is included in Attachment 6. Additional correspondence from residents is provided in Attachment 7. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The applicant's request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 5, 2019 (for the draft meeting minutes, see Attachment 8). A summary of the main topics discussed is included below:  Recreation requirements for surrounding subdivisions: The surrounding subdivisions do not have recreation areas. It is important to note, in-lieu fees are evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account the proximity to public parks and the size of the proposed recreation area versus the community benefit of an in-lieu fee. Impacts to the private drainage channel in need of maintenance: The proposed development will not impact the private drainage channel. Although the Town may not use public funds to fix the channel, staff is looking for alternative funding sources to assist the affected HOAs. Locating the access drive on Shore Cliff instead of Lambert Lane: The property is bounded by Lambert Lane, an arterial road and Shore Cliff Drive, which is a local collector road. It is standard practice and safer to provide access from the lower classified road, which in this case is Shore Cliff Drive. Additionally, it helps maintain the traffic flow on Lambert Lane by reducing the amount of access points. Elevation of homes in relation to the existing homes built below the roadway grade: The elevation of the proposed homes will be 2-3 feet above roadway grade along Lambert Lane. Summary of Public Notice: Public notice has been provided:  Homeowners Association mailing Post at Town Hall and on website Postcard to all property owners within 600 feet CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION In summary, the request meets all Zoning Code requirements and is in conformance with the Design Principles and applicable Design Standards. As such, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the proposed 21 lot subdivision on Shore Cliff Drive, finding the request is in conformance wit the Design Principles and applicable Design Standards. OR I MOVE to DENY the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the proposed 21-lot subdivision finding _____________________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN  ATTACHMENT 2 - CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN  ATTACHMENT 3- LAND USE AND ZONING TABLE  ATTACHMENT 4- DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS  ATTACHMENT 5 - REC AREA IN-LIEU FEE  ATTACHMENT 6- NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 7- NEIGHBOR LETTERS  ATTACHMENT 8- DRAFT PZC MEETING MINUTES  CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORRIVERS EDGELOTS 103-123, COMMON AREA "A"OV1801921CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORRIVERS EDGELOTS 103-123OWNER/DEVELOPERENGINEERLOCATION MAPSITE PLANPAD DISTRICTPROJECT SITERIVERS EDGE PADUNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTSBASIS OF BEARINGBENCHMARKORO VALLEY GENERAL NOTES:ORO VALLEY GENERAL NOTES (CONTINUED):xxxxxxxxxx CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORRIVERS EDGELOTS 103-123LEGENDABBREVIATIONS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORRIVERS EDGELOTS 103-123” ” 109108107106104105110111112113114115116117118119120121122123F:\4191_River's_Edge\Landscape\4191A-L-CONCEPT-LS.dwg Plotted: Jan. 09, 20192018 Rick Engineering Companyc1. THE GROSS AREA OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 6.5 ACRES2.TOTAL UNDISTURBED AREA IS 0.2 ± ACRE3. SETBACKS REQUIRED/PROVIDED (FRONT = 20', SIDE = 10', REAR = 10').4. COMMON AREAS / OPEN SPACE SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE H.O.A.5. EXISTING ZONING IS PAD (TR, CR-2, CR-5).6. BUFFERYARD TYPES: TYPE 'C' (PER PIMA COUNTY STANDARDS AS DICTATED BY THE MELCOR/RIVER'S EDGE PAD)7. ASSURANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND RE-VEGETATION BONDS MUST BE POSTED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OFGRADING PERMITS.8. PROPERTY OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN BUFFERYARD PLANTINGS TO ENSURE UNOBSTRUCTED VISIBILITY TOMOTORISTS. ALL SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND GROUNDCOVERS SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY (30) INCHES IN HEIGHTWITHIN SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. TREES WITHIN SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WILL BE MAINTAINED TO ENSURETHAT BRANCHES / FOLIAGE IS NOT BELOW A HEIGHT OF SIX (6') FEET.9. IN THE EVENT OF ABANDONMENT OF THE SITE AFTER GRADING / DISTURBANCE OF NATURAL AREAS, DISTURBEDAREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A NON-IRRIGATED HYDRO SEED MIX FROM OVZCR ADDENDUM D: APPROVEDREVEGETATION SEED MIX.10. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THEARIZONA NURSERY ASSOCIATION'S GROWERS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIFICATIONS AND THEAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN AS TO SIZE, CONDITION AND APPEARANCE.11. PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS LONG ASNECESSARY IN ORDER TO TRANSITION PLANTS OVER TO NATURAL SOURCES. ANY PLANT MATERIALS THAT DIE INTRANSITION, FOR ANY REASONS, SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.E.4., MAINTENANCE.12. LANDSCAPE SHALL CONFORM TO ORO VALLEY LANDSCAPE CODE.13. MITIGATION OF SURVEYED PLANTS IN THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THELANDSCAPE DESIGN.14. TREE AND SHRUB LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.15. ALL PLANTS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM.16. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE REMOVED OR DAMAGED PLANT MATERIAL WITH LIKE SIZE AND SPECIES, ANDSHALL MAINTAIN AND GUARANTEE (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26.6.C AND I) THE REPLACEMENT PLANTMATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF (3) YEARS.17. LANDSCAPE AREAS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DAMAGE BY PEDESTRIAN OR AUTO TRAFFIC SHALL BE PROTECTEDBY APPROPRIATE CURBS, TREE GUARDS OR OTHER DEVICES.18. CURB-WAY CONSISTING OF INORGANIC GROUNDCOVER OR PLANTS NOT EXCEED TYPE 2 WATER USE SHALL BEPROVIDED BETWEEN CURB AND ALL SIDEWALKS.19. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT, SAND, AND GRAVEL BEING CARRIED INTO THE STREETSBY STORM WATER OR OTHER RUNOFF.20. LANDSCAPE DESIGN ENABLES ADEQUATE PLANT SPACING TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY AT PLANT MATURITY. ALLLANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NATURAL TOPPING MATERIAL OF AT LEAST TWO (2) INCHES INDEPTH.21. TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED WHEN PLANTED.22. SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN THREE TO ONE (3:1) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN A SITE-SPECIFIC SOILSREPORT PREPARED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.23. DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION AND TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 7.5 FEET FROM A PUBLIC WATERLINE. EXCEPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS SUCH AS ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSIDERED ON ACASE BY CASE BASIS.24. PLANTS IN FRONT YARDS, BUFFERYARDS AND COMMON AREAS THAT REQUIRE IRRIGATION MAY NOT BEESTABLISHED IN AREAS THAT ARE SHAPED IN A MANNER NOT TO ENABLE PARTIAL CONTAINMENT OF IRRIGATIONOR RAINWATER.L-01L-01 1 COVER SHEETL-02 2 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANSHT. # SHEET DESCRIPTIONSHEET INDEXCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR:GENERAL NOTESSCALE: 1" = 100'KEY MAPPROVIDEDACCENTSREQ'DACCENTSREQ'DSHRUBS SHRUBSPROVIDEDC *LAMBERT LN.BUFFERBUFFER WIDTHTYPEBUFFERLENGTH PROVIDEDTREESTREESREQ'DLANDSCAPE BUFFERYARD TABLE12.5' 575 LF12 23 12 23 24 46C *SHORE CLIFF DR.12.5' 200 LF4748816N/AEASTN/ALAMBERT LANENORTHTWO TREES, TYPE 1 OR 2 WATER USE AND A MINIMUM OF 24" BOX SIZE, SHALL BE INSTALLEDIN THE FRONT YARD OF EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT. LOCATION OF TREES TO BE DETERMINEDBY HOME OWNER OR DEVELOPER. (ALTERNATE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE SCHEMES PERZONING CODE SECTION 27.6.C.2.c. MAY ALSO BE UTILIZED AT THE DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION)FOR LOTS WITH FULLY GRADED FRONT YARDS, CATCHMENT AREAS TO UTILIZE RAINWATERMUST BE ESTABLISHED FOR PLANT USE. AT A MINIMUM, DEPRESSIONS AND/OR WELLS MUSTBE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL TREES.DETAIL SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. HOUSE AND LOT CONFIGURATION MAYVARY.PROPERTY LINESIDEWALKCURBTREE, TYP.HOUSE HOUSEFRONT YARD TREE PLANTING3"=1 MILESCALE:THISPROJECTE-MAIL: mfellinger@rickengineering.comPHONE: 520-795-1000 CONTACT PERSON: MARK FELLINGERTUCSON, AZ 857123945 E. FORT LOWELL ROAD, SUITE 111 RICK ENGINEERING CO. OWNER/DEVELOPERPROJECT DIRECTORY:LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTCIVIL ENGINEERLOCATION MAPA PORTION OF SECTION 12, T 11 S, R 13 EG & SRM TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAMELCOR DEVELOPMENTS ARIZONA, INC.6930 E CHAUNCY LANE, SUITE 153PHOENIX, AZ 85054PHONE: 480-699-4687CONTACT: RYAN MOTTEMAIL: RMOTT@MELCOR.CARICK ENGINEERING COMPANY6150 NORTH 16TH STREETPHOENIX, AZ 85016PHONE: 602-957-3350CONTACT: CHRIS PATTON, P.E.EMAIL: CPATTON@RICKENGINEERING.COMSHORE CLIFF D RIVE N/AN/A* PER PIMA COUNTY STANDARDS AS DICTATED BY THE MELCOR/RIVER'S EDGE PAD F:\4191_River's_Edge\Landscape\4191A-L-CONCEPT-LS.dwg Plotted: Jan. 09, 20192018 Rick Engineering CompanycL-0212.5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE 'C'LEGENDTREESSHRUBSACCENTSNOTES:1. PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED ONTHE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN BASED ONFINAL GRADING DESIGN AND CIVILIMPROVEMENTS.2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE WILL BETREATED WITH EITHER DECORATIVEROCK OR HYDROSEED MIX, INACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE,TO BE DETERMINED ON THE FINALLANDSCAPE PLAN.0'SCALE: 1" =60'30'15'30'LAMBERT LANESHORE CLIFF D R I V E 12.5' LANDSCAPEBUFFER TYPE 'C'FREESTANDINGMONUMENT SIGNMASONRY PERIMETERWALL, TYP.MASONRY PERIMETERWALL, TYP.MASONRY PERIMETERWALL, TYP.MASONRY PERIMETERWALL, TYP.MASONRY PERIMETERWALL, TYP.JASPER AVE.SVTSVTNOTE: PLANT SPECIES IN THISAREA SHALL BE SELECTED TODISCOURAGE OR PREVENTPEDESTRIAN ACCESS.R.O.W.LOT LINEPROPOSED TOP/TOE OF SLOPEPROPOSED CURB AND SIDEWALKPROPOSED MASONRY PERIMETER WALLPROPOSED PARTIAL VIEW FENCEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPEPARTIAL VIEW FENCE, TYP.CLEAR ZONE FORMAINTENANCE ACCESS.CLEAR ZONE FORMAINTENANCE ACCESS. Proposed 21 lot subdivision on the northeast corner of Lambert Lane and Shore Cliff Drive Land Use and Zoning Table (OV1801921) Attachment 3 EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING SUBJECT PROPERTY Vacant Medium Density Residential River’s Edge PAD: TR (Transitional);CR-5 (multi- family) and CB-2 (commercial) NORTH Single Family Residential Low Density Residential River’s Edge PAD: CR-2 (cluster residential) SOUTH Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential River’s Edge PAD: CR-5 (multi-family) EAST Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential River’s Edge PAD: CR-5 (multi-family) WEST Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential River’s Edge PAD: CR-5 (multi-family) Attachment 4 Proposed 21 lot subdivision on the northeast corner of Shore Cliff Drive and Lambert Lane Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan Design Principles and Design Standards Analysis Conceptual Site Plan The Conceptual Site Plan is for 21 single-family residential lots on approximately 7 acres. The overall design and layout of the subdivision is consistent with the Rivers Edge Planned Area Development CR-5 standards and the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. The table below provides a summary of the proposed subdivision: Total Lots 21 Density 3.25 du/ac Lot Size Minimum 6,559 Max. Building Height 24’/ 2 stories Perimeter (site) Setbacks: Front 20 ft. Side 10 ft. Rear 10 ft. Open Space 31% (approx. 2 acres) Conceptual Site Design Principles, Section 22.9.D.5.a The Conceptual Site Plan is in conformance with applicable Conceptual Site Design Principles. Following are applicable Design Principles (in italics), followed by staff analysis. Building orientation: the location, orientation and size of structures shall promote a complementary relationship of structures to one another. Staff Commentary: The subject property is situated between similar residential developments to the west, east and south and large-lot residential to the north. The subdivision configuration orients homes in the same manner as the surrounding developments. Drainage/grading: site grading shall minimize impacts on natural grade and landforms and provide for subtle transitions of architectural elements to grade. Significant cuts and fills in relation to natural grade shall be avoided or minimized to the extent practical given property constraints. Staff Commentary: Per code, the proposed development cannot increase stormwater flows exiting the site. Currently, a portion of stormwater runoff from this site discharges into a private drainage channel adjacent to the property. This development will capture the exiting drainage and will convey it within a storm drain system into a culvert located in the public right-of-way (Lambert Lane), downstream of the private drainage channel. Per the River’s Edge Planned Area Development, any lots with slopes 15% or greater are subject to Pima County’s Hillside Development Overlay Zone, which provides additional limitations and treatment for steep areas. Although the subject property drops approximately thirty (30) feet from the northwest corner to the southwest corner, the majority of the steep slopes are being preserved as natural open space (along the northern perime ter of the site). As such, the only lot affected by this overlay zone is Lot 109 requiring further review prior to issuing grading or building permits to assure any slopes greater than 15% are undisturbed. The rest of the site will conform to the grading standards of the River’s Edge Planned Area Development. Connectivity: strengthen the usability and connectivity of the pedestrian environment internally and externally by6 enhancing access to the public street system, transit, adjoining development and pedestrian and bicycle transportation routes. Buildings and uses should provide access to adjacent open space and recreational areas where appropriate. Staff Commentary: Sidewalks are proposed throughout the subdivision and along Shore Cliff Drive to improve pedestrian connectivity. Additionally, a shared-use path and sidewalks already exist along Lambert Lane. Design Standards Analysis The proposed Conceptual Site Plan has been reviewed for conformance with the Conceptual Site Design Standards. Following are key Design Standards (in italics), followed by staff’s commentary. Section 3.1.A.1.a: Place open space elements visible from roadways within residential areas. Staff Commentary: The subdivision design provides and buffer yards at the entry point and around the perimeter of the subdivision. Specifica lly, along Lambert Lane and the west side of the property dense tree plantings will reduce view of the proposed subdivision. Section 3.1.A.1.c: Provide open space at project entries. Staff Commentary: The subdivision design provides water harvesting basins and open space near the project entry. Additional trees will be planted near the entry to reduce visibility of the proposed development further. Section 3.1.D.4: Pedestrian connections shall be provided between neighborhoods Staff Commentary: The proposed subdivision will incorporate sidewalks throughout the subdivision and along Shore Cliff Drive. Additionally, a shared-use path and sidewalks exists along Lambert Lane connecting the proposed development to nearby neighborhoods and Riverfront Park. Conceptual Landscape Plan The Conceptual Landscape Plan is in conformance with the applicable Zoning Code requirements. The Conceptual Landscape Plan includes a landscaped entry, buffer yards, and water harvesting basins in open space areas. . P:\4824A_Rivers_Edge\Admin\Memos\2019-0116 Park In Lieu Fee\2019-0116 Park In Lieu Fee Rev01.docx 1 RIVERS EDGE IN LIEU FEE FOR RECREATION Project: Melcor Development-Rivers Edge Lots 103-123, Common Area “A” RICK Engineering Company Project No. 4824A TOOV No. OV1801921 Date: January 17, 2019 Prepared By: Dawn Fortuna, AICP The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Lambert Lane and Shore Cliff Drive. This parcel is part of the existing Melcor Planned Area Development (PAD) that was approved in 1994 and the last to develop. The proposed site encompasses approximately 6.46 acres and being developed as a 21-lot single family detached home site. REQUEST Melcor Development is requesting an in-lieu fee to opt out of the recreation requirements given the proximity of Riverfront Park and the small number of lots within the subdivision. In accordance with Code Section 26.5.F: “In lieu of the required private recreational area or public park land dedication and required recreational facilities, the Town Council may approve an alternative proposal for an in-lieu fee that aids in the development or improvement of Town parks or recreational facilities. All sub-divisions containing forty-three (43) lots or less may utilize the in-lieu fee option.” REQUIREMENTS Discussions with the Town Planning staff indicate this project would be subject to the land value with one (1) passive and one (1) active amenity to satisfy the Town’s requirements. “The recreation area in-lieu fee calculation shall be based on the improved value of the land, including structures and facilities required by Section 26.5, design, construction costs, and having the necessary infrastructure (i.e., roadways, drainage water, electric, telephone and sewer) installed to serve the park areas.” IN LIEU CALCULATION The land value area has been determined to be 5% of the subdivision area: x 6.46 acres * 5% = 0.323 acres x The land value is supported by the attached 2018 Tax Statement ($416,550 for 4.95 acres or $84,142/Acre) Proposed passive amenity x Picnic table and 1 bench Proposed active amenity x Horseshoe pit Projected Costs: Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Land Value 0.323 Acre $84,142 $27,178 Picnic Table 1 Each $1,200 $1,200 Bench 1 Each $800 $800 Horseshoe Pit 1 Each $3,500 $3,500 Total $32,678 MELCOR DEVELOPMENTS ARIZONA INC 10310 JASPER AVE NW STE 900 EDMONTON AB T5J 2W4 CANADA PIMA COUNTY 2018 PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT ARIZONA STATE CODE # BOOK MAP PARCEL 224 28 157D AREA CODE PRIMARY TAX RATE PER $100 ASSESSED VALUE SECONDARY TAX RATE PER $100 ASSESSED VALUE IRRIGATION DISTRICT $ PER ACRE 1012 10.0845 5.5660 ¬ASSESSMENT TAXABLE NET ASSESSED VALUE REAL PROPERTY 62,475 PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 ¬2018 ¬TAX SUMMARY PRIMARY PROPERTY TAX 6,300.29 LESS STATE AID TO EDUCATION 0.00 NET PRIMARY PROPERTY TAX 6,300.29 SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX 3,477.33 CAGRD MEMBER DUES 0.00 TOTAL TAX DUE FOR¬2018 9,777.62 No Location Data Available PTN SW4 NE4 & CNTL PTN N2 SE4 4.95 AC SEC 12-12-13 JURISDICTION 2018 TAXES 2017 TAXES DIFFERENCE PIMA COUNTY PRI 2,542.48 3,369.45 -826.97 COUNTY ROAD PRI 0.00 200.11 -200.11 SCHOOL EQUAL 296.19 390.20 -94.01 AMPHI MAINT & OPER 2,385.05 3,366.81 -981.76 AMPHI UNRES CAPITAL 33.36 42.74 -9.38 AMPHI DESGREGATION 164.31 0.00 164.31 AMPHI DROPOUT PREVN 5.31 0.00 5.31 PIMA COLLEGE PRI 873.59 1,111.78 -238.19 COUNTY BONDS SEC 431.08 560.29 -129.21 AMPHI SCH#10 SEC 843.03 1,097.69 -254.66 JNT TECH ED SEC 31.24 40.02 -8.78 GOLDER RN FD SEC 1,470.47 1,836.16 -365.69 GOLDR RN FD BOND 56.23 80.04 -23.81 CEN ARIZ WTR SEC 87.47 112.06 -24.59 PIMA CO FLD SEC 208.35 250.93 -42.58 LIBRARY DISTRICT 321.93 404.45 -82.52 FIRE DIST ASSIST 27.53 36.72 -9.19 TOTALS 9,777.62 12,899.45 -3,121.83 PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS To pay the 1st half installment, send the 1st half coupon with your payment postmarked no later than November 1, 2018. To pay the 2nd half installment, send the 2nd half coupon with your payment postmarked no later than May 1, 2019. The minimum acceptable payment is $10 or 10% of the payment due, whichever is greater.THERE WILL BE A $25 CHARGE FOR EACH RETURNED CHECK AND YOUR TAXES WILL REVERT TO UNPAID STATUS. Please make your check payable to Pima County Treasurer and mail to: Pima County Treasurer P O Box 29011 Phoenix AZ 85038-9011 PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR STATE CODE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK. ¬ASSESSMENT VALUE IN DOLLARS ASSESSMENT RATIO ASSESSED VALUE IN DOLLARS EXEMPTIONS NET ASSESSED VALUE ¬¬¬¬LIMITED 416,500 15.0 62,475 62,475 ¬¬¬¬FULL CASH 416,500 15.0 62,475 62,475 ¬¬¬¬PERSONAL PROPERTY Page 1 of 2 1/17/2019http://www.to.pima.gov/pcto/tweb/tax_statement/show/22428157D 4.95 AC 416,500 PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS: To pay the 1st half installment, send the 1st half coupon with your payment postmarked no later than November 1, 2018. To pay the 2nd half installment, send the 2nd half coupon with your payment postmarked no later than May 1, 2019. The minimum acceptable payment is $10 or 10% of the payment due, whichever is greater. (ARS 42-18052 and ARS 42-18056) To pay taxes for the full year, send the 1st half coupon with your payment postmarked no later than December 31, 2018. Delinquent interest will be waived. Penalty for late payment is 16% per year prorated monthly as of the 1st day of the month for payments postmarked after 5:00 P.M. (ARS 42-18053) If taxes for the full year are $100 or less, send the full year payment postmarked no later than December 31, 2018. Detailed payment instructions are available at www.to.pima.gov and (520) 724-8341. There will be a service fee up to 2% for using credit or debit cards. Credit or debit card payments can be made at the Treasurer's Office or online at www.to.pima.gov Mail Payments to: Pima County Treasurer P O Box 29011 Phoenix AZ 85038-9011 PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR STATE CODE NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK THERE WILL BE A $25 CHARGE FOR EACH RETURNED CHECK AND YOUR TAXES WILL REVERT TO AN UNPAID STATUS Page 2 of 2 1/17/2019http://www.to.pima.gov/pcto/tweb/tax_statement/show/22428157D               Town of Oro Valley    1    Neighborhood Meeting Summary Proposed 21 Lot Subdivision located on the Northeast Corner of Shore Cliff Drive and Lambert Lane Town Hall, 11000 N. La Cañada Drive March 13, 2018 6:00 – 7:30 PM Introductions and Welcome Meeting facilitator Michael Spaeth, Current Planning Principal Planner, introduced Milini Simms, Senior Planner as the Town’s project manager for this proposal. Approximately 32 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Council Member Rodman and Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Hurt. Staff Presentation Milini Simms, Senior Planner, provided a presentation that included:  Subject property  Overview of applicant’s proposal  Existing and allowed zoning standards and uses  Review tools for proposal once a formal submittal is received  Public participation process Applicant Presentation The applicant, Ryan Mott, representing the property owner-Melcor, provided a presentation detailing the applicant’s concept, which included:  Overview of the project Public Questions & Comments Following is a summary of questions and comments: Regarding the site layout: 1. Will screening, such as perimeter walls or lot walls be used to reduce light pollution from cars exiting the development to surrounding residences? Or to maintain privacy to the existing homes located east of the property? 2. How many of the homes will be two-story and where will they be located? 3. Can all of the homes along the eastern perimeter be single-story? If so, how would this restriction be maintained and communicated to the future home builder? 4. How does Town staff evaluate view impacts? 5. How high will the sidewalk and home closest to the southwest corner be raised for development? 6. What is the easement (Channel View Place) running through the north side of the property and how can it be developed on? 7. The property is home to wildlife. Will there be greenspace? 8. Can the open space north of the property be developed? 9. Will there be a playground or area for children within the development? Regarding drainage: 10. Will the required Drainage Study include the proposed improvements and existing conditions? 11. Who is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the proposed drainage improvements? 12. How is maintenance assured so nearby neighborhoods are not impacted? 13. What is the cost for maintaining the improvements and how will future homeowners be notified of this cost? 14. The existing drainage channel located east of the property is in disrepair and not functioning properly. Will this development be responsible for some of the maintenance of it? 15. In regards to the proposed drainage improvements along the east side of the property, what size of pipe will be used and will it be visible? Where will the pipe connect to? 16. When was a local flood zone established on this property? 17. Does the water flow to the Cañada Del Oro Wash? 18. Will this development improve the existing off-site drainage issues of sediment and debris flowing onto Shore Cliff Drive? Who is responsible for the property creating this issue (triangle piece, north of the proposed development)? Regarding traffic: 19. Was an access drive off of Lambert Lane considered? 20. How much traffic will the development generate? 21. People use Lambert Lane as an alternate to First Ave and Oracle Road. New developments (Nakoma Sky) will also increase traffic along Lambert Lane. As such, traffic is noisy, always busy and speed enforcement is an issue. 22. Will the Town consider lowering the speed on Lambert Lane or put in a pedestrian crosswalk? Especially for children crossing to get the bus. Other: 23. What will the subdivision be named? Another River’s Edge will be confusing. 24. What will be the price for homes? 25. There is a currently a for sale sign on the lot. Is it still for sale? 26. What will be done to control dust during construction? What will be the construction times? The applicants Mr. Martin, from Rick Engineering and Mr. Mott, from Melcor and Town staff addressed some of the questions related to the proposal and the associated impacts. It was determined a second neighborhood meeting was necessary to see a revised site plan that               Town of Oro Valley    3    is code compliant and discuss any mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to address the drainage and view concerns. Mr. Spaeth closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and encouraged everyone to contact Ms. Simms, the Town’s project manager, with any additional thoughts, comments or concerns. 1 2nd Neighborhood Meeting Summary Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision located on the Northeast Corner of Shore Cliff Drive and Lambert Lane Town Hall, 11000 N. La Cañada Drive January 8, 2019 6:00 – 7:30 PM Introductions and Welcome Meeting facilitator Jeanette De Renne, Long Range Planning Principal Planner, introduced the agenda for the meeting and public participation process. Approximately 34 residents and interested parties attended the meeting including Mayor Winfield, Vice Mayor Barrett, Council Member Rodman, Council Member Nicolson, Planning and Zoning Commission Vice Chair Swope and Commission member Gribb. Town Staff Presentation Milini Simms, Senior Planner and the Town’s project manager for this proposal, provided a presentation that included:  Subject property  Existing and allowed zoning standards and uses  Review tools for the conceptual site plan  Neighborhood concerns from the previous meeting Applicant Presentation The applicant, Hugo Blanco, representing the property owner-Melcor, Chris Patton and Bruce Paton, both from Rick Engineering, provided a presentation that included:  Revised concept  Drainage improvements  Traffic concerns  View impacts Public Questions & Comments Following is a summary of questions and comments: Regarding the site layout: 1. What is the elevation of the road at the access point? 2. What is the smallest lot size proposed? 3. What size of homes will be on the lots? 4. What is the elevation of the lots along the east side of the development in relation to the existing homes adjacent to the property? 5. W ill perimeter walls or lot walls be built? If so, how high will the walls be? 6. Can all of the homes along the eastern perimeter be single-story? Is the Town able to require this for approval? 7. Will any vegetation be disturbed outside of the property boundaries? 8. Is there any common area located outside of the property boundaries that the future HOA must maintain? 9. What type of lighting is proposed at the entry? Regarding drainage: 10. Who is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the proposed drainage system? 11. Does the proposed drainage system take into account heavy rainfall (monsoons)? 12. How is maintenance assured so nearby neighborhoods are not impacted? 13. How big is the proposed drainage pipe (along east side of development) and what is the capacity of the pipe? 14. What is the lifespan of the pipe and who will replace or repair it? 15. Will the drainage system for this development effect the current flow in the area? 16. How is the pipe cleaned out? What happens if it gets backed up? 17. Will this create more standing water on the road? 18. Is there a grate for the pipe opening? If so, is it safe for kids? 19. How will water flowing west along the property be handled? Regarding traffic: 20. What about increased traffic on Lambert? Is there consideration to reduce the speed limit or add a traffic light for vehicles turning left onto Pusch View Lane? 21. How much traffic will be added to Shore Cliff Drive? 22. Could the access drive be curved a bit more to reduce vehicle headlights shining on the adjacent residence? 23. When was the traffic study completed? Other: 24. What will be the price for homes? 25. Has a home builder been identified? Will there be one or multiple home builders? 26. When is construction anticipated to start? 27. What happens if construction starts then stops? 28. Does the developer or home builder pay the impact fees and when? 29. Where will construction equipment access the property? Can a portion of the entrance be paved to reduce dirt tracking out onto Shore Cliff Drive? 30. Where will construction equipment be stored? Conclusion The applicants Mr. Blanco, from Melcor, Mr. Paton and Mr. Patton from Rick Engineering and Town staff addressed some of the questions related to the proposal and the associated impacts. Mrs. De Renne closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and enc ouraged everyone to contact Ms. Simms, the Town’s project manager, with any additional thoughts, comments or concerns. 2 constitute attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us  immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic  communication. From: Bill Baber Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 12:00 PM To: 'mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov' Subject: River's Edge Proposed Development   Mr. Spaeth,    Our home is on the corner of Avenida Vallejo and Lambert Lane. We will border this proposed development.  We have  the following concerns:    Our HOA and the Catalina Ridge HOA have been told that the wash between our home and those above it and the  proposed development is failing and requires two million dollars in repairs. How is that being addressed? Paving over  the proposed site will add runoff into the wash. What will be done to this wash should the proposed development be  approved?    Traffic‐ Traffic on Lambert Lane has become non‐stop during daylight hours. When we purchased our home six years ago  traffic on this road was a non‐issue. Now with more growth expected, the peace and quiet we moved to Oro Valley to  enjoy no longer exists. Traffic noise has been proven to have a negative effect on health. How many more trips per day  on this already busy road would this development create? The 45 MPH speed limit needs to be lowered to 35 for safety  and noise reduction.    Native vegetation and wildlife‐ How much Native vegetation would remain? There are a large number of mature trees  on this parcel. This vacant land serves as a corridor for wildlife that pass from the Canada del Oro Wash to other  undeveloped parcels to the north. This development will greatly impact wildlife.  How does the town of Oro Valley  consider the impact on vegetation and wildlife habitat?    Thank you,    Bill & Robin Baber  10795 N. Avenida Vallejo  Oro Valley, Az. 85737    Bill Baber  District Manager  541‐977‐1259 –Cell  bbaber@tng.com  TNG | Formerly Select Merchandising Services  1955 Lake Park Drive, Ste. 400 |Smyrna GA |30080  www.tng.com    From: psmyeolus@aol.com <psmyeolus@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:11 PM To: Spaeth, Michael; Town Council Cc: psmyeolus@aol.com Subject: 21-Lot Subdivision on E. Lambert Ln. & Shore Cliff Dr. Dear Council Members & Mr. Spaeth, March 13, 2018 Regrettably, I'm unable to attend the Meeting tonite Re: the 21-Lot Subdivision Proposal. I trust however, that you share our interests in doing all that's possible to be kind to the environment, as environmentally sensitive as possible as this project proceeds. Please do all you can do in support of our delicate, yet beautiful desert environment. We neighbors also share concern about the increased traffic, during construction & afterward, that this will incur. (I wonder if the speed limit on E. Lambert Ln. may need reduction?) Most importantly, however, we have serious accident waiting to happen regarding left turns from E. Lambert Ln. onto Pusch View Ln. With increased traffic that the new proposal will create, this becomes even a more deadly intersection, in dire need of stoplights. Are stoplights for this intersection being planned? Would one of you please advise? Thank you for all that you do in preservation of our beautiful desert home of Oro Valley! Sincerely, Phillip Mitchell Family, 10749 N. Avenida Vallejo 297-1958 PS - As so many townships & municipalities in western & other states have done, will Oro Valley ban the use of Round-Up herbicide for city use? As you know, Round-Up, esp. the highly-toxic glyphosate content, has been shown to be responsible for all manner of cancers including leukemia. 1 Simms, Milini From:gary darst <garydarst@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:29 AM To:Simms, Milini Cc:'Cheryl Lewis'; Richard Hawkinson; Moto Yang Subject:Project 21 lot subdivision Lambert and Shore Cliff Ms Milini Simms,    I am the owner of Lot 5 Rivers Edge 2. My wife and I closed on the home in July 2010.    I attended the meeting held on 3/13/18 to hear about the project. I was one of the many  neighbors to attend. I also was vocal about the proposed project.    Here are my concerns:    1) Traffic and noise coming from 21 lots / 42 vehicles entering from Lambert Lane to Shore  Cliff Drive. Move project entrance to be from Lambert Lane.  2) Loss of view to the east. Mt Lemon and Push Ridge. Caused from raising the site to be  level with Shore Cliff Drive. Coupled with  2 story construction.  3) Decline in property values due to 2 story homes built close to Shore Cliff Drive. My lot is  5 ft lower than street level as are my neighbors.  4) Headlights, noise, pollution from project 21. The proposed entrance is directly across  from my backyard. Not what we purchased in 2010.  5) Loss of quality of life in Oro Valley due to construction and access point.  6) Street debris from water runoff. There is already debris after rains which will only  increase.  7) Child safety due to “play area” near the corner of Lambert Lane and Shore Cliff drive.   8) Water runoff, drainage, erosion and existing expenses borne by various HOA’s.    Hopefully, there can be resolution that considers those who have already invested in a  community for their families.    Respectfully submitted,    Gary Darst  Lot 5 Rivers Edge 2  520‐308‐4072  From: gary darst [mailto:garydarst@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:10 PM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Waters, Lou <lwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Richard Hawkinson <rohawkin@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Project 21 lot subdivision Lambert and Shore Cliff Ms Milini Simms, Thank you for the update. I looked at the on line maps. I live in Rivers Edge 2 Lot 5 and will be severely impacted by the entry road. My neighbors will also be impacted by the added traffic onto Shore Cliff Drive. Can we ask Melcor to move the entrance between lot 5 and Lot 6 to reduce the lights and noise? In the meeting many in attendance wanted access from Lambert vs Shore Cliff. Also, please advise what are the next step for project 21. Thank you, Gary Darst From: gary darst [mailto:garydarst@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 12:40 PM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: RE: Project 21 lot subdivision Lambert and Shore Cliff Ms. Milini Simms, I received the notice on project 21 in the Council chambers. Appears that Project 21 is moving forward fast. As I said in the last public meeting, the entrance needs to move south on Shore Cliff towards Lambert. About 5-7 ft from the last proposed drawing. This would keep headlights away from me and my neighbors back yard which is along Shore Cliff. Thank you, Gary Darst Lot 5 Rivers Edge 2 February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION February 5, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bob Swope, Vice Chair Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Nathan Basken, Commissioner Commissioner Hong arrived at 6:05 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston Planning Manager Bayer Vella Permitting Manager David Laws Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman provided updates on the following: - Two final plats were approved by Council in December - In January, Council denied the rezoning request for property in the Innovation Park February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 2 area, so it will remain zoned as Campus Park Industrial; approved a master sign program in the Placita de Oro shopping center; held study sessio ns on both the State Land potential annexation and the Oro Valley Community Center golf courses; and appointed new board and commission members. - No Planning items are currently on the agendas for February council meetings. - For the March 6 council meeting, two items on tonight's agenda may be heard as well as a final plat case. - There is another tentatively scheduled study session on February 20 for the golf courses. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2018 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to approve the December 4, 2018 meeting minutes as written. MOTION carried, 7-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND PUSCH VIEW LANE, OV1801569 Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Background - Oro Valley Town Centre PAD (Planned Area Development) - Background - Existing Entitlements Area 4 - Applicant's Request - Area 4 - Existing vs. Proposed - Area 4 - Neighborhood Compatibility - Rezoning Request - Review Tools - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. Applicant Rob Longaker of The WLB Group introduced the owner of the property, Patrick Rooney as well as Rick Morris with Richmond American Homes. Mr. Longaker spoke on the following: - History of application and background on his credentials - Reasons for amendments to Area 3 and exclusion from this proposal February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 3 - Changes to submittal document based on the Area 3 withdrawal - Reviewed the infrastructure, traffic impact analysis, transitional buffering, view protection from Oracle Road and compliance with the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD), views from the proposed homes, on-site recreation areas and compatibility with surrounding properties related to Area 4 - The neighborhood meetings that have been held and the resulting changes that have been made to the plan - Existing water infrastructure and water connectivity - Specific changes to the application, what is being removed and what is remaining in the plan Discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. Vice Chair Swope opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in support of Agenda Item 4: - Michael Barclay, Oro Valley resident - Courtland Hall, Oro Valley resident - Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident - Teri Lamour, Oro Valley resident The following individuals spoke in opposition of Agenda Item 4: - Jerry Ward, Oro Valley resident - Lee Saida, Oro Valley resident - Hal Biestek, Oro Valley resident - Tony Beretta, Oro Valley resident - Joseph Fratt, Oro Valley resident - Tom Durham, Oro Valley resident - Don Adams (also representing Jan Adams), Oro Valley resident - Nancy Ward, Oro Valley resident - Kurt Weirich, Oro Valley resident The following individuals spoke on Agenda Item 4: - Bill Gardner, Oro Valley resident - Krystal Graham, Oro Valley resident - Joseph Fratt, Sr., Oro Valley resident Vice Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 Center, based on the finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Basken and seconded by Commissioner Gribb to Amend to add Condition 1 - the applicant will plant additional trees directly adjacent to Camino Diestro in the gap as opposed to along the road in this PAD. Further discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. AMENDED MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Oro Valley Town Center, based on the finding the request is in conformance with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements, adding Condition 1 and excluding Area 3. MOTION carried, 7-0. Vice Chair Swope recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Vice Chair Swope resumed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 21 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND SHORE CLIFF DRIVE, OV1801921 Senior Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that including the following: - Purpose - Location - Existing Zoning - Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan - Proposed In-Lieu Fee for Rec Area - Public Participation - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued among the staff and Commission. Hugo Blanco and Ryan Mott with Melcor Developments, and Chris Patton with Rick Engineering, reviewed the following: - Privacy concerns and cross section of eastern boundary - Rivers Edge entrance and impact of headlights Discussion continued among the Commission, staff and applicant. February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 5 Vice Chair Swope opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 5: - Bill Baber, Oro Valley resident - Gary Darst, Oro Valley resident Vice Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Bergsma and seconded by Commissioner Gribb to recommend approval of the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for a proposed 21-lot subdivision on Shore Cliff Drive, finding the request is in conformance with the Design Principles and applicable Design Standa rds. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Posey opposed. 6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO MODIFY AN EXISTING COMMUNICATION FACILITY, LOCATED ON A TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER UTILITY POLE NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CAÑADA DRIVE, OV1802935 - Purpose - Location - Modifications - Stealth Applications - General Plan Compliance - Summary and Recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Carmelina Scigliano with Tectonic Engineering, representing Verizon Wireless, spoke on the reason for selecting this pole regarding service capacity. Discussion continued among the Commission and staff. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Bergsma to approve the proposed modifications to the existing cell tower located on a Tucson Electric Power utility pole, based on the finding it meets all applicable zoning code requirements and design guidelines. MOTION carried, 7-0. February 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 1. ELECTION OF CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Basken to nominate Vice Chair Bob Swope as the Planning and Zoning Commission Chair. MOTION carried, 7-0. 2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2019 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Gribb and seconded by Commissioner Bergsma to nominate Commissioner Nathan Basken as the Planning and Zoning Commission Vice Chair. MOTION carried, 7-0. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Planning Manager Bayer Vella provided the following updates: - Upcoming neighborhood meeting on February 7 - The next Commission meeting is scheduled for March 5 - Information on Commissioner memberships for the American Planning Association, including the Arizona Chapter ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Prepared by: Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the regular session Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th of February, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.    Town Council Regular Session 3. Meeting Date:03/06/2019   Requested by: Peter Abraham Submitted By:Danielle Tanner, Water Department:Water Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-10, PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE WATER RATES FOR THE ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY RECOMMENDATION: The Water Utility Commission and Water Utility staff respectfully recommend approval of Resolution No. (R)19-10, providing notice of intent to increase water rates for the Oro Valley Water Utility. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-511.01, a municipality must adopt a notice of intent to increase water rates at least 60 days prior to the public hearing. The resolution sets in motion the public process by:  Making the Water Rates Analysis Report available for public review by placing a copy in the Town Clerk's Office and on the Water Utility's website. 1. Directing the Town Clerk to publish the resolution in a newspaper of general circulation at least 20 days prior to the public hearing. 2. Scheduling a public hearing for May 15, 2019, when the Council will consider adoption of the proposed rate increase. 3. Once the notice of intent is approved, the increase in rates that can be adopted may not exceed the rates shown in the Water Rates Analysis Report. The proposed increases are for the potable water base rates only. Approximately 87 percent of the Water Utility's customers utilize a 5/8-inch water meter and if the rate is approved by the Town Council, will realize an increase of $1.81 per month regardless of the volume of water used. For the average residential customer using 7,000 gallons of water, this would represent a 4.6 percent increase in their monthly water bill. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: In accordance with the Town Council Water Policies, Water Utility staff review water rates on an annual basis. The Water Utility Commission evaluates staff recommendations based on a water rates analysis to assure the recommendations meet Town policies and bond covenants. On January 14, 2019, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the water rates identified in the Preferred Financial Scenario and supported by the Water Rates Analysis Report dated March 2019. The Water Rates Analysis Report includes projections for five years; however, water rates are approved annually and only for the first year in the five-year projection period. The Preferred Financial Scenario meets all revenue requirements, cash reserve requirements, debt service coverage requirements and will provide for the overall financial health of the Water Utility. The proposed increases are for the potable water base rates only. Approximately 87 percent of the Water Utility's customers utilize a 5/8-inch water meter and would see an increase of $1.81 per month regardless of the volume of water used, if the proposed rate adjustment is approved. This rate design will increase revenue stability for the Water Utility. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting a notice of intent to increase water rates.  The Town Council will consider the rate proposal on May 15, 2019. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)19-10, providing notice of intent to increase water rates for the Oro Valley Water Utility. Attachments (R)19-10 Resolution - Notice of Intent to Increase Water Rates  2019 Water Rate Report  RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE WATER RATES FOR THE ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-511, et seq., the Town has the requisite statutory authority to acquire, own and maintain a water utility for the benefit of the residents within and without the Town’s corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-511, et seq., the Town finds it necessary to consider increasing water rates for the Oro Valley Water Utility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-511, et seq., the Town is required to give a Notice of Intent at a regular Town Council meeting to increase water rates; and WHEREAS, the Town has completed a Water Rates Analysis Report, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which supports increasing water rates for the Oro Valley Water Utility; and WHEREAS, not less than twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing on the proposed rate increases, the Town shall cause to be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the Town’s boundaries, a Notice of Intent showing the date, time and place of the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows : SECTION 1. This Resolution serves as the Notice of Intent, which is hereby publicly given, for the Town of Oro Valley to increase water rates. SECTION 2. A public hearing shall be held at the regular meeting of the Mayor and Council at 6:00 p.m. on May 15, 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, Town of Oro Valley, 11000 N orth La Cañada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, to deliberate and vote on the proposed increases. SECTION 3. That Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, be made available to the public in the Office of the Town Clerk and on the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility website for review prior to the public hearing. 2 SECTION 4. That the Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 6th day of March, 2019. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A”                                                                                                                    TOWN OF ORO VALLEY  WATER UTILITY  WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT                  MARCH  2019  TOWN OF ORO VALLEY  WATER UTILITY  WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT  MARCH 2019              ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL    Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor  Melanie Barrett, Vice Mayor  Joyce Jones‐Ivey, Council Member  Josh Nicolson, Council Member   Rhonda Piña, Council Member  Bill Rodman, Council Member  Steve Solomon, Council Member        ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION    Byron McMillian, Chair  Anne Campbell, Vice Chair  Chuck Hollingsworth, Commission Member  Charlie Hurt, Commission Member  Robert Milkey, Commission Member  Rick Reynolds, Commission Member  Winston Tustison, Commission Member        TOWN STAFF    Mary Jacobs, Town Manager  Stacey Lemos, CPA, Chief Financial Officer  Peter A. Abraham, P.E., Water Utility Director  Shirley Kiel, Water Utility Administrator  Danielle Tanner, Senior Office Specialist         TABLE OF CONTENTS            SECTION TITLE        PAGE      Index of Appendices              Executive Summary           1  Introduction            3  Growth Rates            4  Water Use Trends           4  Debt Service            5  Debt Service Coverage Requirements         6  Cash Reserve Policy for Operating Fund         7  Operating Fund               Revenue Forecast          8  Revenue Requirements        10  Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund     12  Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund     13  Preferred Financial Scenario        14  Recommendation on Water Rates, Fees & Charges     16  Conclusion          18  Appendices                       INDEX OF APPENDICES            APPENDIX      A.    Preferred Financial Scenario Pro Forma  A‐1   Operating Fund  A‐2   Groundwater Preservation Fee  A‐3   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  A‐4   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund  A‐5   Summary of all Funds    B.    Rate Schedules & Tables for Bill Comparisons  B‐1   Proposed Water Rate Schedule  B‐2   Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size ‐ Potable  B‐8   Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size – Reclaimed    C.    5‐Year Capital Improvement Schedules  C‐1   Operating Fund  C‐2   Groundwater Preservation Fee  C‐3   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  C‐3   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund    D.    Assumptions for Preferred Financial Scenario  D‐1   Operating Fund  D‐6   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  D‐7   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund                          - 1 -   TOWN OF ORO VALLEY  WATER UTILITY  WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT  MARCH 2019    Executive Summary    An annual review of the revenue requirements and water rates is a critical component in ensuring the  long‐term financial health of the Water Utility. Functions of the Oro Valley Water Utility Commission  include reviewing and developing recommendations for water revenue requirements, water rates and fee  structures. The Commission evaluates staff recommendations based on a rates analysis to ensure the  recommendations meet Town policies and bond covenants. Water rates and charges are reviewed  annually in accordance with Mayor and Town Council Water Policies – II.A.2.b(4).     The Utility has based this financial analysis on the American Water Works Associations (AWWA) Cash  Needs Approach. The AWWA is the largest national organization that develops water and wastewater  policies, specifications and rate setting guidelines accepted by both government‐owned and private water  and wastewater utilities worldwide.    This Water Rates Analysis Report contains detailed information on the three funds that comprise the Oro  Valley Water Utility:     Operating Fund   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund    Each fund is individually analyzed with regard to revenue and revenue requirements. As an enterprise of  the Town, the Utility generates revenue from rates, fees and charges and does not receive revenue from  taxes or other monies from the General Fund. Additionally, revenue generated by the Utility does not  fund operating costs of any other Town department.    In accordance with policy, the water rates analysis is prepared annually based on the most up‐to‐date  information available for a five year period. Although the analysis is for five years, any rate increase  considered would be approved only for the first year in the five year projection period.    In the past, emphasis was placed on developing commodity rates that would promote water  conservation. The current tiered rate structure for the commodity rates encourages water conservation as  intended. Because of the decline in water consumption, the emphasis of the rate design has transitioned  to increase the Utility’s fixed cost recovery for revenue stability. This is accomplished over time with  increases to the monthly base rate.    The Water Utility Commission has made a recommendation for a Preferred Financial Scenario. Under the  Preferred Financial Scenario, the Operating Fund is projected to have a cash balance of $3,494,436 at the  end of the five year projection period. This meets the cash reserve requirement. In addition, the debt  service coverage ratio of 1.3 is met or exceeded each year. Operational needs and capital improvements  are included in the analysis. The Preferred Financial Scenario demonstrates a strategic balance between  incurring new debt and a planned use of cash reserves to finance capital projects.  - 2 -     The Preferred Financial Scenario evaluates the impact of future costs and the revenue sources that will be  required to meet those costs. The proposed water rates in the Preferred Financial Scenario will increase  the Utility’s fixed cost recovery. The Water Utility Commission and Water Utility staff have made the  following recommendation on water rates in the Preferred Financial Scenario:       Increase in the potable water base rates in FY 2019‐20    Current and proposed monthly base rates for potable water use are provided in Table 1 below:    Table 1    Meter Size Current Proposed Monthly  (in inches) Base Rate Base Rate Increase       5/8            $   16.45    $   18.26      $    1.81       3/4 $   24.67    $   27.38       $    2.71         1 $   41.11    $   45.63       $    4.52       1.5 $   82.22    $   91.26       $    9.04         2  $ 131.56     $ 146.03       $  14.47         3 $ 263.09     $ 292.03       $  28.94         4 $ 411.09     $ 456.31       $  45.22         6 $ 822.18     $ 912.62       $  90.44         8 $1,315.49   $1,460.19       $144.70          Cost per month.    The financial impact of the proposed rates for a customer with a 5/8‐inch meter is an increase of $1.81  per month. Since this is a base rate increase only, the increase will be the same for all customers with this  meter size regardless of the volume of water used. Customers with a 5/8‐inch meter represent 87 percent  of the total customer base and include residential, commercial and irrigation classifications with the vast  majority of those being residential.    The potable and reclaimed Groundwater Preservation Fees (GPF) will remain unchanged over the  projection period. The financial analysis illustrates expenses to be funded with GPF revenue are being met  with the existing GPF rates.    The reclaimed base rates and commodity rates are proposed to increase annually beginning in FY 2020‐ 21. The financial analysis illustrates that a portion of the reclaimed operating costs are being funded with  revenue from the potable water rates in the last four years of the projection period. The rate increases  will reduce the subsidy while continuing to incentivize the use of reclaimed water.    The Preferred Financial Scenario also results in financially sound cash balances in the two development  impact fee funds. In compliance with state statutes, these cash balances will be used to finance capital  projects to meet the demands of new growth.    The Water Utility presents this Water Rates Analysis in support of the proposed rates contained in the  Preferred Financial Scenario. The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission and Water Utility staff respectfully  recommend approval of rate increase detailed in the Preferred Financial Scenario.     - 3 -       TOWN OF ORO VALLEY  WATER UTILITY  WATER RATES ANALYSIS REPORT  MARCH 2019      Introduction    The Oro Valley Water Utility was established in 1996 as a self‐supporting enterprise of the Town.  The  Utility is comprised of three separate funds that have been established for specific purposes.  The Funds  are as follows:     Operating Fund   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund    The Operating Fund is the primary fund for the Utility. Revenue for this fund includes water sales, service  fees, miscellaneous charges and interest income. The expenses managed from this fund include  personnel, operations and maintenance for both potable and reclaimed water systems, capital costs for  existing potable water system improvements and related debt service. The Utility pays the General Fund  for services received including finance, human resources, fleet services, information technology, legal,  insurance and rental of office space; however, it does not receive revenue from taxes or other payments  from the General Fund.  Groundwater Preservation Fee (GPF) revenue and expenses are accounted for  within the Operating Fund but are segregated because GPF revenue is restricted for specific uses. This is  illustrated in Appendix A, Page A‐2.     The Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund (AWRDIF Fund) was established in 1996  to manage capital expenses related to alternative water resources including reclaimed water and Central  Arizona Project (CAP) water. Revenue for this fund is from impact fees collected at the time water meters  are purchased and from interest income. Expenses include capital repayment obligation charges for the  Town’s CAP allotment, CAP infrastructure and associated debt incurred to deliver CAP water to the Town  to meet the demands of future growth.    The Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund (PWSDIF Fund) was established in 1996 to  manage capital expenses related to expansion or growth‐related potable water capital projects and  related debt service. Revenue for this fund is from impact fees collected at the time water meters are  purchased and from interest income. Expenses include wells, pump stations, reservoirs and mains for the  potable water system required to meet the demands of future growth.      The revenue and expenses of all three funds are combined to determine if the Utility meets the debt  service coverage requirement established in the Mayor and Town Council Water Policies and current  bond covenants. Otherwise, each fund is independent with regard to revenue and expenses. Pursuant to  Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 9‐463.05 Section B.9., impact fees must be placed in a separate fund and  accounted for separately.  ARS 9‐463.05 Section B.5. states that the impact fees may not be used for  operations and maintenance of existing facilities. Each impact fee fund is addressed in more detail on  pages 12 and 13 of the report.    - 4 -   Growth Rates    The Utility’s growth rates have fluctuated during the past several years. Figure 1 illustrates the Utility’s  growth of 1,859 new metered connections over the last 10 years. At the end of FY 2017‐18 the customer  base totaled 19,924 metered connections.      Figure 1      Throughout the rates analysis process, Utility staff collaborated with other Town staff. In developing the  growth projections, assistance was received from the Community and Economic Development staff who  reviewed the current housing inventory, along with plans that have been submitted for review, to  conservatively estimate future growth. The growth projections used for this analysis were developed early  in 2018 and are shown in the following table.    Table 2    New Metered Connections 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Single Family Residential        387       415       344      227        204 Commercial, Multi‐Family, Irrigation            4         4           4          4            4     Water Use Trends    The Utility has experienced a reduction in water use, both potable and reclaimed, over the last 9 years.  Figure 2 illustrates this reduction in total water use from FY 2008‐09 through FY 2016‐17. The graph  depicts an overall decline in water use even though the Utility experienced growth of 1,859 metered  connections in that same time frame. Water use increased slightly in FY 2017‐18. This was largely the  result of the hot, dry weather conditions. During FY 2017‐18, a single family residential customer with a  5/8‐inch water meter used an average of 7,900 gallons of water per month. The weather conditions in the  current fiscal year are significantly different that last fiscal year.  Because of the increased rain and cooler  temperatures, residential water use is trending closer to 7,000 gallons per month in FY 2018‐19. For a  conservative approach, the revenue projections in this analysis used water patterns similar to those in FY  2016‐17 when the average water use was 7,300 gallons per month which is consistent with prior years.  196 68 61 97 214 165 155 232 340 331 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 17‐18 Annual Growth - 5 -     Figure 2        The historical decline in water use has been experienced not only on a local level, but also on regional and  national levels. This can be largely attributed to water conservation – both intentional and unintentional.  Intentional water conservation is the conscious effort to reduce water use by commonly known measures  including changing landscape to drought tolerant plants and the removal of lawns. Unintentional water  conservation is a result of plumbing code changes and other regulatory changes regarding water  efficiency. For example, all new water using appliances and fixtures are required to be low flow. The  consumer’s intention may not have been to conserve water when they chose to replace an aging or  broken dishwasher, clothes washer or bathroom faucet.    Debt Service    The current annual debt service obligations are met with revenue generated from water rates, the GPF  and impact fees in the PWSDIF Fund. A summary of the existing debt and the outstanding balances at the  December 31, 2018 are provided in Table 3.    Table 3      3,100  3,026  3,115 3,063  2,948  3,071  2,889 2,929  3,045  3,288   2,800  2,900  3,000  3,100  3,200  3,300  3,400 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 17‐18Gallons in MillionsFiscal Year Potable & Reclaimed Water  Deliveries Repayment Year Description of Debt Purpose Balance  Water Rates 2009 WIFA Loan Existing Potable System  $   1,381,098 Water Rates 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds –Refinance 2003 Existing Potable System  $   2,676,450 Water Rates 2013 Excise Tax Bonds ‐Refinance 2003 Existing Potable System  $   1,010,000 Water Rates  Water Rates  2014  2015  WIFA Loan  Excise Tax Bonds – Refinance 2005  AMI  Meter Replacement  Land for MOC   $   3,307,164  $      985,710  Water Rates 2017 Excise Tax Bonds –Refinance 2007 Existing Potable System  $ 11,924,226 Water Rates 2018 Excise Tax Bonds Existing Potable System  $   6,105,000 GPF 2008 WIFA Loan Reclaimed Water System  $   2,390,918 GPF 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds –Refinance 2003 Reclaimed Water System  $   4,878,556 PWSDIF 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds –Refinance 2003 Potable System Expansion  $   1,504,999 Total Debt      $ 36,164,121  - 6 -   The Utility will make the final principal payment on the Series 2013 Bonds in the amount of $1,010,000 on  July 1, 2019. These bonds were initially issued in 2003 with an average interest rate of 4.13 percent and  later refinanced in 2013 with an interest rate of 1.45 percent without extending the term of the bonds.  This refinancing resulted in an interest savings of $284,828 to the Utility.    The Town entered into an IGA with Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District and the Town of  Marana to construct a recharge, recovery and delivery system known as the NWRRDS project to bring  additional CAP water into the Town. This rates analysis includes an assumption for new debt in the  amount of $10,000,000 in FY 2022‐23 to finance portions of the NWRRDS project. The timing of this debt  is dependent on the progress of the project. If the project is delayed, the debt will also be delayed. It is  assumed that the Utility will issue traditional bonds with a 20‐year term at a six percent interest rate. The  debt will be repaid with both GPF and Alternative Water Resource Development Impact Fees. Repayment  will be prorated based on the beneficiaries of the projects – existing customers and new development.  Project costs are identified for the NWRRDS project in the five year capital plan shown in Appendix C.    Debt Service Coverage Requirements    The method for calculating the debt service coverage ratio is pursuant to the Town Financial and  Budgetary Policies adopted by the Town Council in 2008. Section C.1 – Debt Capacity, Issuance &  Management states the following with respect to debt service coverage ratios:    “When utility revenues are pledged as debt service payments, the Town will strive to maintain a 1.3 debt  service coverage ratio or the required ratio in the bond indenture (whichever is greater) to ensure debt  coverage in times of revenue fluctuation.”    The Water Utility currently pays debt service on a number of outstanding debt issuances and loans.  For  the Series 2012 Senior Lien Water Revenue Bonds, the 2008, 2009 and 2014 Water Infrastructure Finance  Authority (WIFA) Loans, Water Utility revenues are specifically pledged as the repayment source for these  obligations at 1.3 times coverage per the Town’s adopted financial policy.     The remaining outstanding debt obligations of the Water Utility are excise tax pledged obligations  meaning that the Town’s unrestricted sources of sales taxes, fines, permit fees and state shared revenues  are pledged as the repayment sources for these bonds in the bond indentures. Even though the bond  indentures pledge these excise taxes as the repayment source, the Water Utility is responsible to pay for  these debt service payments from water sales revenues. However, since excise taxes are pledged as  coverage, a calculated debt service coverage ratio of 1.0 is applied to avoid double coverage when  calculating the debt service coverage ratio for these excise tax‐backed bonds in the water rates analysis.    It is important to note that the bond indentures for the excise tax‐backed bonds require that the Town’s  excise tax collections each fiscal year total at least 2.5 times the annual debt service requirements in order  to avoid having to fund a debt service reserve fund. These conditions have been met annually in the past  and are expected to continue in the future. For FY 2017‐18 the debt service coverage ratio was 21.97 for  the General Fund which substantially exceeds the 2.5 requirement.     This methodology of segregating the water utility revenue‐pledged debt from the excise tax‐pledged debt  in the rates analysis process is an accepted practice in the industry and has been reviewed by the Town’s  Finance Director and the Town’s financial advisors with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.    - 7 -   The debt service coverage ratio is determined by dividing the annual net operating revenue by the annual  debt service payments. Using the methodology described above is in accordance with the 2008 policy and  reduces the amount of the debt service coverage requirement amount. Applying this methodology has  been key in minimizing water rate increases.     Debt service coverage for the Water Utility’s outstanding senior lien debt issuances and loans in the  Preferred Financial Scenario is shown in Table 4. This includes current and proposed new debt.    Table 4     2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Debt Service Coverage 2.50 2.46 2.54 2.33 3.37   Cash Reserve Policy    The cash reserve policy may be found in the Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Council Water Policies Section  II.A.1.d.  The policy states “The Utility shall maintain a cash reserve in the Operating Fund of not less than  20% of the combined total of the annual budgeted amounts for personnel, operations and maintenance,  and debt service. This cash reserve amount specifically excludes budgeted amounts for capital projects,  depreciation, amortization and contingency. No cash reserve is required for the water utility impact fee  funds.” In the Preferred Financial Scenario, the projected cash reserve balance for the Operating Fund for  each year in the analysis is listed in Table 5 showing compliance in all years. The projected cash reserve  balances include annual increases in the monthly base rates.     Table 5    Operating Fund 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Cash Reserve Requirement $ 3,180,227 $ 3,047,334 $ 3,044,715 $ 3,101,970 $ 2,988,894  Cash Reserve Balance $ 6,241,074 $ 5,772,656 $ 4,615,180 $ 3,755,116 $ 3,494,436    Cash reserve balances in the Operating Fund are projected to be stable throughout the analysis. This is a  result of strategically balancing the required financing of capital projects with the planned used of cash  reserves. The Utility works diligently to balance the use of cash reserves with the issuance of new debt to  minimize rate increases.    There is no cash reserve requirement for revenue from the GPF because these funds are restricted to pay  for renewable water resources, infrastructure and associated debt. Although accounted for in the  Operating Fund, the GPF cash is segregated from the Operating Fund cash. It would not be fiscally prudent  to combine cash that has a restricted use with cash that has unrestricted use when determining  compliance with a cash reserve policy. Similarly, the expenses paid by GPF revenue are segregated from  the general operating expenses for purposes of calculating the cash reserve requirement. In the Preferred  Financial Scenario, the projected cash reserve balance for the GPF in each year of the analysis is listed in  Table 6.  Table 6    Groundwater Preservation Fees   2019‐20   2020‐21   2021‐22   2022‐23   2023‐24  Cash Reserve Balance $ 2,721,255 $ 2,673,807 $ 1,672,736 $ 1,997,540 $ 432,445  - 8 -   GPF cash reserve balances are projected to decrease by the end of the five year projection period. This is  a direct result of using the cash to pay for capital projects associated with the delivery of additional CAP  water through the NWRRDS project. The on‐going revenue from the GPF will be used to pay future annual  debt service on the portion of capital costs that will be financed. The planned use of GPF cash reserves to  pay NWRRDS project costs will result in the Utility’s ability to reduce future debt for the NWRRDS project  by approximately $6.2 million based on the 2018 estimated construction costs.    Operating Fund    Revenue Forecast    The Operating Fund is projected to have a cash balance of $8,060,642 at the beginning of FY 2019‐20 and  is projected to have a balance of $3,494,436 at the end of FY 2023‐24. These funds may be used for  operating costs including personnel, operations and maintenance, capital improvements for the existing  potable water system and debt service. Groundwater Preservation Fees are included in the Operating  Fund; however, the revenues, expenses and cash balances for the GPF are accounted for separately  within the Operating Fund. As discussed above, use of GPF funds is restricted to renewable water  resources, infrastructure and associated debt.    The revenue forecast was based on analysis of the Utility’s water use trends for FY 2016‐17 and projected  growth in the number of new connections detailed in Table 2 on page 4. The revenue forecast includes  proposed increases in the potable water base rates shown below in Table 7.     Table 7  Base Rates  Potable Water  Current  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Meter Sizes (inches)  2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 5/8     $   16.45  $    18.26   $   20.09  $   21.19   $   22.36   $    23.59 3/4      $   24.67  $    27.38   $   30.12  $   31.78   $   33.53   $    35.37 1     $   41.11  $    45.63   $   50.20  $   52.96   $   55.87   $    58.94 1.5     $   82.22  $    91.26   $ 100.39  $ 105.91   $ 111.74  $ 117.88 2     $ 131.56  $ 146.03   $ 160.63  $ 169.47   $ 178.79  $ 188.62 3     $ 263.09  $ 292.03   $ 321.23  $ 338.90   $ 357.54  $ 377.20 4     $ 411.09  $ 456.31   $ 501.94  $ 529.55   $ 558.67  $ 589.40 6     $ 822.18     $ 912.62 $1,003.88 $1,059.10  $1,117.35 $1,178.80 8 $1,315.49 $1,460.19  $1,606.21 $1,694.56 $1,787.76 $1,886.08   The potable water base rates are projected to increase annually beginning in FY 2019‐20. There are no  recommended increases in potable water commodity rates while the Utility continues to focus the rate  design on increase fixed cost recovery. Fixed costs are costs the Utility incurs that do not fluctuate based  on the volume of water sold. Examples of fixed costs include, but are not limited to, debt service,  personnel, billing costs, fleet maintenance and regulatory costs. The current base rates generate a 44  percent fixed cost recovery. The remaining 56 percent of the fixed costs are recovered with revenue  generated from the volume of water sold. Increasing the Utility’s ability to recover fixed costs with fixed  rate revenue or base rates will ensure revenue stability. Water rates dependent on the volume of water  sales to pay for fixed costs can result in revenue volatility.   - 9 -   The reclaimed base rates and commodity rates are proposed to increase from year two through year five  of the projection period as shown in Table 8. The proposed increases will reduce the amount of the  reclaimed operating costs that are subsidized with revenue from potable water rates but will still provide  an incentive to use reclaimed water.  Table 8    Base Rates  Reclaimed Water  Current  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Proposed  Rates  Meter Sizes (inches)  2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 5/8   $   14.62 $   14.62  $   16.08  $   17.69   $   19.46  $   21.41 3/4     $   21.93 $   21.93  $   24.12  $   26.54   $   29.19  $   32.11 1   $   36.54 $   36.54  $   40.19  $   44.21   $   48.63  $   53.50 1.5   $   73.08 $   73.08  $   80.39  $   88.43   $   97.27  $ 107.00 2   $ 116.94  $ 116.94  $ 128.63  $ 141.50   $ 155.65  $ 171.21 3   $ 233.86  $ 233.86  $ 257.25  $ 282.97   $ 311.27  $ 342.39 4   $ 365.41  $ 365.41  $ 401.95  $ 442.15   $ 486.36  $ 535.00 6   $ 730.83   $ 730.83  $ 803.91  $ 884.30   $ 972.73 $1,070.01 8 $1,169.32 $1,169.32 $1,286.25 $1,414.88 $1,556.36 $1,712.00 Commodity Rates  Reclaimed Water     All Usage     $    2.27   $    2.27   $    2.28   $    2.29    $    2.30   $    2.31   The potable and reclaimed GPF rates will remain unchanged over the projection period. The financial  analysis illustrates that expenses to be funded with GPF revenue are being met with the existing GPF  rates.     Table 9 provides the water sales and GPF revenue forecast for the five year projection period using the  proposed base rates in Tables 7 and 8. The Utility will be utilizing $684,000 in funds conditionally allocated  to the Town by the Central Arizona Project. The funds are restricted and may only be used for  infrastructure that would provide the Town with water resource reliability. The funds will be used to pay  for NWRRDS project costs.  Table 9    Revenue Source 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Potable Water $12,220,216 $12,920,341 $13,418,219 $13,918,003 $14,412,318 Reclaimed Water   $  1,516,323       1,526,920       1,537,872       1,549,211        1,557,957 Total Water Sales    GPF Revenue  NW Reliability Funds  $13,736,539    $  2,327,128  $     684,000  $14,447,261   $  2,342,078  $14,956,091   $  2,355,209  $15,467,214    $  2,366,045    $15,970,275   $  2,373,677      Other revenue generated by the Utility consists of charges for services. Charges for services include funds  received as a result of an IGA with the Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department to provide  monthly billing services on their behalf. The IGA was renewed in June 2018 and included an increase in  the amount to be paid to the Water Utility. The IGA is reviewed annually to ensure cost recovery. Charges  for services also include, but are not limited to, new service establishment fees, late fees, reconnection  fees, inspection fees and plan review fees. The total of all charges for services are projected to generate  annual revenue ranging from $748,300 to $757,693.  - 10 -   Projections for interest income are a cumulative total of $952,187 over the five year period. The interest  rates assumed for the projection period varied annually and ranged from 2.0% to 2.75%. This interest rate  is consistent with the Town’s financial planning.    Revenue Requirements    Table 10 is a summary of revenue requirements for the Operating Fund that were used in the financial  analysis. These revenue requirements exclude expenses to be paid with GPF revenue.    Table 10    Operating Fund            2019‐20            2020‐21           2021‐ 22           2022‐23           2023‐ 24 Expenses          Personnel $   2,951,761 $    3,054,981 $    3,162,068 $   3,273,181 $   3,388,482  Operations/Maintenance         2,775,701         2,805,337 2,535,417         2,565,948        2,096,938  Power for Pumping            862,818            879,010         898,096         910,690         920,341  CAP Wheeling Costs         1,777,118         1,872,548        1,926,758         1,983,122        2,041,742  CAP Recharge Costs         1,663,925         1,674,230        1,715,450         1,756,670        1,828,805  Reclaimed Personnel 514,681 532,775 551,552 571,038 591,263  Reclaimed Operations/Maint. 937,534 952,917 968,532 984,378 1,000,464  Reclaimed Power for Pumping 54,513 54,513 59,964 59,964 59,964  Subtotal Expenses  $ 11,538,051  $ 11,826,311  $ 11,817,837  $ 12,104,991  $ 11,927,999  Debt Service        4,363,084         3,410,359        3,405,739        3,404,859        3,016,473  Capital Outlay          661,000        661,500 1,844,000       1,736,800       2,141,600  Total Expenses $ 16,562,135   $ 15,898,170 $ 17,067,576  $ 17,246,650  $ 17,086,072    Projected personnel costs include three percent annual merit increases, two and half percent increases in  retirement contributions and five percent annual increases in health care costs. There are no new  employees being added within the five year projection period. These projected increases are consistent  with the General Fund’s financial planning. A portion of the personnel costs have been allocated to the  reclaimed water system. The allocations vary depending on the functions of staff in each division. Five  percent of administrative labor costs are allocated to reclaimed operations while 23 percent of all  operations labor is allocated throughout this analysis.    The projected operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for both the potable and reclaimed water  systems are based on the FY 2018‐19 budget and include inflationary increases of one and one half  percent annually. The inflation factors are consistent with the General Fund’s financial planning. The  potable O&M costs include funds in the first four years to purchase groundwater extinguishment credits  to bolster the Utility’s groundwater allowance account with the Arizona Department of Water Resources.  The reclaimed O&M costs include allocations for various administrative and operational costs. The  allocations were based on the gallons of reclaimed water sold compared to the total gallons of all water  sold. The reclaimed allocations for operations and maintenance represent 23 percent of the total  applicable costs.    Power costs for the potable and reclaimed water systems were segregated from the traditional O&M  costs because they are not subject to annual inflationary increases. Tucson Electric Power has historically  increased its pumping rates every four years. In 2017, the power rate increased by 10 percent. Another 10  percent rate increase has been projected in FY 2021‐22.  - 11 -   CAP wheeling costs are the fees charged by Tucson Water to wheel Oro Valley’s CAP water through their  recharge and recovery system. The IGA with Tucson Water was renegotiated in FY 2016‐17. Based on the  new IGA, costs are assumed to increase annually by seven percent. In FY 2019‐20, the Utility will take  delivery of an additional 480 acre feet of CAP water as allowed in the IGA. The total annual delivery of  2,510 acre feet is projected in all five years.     CAP water recharge costs represent costs to take annual delivery of the Utility’s entire CAP water  allotment of 10,305 acre feet. This water will be recharged and stored in various recharge facilities  including the Tucson Water facilities. Costs to take delivery of and store the CAP water are based on the  rate schedule adopted by the Central Arizona Project.    Projected capital outlay for existing system improvements in this analysis includes drilling and equipping  two replacement wells, booster station modifications, water main replacements, fire line backflow  prevention, vehicles and SCADA instrumentation. The schedule for five year capital improvements may be  found in Appendix C.    Debt service costs are significantly reduced after the Series 2013 Bonds are paid in full in July 2019. In  addition, debt service costs gradually decline over the next four years because of the payment structure  defined in the amortization schedule for Series 2012 Bonds.     Table 11 is a summary of revenue requirements paid with GPF revenue that were used in this financial  analysis.    Table 11    Groundwater Preservation Fees  2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Expenses       Capital Cost of $6,748 AF of CAP $    367,766 $    479,108 $    489,230 $    468,986 $    465,612  Capital Cost for NWRRDS project 1,570,616 546,000 1,509,000 ‐ 2,391,000  Debt Service 1,367,470 1,364,418 1,358,050 1,572,255 1,082,160  Total GPF Expenses $ 3,305,852 $ 2,389,526 $ 3,356,280 $ 2,041,241 $ 3,938,772    Expenses paid with GPF funds include the existing customers’ portion of the CAP water capital costs  associated with ownership of the CAP water allotment. These costs increase annually based on projected  rates developed by the Central Arizona Project. In FY 2018‐19, the Utility began incurring costs on the  NWRRDS project. During FY 2018‐19 and FY 2019‐20, a total of $924,000 in restricted funds will be used to  offset the Utility’s costs of this project. The Central Arizona Project conditionally allocated these funds to  the Utility with the requirement that the funds be used solely for a project that would result in water  reliability. The NWRRDS meets the intent of the Central Arizona Project requirements.    Debt service for the reclaimed water system is paid with GPF funds. Outstanding debt on the reclaimed  water system will be paid in full by July 2029. This analysis includes an assumption that the Utility will  borrow an additional $5 million in FY 2022‐23 to complete the existing customers’ portion of the NWRRDS  project which will be repaid with GPF revenue.   - 12 -   Development Impact Fee Funds    Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund    The Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund (AWRDIF Fund) is projected to have a  cash balance of $8,811,210 at the beginning of FY 2019‐20 and is projected to have $2,467,501 at the end  of FY 2023‐24. The revenue sources for the AWRDIF Fund are from impact fees collected when a water  meter is purchased and from interest earned on cash balances. Interest income is projected to be a total  of $880,743 for this analysis. The interest rate assumed for the projection period varied annually and  ranged from 2.0% to 2.75%. This interest rate is consistent with the Town’s financial planning.    The revenue forecast was based on new service units related to the number of new connections. A service  unit is the equivalent of one single family residential (SFR) 5/8‐inch water meter. The SFR service units are  equal to the number of new connections. Other service units are forecast based on pending development  projects within the Town. Other service units include commercial, multi‐family and irrigation uses with the  number of service units depending on the estimated meter sizes for each project.      The impact fee for a SFR 5/8‐inch water meter or one service unit is $4,045. It is assumed that the existing  Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fees will not change during this five year projection  period. Table 12 provides the projected growth in service units and the revenue associated with that  growth. These growth projections are consistent with the Town’s financial planning.    Table 12    Growth / Revenue 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  SFR Service Units           300         370         325         265           182 Other Service Units             10           10           10           10             10 Projected Revenue $1,276,190 $1,559,340 $1,377,315 $1,134,615 $798,880    AWRDIF funds may be used for capital expenses related to CAP water. Capital expenses during this  projection period total $12,721,857 and include the capital costs assessed by the Central Arizona Project  for 3,557 acre feet of our CAP water allotment and design and construction of the NWRRDS project that  will deliver additional CAP water to the Town. These projects are identified in the five year capital  improvement project schedule shown in Appendix C. It is assumed that the Utility will finance $5 million  of the project costs in FY 2022‐23. This is in addition to the debt for the existing customers’ portion of the  project. The annual capital expenses and debt service for the AWRDIF Fund are listed in Table 13 below.    Table 13    Expenses 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  CAP Capital Charges  $     193,857 $  252,547 $      257,883 $    247,212 $     245,433 CAP Facilities  $  2,355,923 $  819,000 $  2,263,501 $ 3,856,501 $  2,230,000 Debt Service  $     216,312 $     432,624 Total Expenses  $  2,549,780  $  1,071,547  $ 2,521,384  $ 4,320,025 $  2,908,057      - 13 -   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund    The Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund (PWSDIF Fund) is projected to have a cash  balance of $5,707,306 at the beginning of FY 2019‐20 and is projected to have $2,151,687 at the end of FY  2023‐24. The revenue sources for the PWSDIF Fund are from impact fees collected when a water meter is  purchased and from interest earned on cash balances. Interest income is projected to be a total of  $584,171 for this analysis. The interest rate assumed for the projection period varied annually and ranged  from 2.0% to 2.75%.  This interest rate is consistent with the Town’s financial planning.    The revenue forecast was based on new service units related to the number of new connections. A service  unit is the equivalent of one single family residential (SFR) 5/8‐inch water meter. The SFR service units are  equal to the number of new connections. Other service units are forecast based on historic trends and  pending development projects within the Town. Other service units include commercial, multi‐family and  irrigation uses with the number of service units depending on the meter sizes for each project.        The impact fee for a SFR 5/8‐inch water meter or one service unit is $2,015. It is assumed that the existing  Potable Water System Development Impact Fees will not change during this five year projection period.  Table 14 provides the projected growth in service units and the revenue associated with that growth.  These growth projections are consistent with the Town’s financial planning.     Table 14    Growth / Revenue 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  SFR Service Units 300 370 325 265 182 Other Service Units 10 10 10 10 10 Projected Revenue $635,728 $776,778 $686,103 $565,203 $397,958    PWSDIF funds may be used for capital expenses related to potable water system improvements including  wells, booster stations, reservoirs and water mains that are required to meet the demands of new  growth. Capital expenses in this analysis total $5,800,000 and include equipping a new well, new water  main installation, property acquisition, construction of a reservoir and booster station to meet demands  of future growth. These projects are identified in the five year capital improvement plan shown in  Appendix C.  Debt service for previously constructed growth‐related facilities is also paid from revenues  collected from impact fees. There is no new debt projected in this analysis. Table 15 lists all expenses  forecast for the PWSDIF Fund.    Table 15    Expenses 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24  Debt Service  $    325,996 $    325,099 $    323,180  $   322,578   $     104,707 Capital Projects  $    800,000 $1,250,000 $    300,000  $ 1,450,000   $  2,000,000 Total Expenses  $ 1,125,996  $ 1,575,099  $    623,180   $ 1,772,578   $  2,104,707    All expenses will be paid for with impact fees collected. Projects will be constructed commensurate with  the timing of new development demands.     - 14 -   Preferred Financial Scenario    Prior to developing forecasts, financial considerations were evaluated relating to projected operating  costs, capital expenses, the Utility’s existing cash reserves, existing outstanding debt and debt service  payments. When developing a Preferred Financial Scenario, the goals of the Utility are to ensure that all  existing rate setting policies are met, cash reserves are utilized to minimize future debt and proposed rate  increases do not result in rate shock. One of the rate setting policies included in the Mayor and Council  Water Policies is for rate structures to be designed to encourage water conservation.     The development of water conservation pricing, also known as a tiered commodity rate, began in 1999  when a second tier was added to the uniform or flat commodity rate. That structure evolved into four  tiers by 2007. Over the last 12 years, the Utility has increased the tiered commodity rates to a level that  encourages water conservation. Having achieved rates that encourage water conservation, the Utility is  continuing to place emphasis on the rate design that will increase fixed cost recovery to ensure revenue  stability.     With the exception of FY 2017‐18, Figure 3 illustrates the decline in water deliveries even though the  Utility experienced growth in the customer base. The nine percent increase in water deliveries in FY 2017‐ 18 is largely due to the extreme weather conditions. Water deliveries for the current fiscal year are  already trending at 10 percent less than last year’s deliveries.     Figure 3        To stabilize revenue when water deliveries decline or fluctuate, it is necessary to increase fixed charge  revenue which is revenue received from base rates. Fixed costs are costs incurred by the Utility that do  not fluctuate based on the volume of water delivered. These costs include, but are not limited to, billing  related costs, regulatory expenses, personnel, debt service, insurance, fleet maintenance and  administrative services paid to the Town’s General Fund. These costs are all incurred every year  regardless of the volume of water delivered. The Utility’s fixed costs projected for FY 2019‐20 total $11.5  million. Ideally, these costs would be paid by revenues received from the base rate revenue. Base rates  charged to customers are the same every month regardless of the volume of water delivered. The existing  - 15 -   base rates generate just under $5 million or 44 percent of the fixed costs. As a result, the Utility is  dependent on water sales to generate the revenue needed to recover the remaining fixed costs as well as  the variable costs.    Variable costs are those costs incurred by the Utility that fluctuate based on the volume of water  delivered. If the deliveries decrease, the costs decrease and likewise, if deliveries increase, the costs  increase. Variable costs include, but are not limited to, power for pumping, chemicals for disinfection,  delivery of reclaimed water, CAP water wheeling costs and maintenance on plant facilities. The Utility’s  variable costs projected for FY 2019‐20 total $3.7 million. These costs are paid by revenues received from  the variable charge revenue also known as commodity rate revenue. Commodity rates are charged on the  volume of water delivered which varies from customer to customer and from month to month. The  existing commodity rates generate $8.3 million. Funds in excess of the variable costs are used to help pay  for fixed costs.     The Utility’s customer base is not diverse enough to rely so heavily on revenue from commodity rates. To  increase revenue stability, the Utility will need to reduce its dependence on water sales for fixed cost  recovery. This can be accomplished by increasing the monthly base rates. Declining water consumption  has impacted water providers on a regional level. The table below illustrates how regional water providers  have increased their base rates to compensate for the declines in water consumption as compared to the  historical and the 2019 proposed rates for Oro Valley.    Table 16  Year Oro Valley Metro Marana Tucson  2019  18.26 29.50 19.09 16.33  2018 16.45 29.50 19.09 15.00  2017 14.62 29.50 19.09 14.39  2016 14.19 29.50 18.18 12.67  2015 14.19 27.00 17.31 11.90  2014 14.19 22.00 16.18 11.00  2013 14.19 20.00 15.12   9.68  2012 14.19 17.50 15.12   8.27  2011 14.19 17.50 15.12   7.53  2010 14.19 15.03 15.12   5.87    The Water Utility developed a Preferred Financial Scenario that supports key financial and policy goals.  The scenario generates the revenue needed to maintain an adequate cash balance in all funds over the  projected five year period thus meeting the cash reserve requirements in each year. Additionally, the  scenario balances the use of both available cash and proposed new debt to finance capital projects. Under  this scenario, the fixed cost recovery is projected to increase from 44 percent to 49 percent by the end of  FY 2019‐20. If all proposed rate increases are implemented as shown in the Preferred Financial Scenario,  fixed cost recovery could increase to approximately 60 percent by the end of FY 2023‐24.    The financial projections for the Operating Fund, AWRDIF Fund and the PWSDIF Fund were combined to  evaluate the overall debt service coverage at the end of each fiscal year. Analysis indicates that, under the  Preferred Financial Scenario, the Utility will meet the debt service coverage requirement established by  the Mayor and Council Water Polices and bond covenants for all five years.    The pro forma for the Preferred Financial Scenario may be found in Appendix A. The assumptions used to  develop the financial projections contained in the Preferred Financial Scenario may be found in Appendix  D.   - 16 -   Recommendation on Rates, Fees & Charges    After reviewing the analysis of the three funds and their respective revenue requirements contained in  the Preferred Financial Scenario, the Water Utility Commission and Utility staff recommend the following:     Increase in the potable water monthly base rates in FY 2019‐20    With regard to the recommendation to increase the water rates, the following table shows the proposed  potable water base rates for each meter size. Approximately 87 percent of the Utility’s customers use a  5/8‐inch water meter and will see an increase of $1.81 per month regardless of the volume of water they  use.    Table 17    Meter Size Current Proposed Monthly  (in inches) Base Rate Base Rate Increase       5/8            $   16.45    $   18.26       $    1.81       3/4 $   24.67    $   27.38       $    2.71         1 $   41.11    $   45.63       $    4.52       1.5 $   82.22    $  91.26       $    9.04         2  $ 131.56     $ 146.03       $  14.47         3 $ 263.09     $ 292.03       $  28.94         4 $ 411.09     $ 456.31       $  45.22         6 $ 822.18     $ 912.62       $  90.44         8 $1,315.49   $1,460.19       $144.70  Monthly charge.    There is no recommended increase in the potable water commodity rates. In the past, emphasis was  placed on developing commodity rates that would promote water conservation. The current tiered rate  structure for the commodity rates encourages water conservation as intended. Because of the decline in  water consumption, the continued emphasis of the rate design will be to increase the Utility’s fixed cost  recovery to ensure revenue stability. This will be accomplished with increases to the monthly base rates.     The reclaimed base rates and commodity rates are both proposed to increase beginning in FY 2020‐21  through FY 2023‐24. The financial analysis illustrates that the current reclaimed rates will not recover the  reclaimed operating costs during those years.     The potable and reclaimed GPF rates will remain unchanged over the projection period. The financial  analysis illustrates that the expenses to be funded with GPF revenue are being met with the existing GPF  rates. The planned use of GPF cash reserves will result in the Utility’s ability to reduce future debt service  for the NWRRDS project by approximately $6.2 million based on the estimated construction costs  attributed to existing customers.    Table 18 illustrates Oro Valley’s current and proposed water rates for a customer with a 5/8‐inch water  meter. Water rates of other water providers in the region are included for comparison of the base rates  and the cost per 1,000 gallons.        - 17 -   Table 18      Water Provider    Monthly  Base Rate Tier 1    Tier 2    Tier 3    Tier 4      Tier 5    GPF or Water  Resource Fee  Oro Valley Current $16.45 $2.34 $3.25 $4.53  $6.29 ‐‐‐ $0.90 Oro Valley Proposed $18.26 $2.34 $3.25 $4.53  $6.29 ‐‐‐ $0.90 Metro Water $29.50 $2.75 $4.65 $6.20  $7.25 ‐‐‐ $0.60 Marana Water $19.09 $3.11 $4.33 $5.63  $6.94 $9.97 $0.50 Tucson Water $16.33 $2.77 $5.12 $11.24   $17.33 ‐‐‐ $1.07 Tier rates and GPF are the cost per 1,000 gallons.    Direct comparison of specific base rates and commodity rates is not ideal for cost comparisons because of  the varying rate structures of each utility. A more effective comparison is to calculate the cost for specific  consumption levels for one month. Table 19 provides a calculation of a monthly bill amount for a single  family residential customer with a 5/8‐inch meter for the water utilities surrounding the Oro Valley Water  Utility service area. The following bill comparisons include water rates and water resource fees similar to  the Utility’s GPF.     Table 19      Water Provider  Cost for  7,000 Gallons Cost for  15,000 Gallons Cost for   25,000 Gallons  Cost for  40,000 Gallons Oro Valley Current $39.13 $ 72.33 $125.35 $220.88 Oro Valley Proposed $40.94 $ 74.14 $127.16 $222.69 Metro Water $44.70 $ 84.80 $152.30 $270.05 Marana Water $44.36 $ 79.34 $134.14 $239.19 Tucson Water $47.32 $119.80 $258.19 $533.61   Table 20 illustrates the financial impact to customers with varying meter sizes based on monthly water  use for specific customer classifications. These charges are for Oro Valley Water Utility customers and  include the base rates, commodity rates and groundwater preservation fees.    Table 20    Classification Meter Size  (inches)  Water Use  (gallons) Current Bill Proposed Bill Increase  SF Residential 5/8 7,000 $      39.13 $ 40.94  $ 1.81 SF Residential 5/8          15,000 $       72.33 $ 74.14   $ 1.81 Irrigation  5/8 25,000 $     125.35 $127.16 $ 1.81 Commercial 5/8 40,000 $     146.05 $147.86 $ 1.81 Irrigation 1 27,000 $     137.69 $142.21 $ 4.52 Commercial 2 57,000 $      316.24      $330.71 $ 14.47 MF Residential  4 700,000 $   2,679.09   $  2,724.31 $ 45.22 Turf – Potable 4 4,000,000 $13,371.09 $13,416.31 $ 45.22 Commercial 6 6,000,000 $20,262.18 $20,352.62 $ 90.44   - 18 -   Proposed rates for all Oro Valley Water Utility meter sizes may be found in Appendix B. Tables that  calculate monthly bills under the proposed rates may also be found in Appendix B. Monthly bill amounts  are calculated in 1,000 gallon increments for the 5/8‐inch meters and a variety of increments for larger  meter sizes.      Conclusion    Each year the water rates analysis is prepared based on the most up‐to‐date information available.  Operational needs and capital improvement requirements change annually and are carefully evaluated  when they are included in the analysis. It is important that the Utility perform a water rates analysis every  year to plan for changes in debt service, operating or capital costs.     This Water Rates Analysis Report is presented in support of the proposed water rates contained in the  Preferred Financial Scenario. The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission and the Water Utility staff  respectfully recommend approval of the water rates detailed in the Preferred Financial Scenario.    The Oro Valley Water Utility staff and Commission are dedicated to serving the Town of Oro Valley and  the customers of its water utility and extend their appreciation to the Mayor and Council for  consideration of the proposed water rates.                       APPENDIX   A    Preferred Financial Scenario Pro Forma  A‐1   Operating Fund  A‐2   Groundwater Preservation Fee  A‐3   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  A‐4   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund  A‐5   Summary of all Funds          FY 2019‐20 FY  2020‐21 FY 2021‐22 FY  2022‐23 FY  2023‐24 REVENUES Water Sales Potable Water Sales (excluding golf  courses) 12,054,365$    12,604,759$    12,937,747$    13,289,049$    13,659,673$     Potable Water Sales from Growth  ‐ Res. & Com. 67,938 217,122 381,680 529,813 653,135 Potable Water Sales ‐ Golf  Course 97,913               98,460               98,792               99,141               99,510                Total Potable Water Sales 12,220,216 12,920,341 13,418,219 13,918,003 14,412,318 Reclaimed Water Sales 1,516,323         1,526,920         1,537,872         1,549,211         1,557,957               Total  Water Sales 13,736,539 14,447,261 14,956,091 15,467,214 15,970,275 Other Operating Revenue Service Fees & Charges 748,300 750,623 752,946 755,269 757,693 Interest Income 257,728 231,868 201,064 164,103 97,424      Total  Other Operating Revenue 1,006,028 982,491 954,010 919,372 855,117      Total  Operating Revenue 14,742,567$    15,429,752$    15,910,101$    16,386,586$    16,825,392$     OPERATING EXPENSES Potable Operating Expenses Personnel 2,951,761         3,054,981         3,162,068         3,273,181         3,388,482          Operations & Maintenance 2,775,701         2,805,337         2,535,417         2,565,948         2,096,938          Power for Pumping 862,818            879,010            898,096            910,690            920,341             CAP Wheeling Costs 1,777,118         1,872,548         1,926,758         1,983,122         2,041,742          CAP Water Recharge  Costs 1,663,925         1,674,230         1,715,450         1,756,670         1,828,805          Total Potable Operating Expenses 10,031,323$    10,286,106$    10,237,789$    10,489,611$    10,276,308$     Reclaimed Operating Expenses Personnel 514,681            532,775            551,552            571,038            591,263             Operating & Maintenance 937,534            952,917            968,532            984,378            1,000,464          Power for Pumping 54,513               54,513               59,964               59,964               59,964                Total Reclaimed Operating Expenses 1,506,728$      1,540,205$      1,580,048$      1,615,380$      1,651,691$       Total Operating Expenses 11,538,051$    11,826,311$    11,817,837$    12,104,991$    11,927,999$     Net Operating Revenue 3,204,516$      3,603,441$      4,092,264$      4,281,595$      4,897,393$       DEBT SERVICE ‐ POTABLE       P&I ‐ 2009 WIFA  Loan  ‐ Exist. System CIP 149,123            149,069            149,014            148,956            148,897             P&I ‐ 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Exist. System‐Refi  2003 579,744            578,149            574,737            573,666            186,209             P&I ‐ 2013 Refunding ‐ Excise  ‐ Private Placement 1,017,323          ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      P&I ‐ 2014 WIFA  Loan  ‐ Sr. Lien ‐ AMI 376,959            376,856            376,751            376,642            376,530             P&I ‐ 2015 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Refinance 2005 151,106            149,797            149,756            149,975            151,098             P&I ‐ 2017 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Refinance 2007 1,641,382         1,640,923         1,640,567         1,640,294         1,639,079          P&I ‐ 2018 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Exist. System CIP‐ 15 447,447            515,565            514,914            515,326            514,660             Total Potable System Debt Service 4,363,084$      3,410,359$      3,405,739$      3,404,859$      3,016,473$       Other Obligations Meters  & Equipment & Vehicles 351,000$          241,500$          474,000$          136,800$          141,600$           Capital  Improvements:   Existing System 310,000            420,000            1,370,000         1,600,000         2,000,000 Total Other Obligations 661,000$          661,500$          1,844,000$      1,736,800$      2,141,600$       Net Balance  From Operations (1,819,568)$     (468,418)$        (1,157,475)$     (860,064)$        (260,680)$         Beginning Cash Balance 8,060,642$      6,241,074$      5,772,656$      4,615,180$      3,755,116$       Net Balance  From Operations (1,819,568)       (468,418)           (1,157,475)       (860,064)           (260,680)            Ending Cash Balance 6,241,074$      5,772,656$      4,615,180$      3,755,116$      3,494,436$       A‐1 Oro Valley Water Utility - Operating Fund      FY 2019‐20 FY  2020‐21 FY 2021‐22 FY  2022‐23 FY  2023‐24 GPF Beginning Balance 3,015,979$      2,721,255$      2,673,807$      1,672,736$      1,997,540$       Revenue GPF  Revenue ‐ Potable 2,007,840         2,007,840         2,007,840         2,007,840         2,007,840          GPF  Revenue ‐ Reclaimed 307,379            307,379            307,379            307,379            307,379             GPF  Revenue ‐ Growth 11,909 26,859 39,990 50,826 58,458      Total  GPF Revenue 2,327,128$      2,342,078$      2,355,209$      2,366,045$      2,373,677$       NW Reliability Restricted Cash 684,000             ‐                           Total  All Revenue 3,011,128$      2,342,078$      2,355,209$      2,366,045$      2,373,677$       GPF Expenses Capital Cost for CAP Allotment 6,748 AF 367,766            479,108            489,230            468,986            465,612             Capital  Costs for NWRRDS Project 1,570,616         546,000            1,509,000          ‐                     2,391,000          P&I ‐ 2007 Sr. Lien ‐ WIFA  ‐Reclaimed Ph.2 310,728            310,584            310,435            310,281            310,121             P&I ‐ 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Reclaimed Ph.1 1,056,742         1,053,834         1,047,615         1,045,662         339,415             P&I ‐ 2023 Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ NWRRDS ‐                      ‐                      ‐                     216,312            432,624                  Total  GPF Expenses 3,305,852         2,389,526         3,356,280         2,041,241         3,938,772          GPF Ending Balance 2,721,255$      2,673,807$      1,672,736$      1,997,540$      432,445$           A‐2 Groundwater Preservation Fees        FY 2019‐20 FY  2020‐21 FY  2021‐22 FY  2022‐23 FY  2023‐24 REVENUES AWRD Impact Fee Revenue 1,276,190$      1,559,340$      1,377,315$      1,134,615$      798,880$                Subtotal Revenue 1,276,190 1,559,340 1,377,315 1,134,615 798,880 Other Operating Revenue Interest Income 212,269 214,486 216,429 166,775 70,784      Subtotal Other Operating Revenue 212,269 214,486 216,429 166,775 70,784 Total  Operating Revenue 1,488,459$      1,773,826$      1,593,744$      1,301,390$      869,664$           OPERATING  EXPENSES      N/A ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           Total  Operating Expenses ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    Net Operating Revenue 1,488,459$      1,773,826$      1,593,744$      1,301,390$      869,664$           DEBT SERVICE P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ NWRRDS ‐ Growth  (2023)‐                      ‐                      ‐                     216,312            432,624             Total  Debt Service ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                   216,312$          432,624$           OTHER OBLIGATIONS Capital  Improvements:      CAP Capital  Charges 3557 acre  feet 193,857            252,547            257,883            247,212            245,433                  Capital  Costs for NWRRDS Project 2,355,923         819,000            2,263,501         3,856,501         2,230,000          Total  Other Obligations 2,549,780$      1,071,547$      2,521,384$      4,103,713$      2,475,433$       Net Balance  From Operations (1,061,321)$     702,279$          (927,640)$        (3,018,635)$     (2,038,393)$      Beginning Cash Balance  8,811,210$      7,749,890$      8,452,168$      7,524,528$      4,505,894$       Net Balance  From Operations (1,061,321)$     702,279$          (927,640)$        (3,018,635)$     (2,038,393)$      Ending Cash Balance 7,749,890$      8,452,168$      7,524,528$      4,505,894$      2,467,501$       A‐3 Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund         FY 2019‐20 FY  2020‐21 FY  2021‐22 FY  2022‐23 FY  2023‐24 REVENUES Development Impact Fees 635,728$          776,778$          686,103$          565,203$          397,958$                Subtotal Revenue 635,728$          776,778$          686,103$          565,203$          397,958$           Other Operating Revenue Interest Income 141,451 134,301 128,946 119,156 60,317      Subtotal Other Operating Revenue 141,451 134,301 128,946 119,156 60,317 Total  Operating Revenue 777,179$          911,079$          815,049$          684,359$          458,275$           OPERATING  EXPENSES      N/A ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      Total  Operating Expenses ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    Net Operating Revenue 777,179$          911,079$          815,049$          684,359$          458,275$           DEBT SERVICE   P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Expansion Related (2012) 325,996$          325,099$          323,180$          322,578$          104,707$           Total  Water System Debt Service 325,996$          325,099$          323,180$          322,578$          104,707$           OTHER OBLIGATIONS      Growth  Related Capital Projects 800,000            1,250,000         300,000            1,450,000         2,000,000          Total  Other Obligations 800,000$          1,250,000$      300,000$          1,450,000$      2,000,000$       Net Balance  From Operations (348,817)$        (664,020)$        191,869$          (1,088,219)$     (1,646,432)$      Beginning Cash Balance 5,707,306$      5,358,489$      4,694,469$      4,886,338$      3,798,119$       Net Balance  From Operations (348,817)$        (664,020)$        191,869$          (1,088,219)$     (1,646,432)$      Ending Cash Balance 5,358,489$      4,694,469$      4,886,338$      3,798,119$      2,151,687$       A‐4 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund          FY 2019‐20 FY  2020‐21 FY  2021‐22 FY  2022‐23 FY  2023‐24 REVENUES Water Sales Potable Water Sales (exclude golf courses) 12,054,365$    12,604,759$    12,937,747$    13,289,049$    13,659,673$     Potable Water Sales from Growth 67,938 217,122 381,680 529,813 653,135 Potable Water Sales ‐ Golf  Course 97,913 98,460 98,792 99,141 99,510      Total Potable Water Sales 12,220,216 12,920,341 13,418,219 13,918,003 14,412,318 Reclaimed Water Sales 1,516,323 1,526,920 1,537,872 1,549,211 1,557,957      Total Water Sales 13,736,539 14,447,261 14,956,091 15,467,214 15,970,275 Other Operating Revenue Groundwater Preservation Fees Groundwater Preservation Fee ‐ Potable 2,007,840 2,007,840 2,007,840 2,007,840 2,007,840 Groundwater Preservation Fee ‐ Reclaimed 307,379 307,379 307,379 307,379 307,379 Groundwater Preservation Fee ‐ Growth 11,909 26,859 39,990 50,826 58,458      Total Groundwater Preservation Fees 2,327,128 2,342,078 2,355,209 2,366,045 2,373,677 Potable Water Impact Fees 635,728 776,778 686,103 565,203 397,958 Alternative Water Impact Fees 1,276,190 1,559,340 1,377,315 1,134,615 798,880 Service Fees & Charges 748,300 750,623 752,946 755,269 757,693 NW Reliabiity Restricted Cash 684,000             ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           Interest Income 611,448 580,655 546,439 450,034 228,525      Total Other Operating Revenue 6,282,794 6,009,474 5,718,012 5,271,166 4,556,733      Total Operating Revenue 20,019,333$    20,456,735$    20,674,103$    20,738,380$    20,527,008$     OPERATING  EXPENSES Potable Operating Expenses Personnel 2,951,761         3,054,981         3,162,068         3,273,181         3,388,482          Operations & Maintenance 2,775,701         2,805,337         2,535,417         2,565,948         2,096,938          Power for Pumping 862,818            879,010            898,096            910,690            920,341             CAP Wheeling Costs 1,777,118         1,872,548         1,926,758         1,983,122         2,041,742          CAP Recharge Costs 1,663,925         1,674,230         1,715,450         1,756,670         1,828,805          Costs paid by GPF Revenue (excludes  debt & capital  proje 367,766            479,108            489,230            468,986            465,612             Total  Potable Operating Expenses 10,399,090$    10,765,214$    10,727,019$    10,958,597$    10,741,920$     Reclaimed Operating Expenses Personnel 514,681            532,775            551,552            571,038            591,263             Operating & Maintenance 937,534            952,917            968,532            984,378            1,000,464          Power for Pumping 54,513               54,513               59,964               59,964               59,964                Total  Reclaimed Operating Expenses 1,506,728$      1,540,205$      1,580,049$      1,615,381$      1,651,690$       Total  Operating Expenses 11,905,817$    12,305,419$    12,307,067$    12,573,978$    12,393,610$     Net Operating Revenue 8,113,516$      8,151,316$      8,367,036$      8,164,402$      8,133,398$       A‐5 Summary of All Funds       Debt Service Debt Service  ‐ Potable‐ Existing System   P&I ‐ 2009 WIFA Loan ‐ Exist. System CIP 149,123            149,069            149,014            148,956            148,897             P&I ‐ 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Existing System‐Refinance 2579,744            578,149            574,737            573,666            186,209             P&I ‐ 2013 Refunding ‐ Excise  ‐ Private Placement 1,017,323          ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      P&I ‐ 2014 WIFA Loan ‐ Sr. Lien ‐ AMI 376,959            376,856            376,751            376,642            376,530             P&I ‐ 2015 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Refinance  2005 151,106            149,797            149,756            149,975            151,098             P&I ‐ 2017 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Refinance  2007 1,641,382         1,640,923         1,640,567         1,640,294         1,639,079          P&I ‐ 2018 Excise  Tax  Bonds ‐ Exist. System CIP‐ 15 yrs. 447,447            515,565            514,914            515,326            514,660             Total  Potable Existing System Debt Service 4,363,085$      3,410,359$      3,405,739$      3,404,858$      3,016,473$       Debt Service  ‐ GPF P&I ‐ Sr. Lien ‐ WIFA  ‐Reclaimed Ph.2 (2007) 310,728$          310,584$          310,435$          310,281$          310,121$           P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Reclaimed Ph.1 (2012) 1,056,742         1,053,834         1,047,615         1,045,662         339,415             P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ NWRRDS ‐ Exist. Customers  (2023 ‐                      ‐                      ‐                     216,312            432,624             Total  GPF Debt Service 1,367,470$      1,364,418$      1,358,050$      1,572,255$      1,082,160$       Debt Service  ‐ AWRDIF ‐ Growth Related P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ NWRRDS ‐ Growth  Related (2023)‐                      ‐                      ‐                     216,312            432,624             Total  AWRDIF Growth Related Debt Service ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                   216,312$          432,624$           Debt Service  ‐ Potable ‐ Growth Related P&I ‐ Sr. Lien Bonds ‐ Growth  Related (2012) 325,996            325,099            323,180            322,578            104,707             Total  Potable Growth Related Debt Service 325,996$          325,099$          323,180$          322,578$          104,707$           Total  Water System Debt Service 6,056,550$      5,099,875$      5,086,968$      5,516,003$      4,635,964$       Other Obligations Meters  & Equipment & Vehicles 351,000$          241,500$          474,000$          136,800$          141,600$           Capital Improvements:      Existing System 310,000            420,000            1,370,000         1,600,000         2,000,000               Groundwater Preservation Fees 1,570,616         546,000            1,509,000          ‐                          2,391,000               Alternative Water Resources 2,549,780 1,071,547 2,521,384 4,103,713 2,475,433      Potable Water System Expansion 800,000            1,250,000         300,000            1,450,000         2,000,000          Total  Other Obligations 5,581,396$      3,529,047$      6,174,384$      7,290,513$      9,008,033$       Net Balance  From Operations (3,524,429)$     (477,606)$        (2,894,316)$     (4,642,114)$     (5,510,599)$      Growth ‐ New Metered  Connections 304 374 329 269 186 Monthly increase to residential  customer using 7K  gal s 4.6% 4.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% Monthly increase to residential  customer using 7K  gal s $1.81 $1.83 $1.10 $1.17 $1.23 Monthly increase to reclaimed customer using 10M gal0.0%0.6%0.6%0.7%0.7% Monthly increase to reclaimed customer using 10M gal $0.00 $173.08 $180.39 $188.43 $197.28 Debt Service Coverage Requirement Amount 7,030,572$      6,092,623$      6,075,963$      6,633,725$      5,489,700$       DS Coverage Ratio:   2012 Sr. Lien Bonds  & WIFA 2.50                   2.46                   2.54                   2.33                   3.37                    Debt Service  Coverage Requirement = 1.30 Required Cash Reserves (20% of personnel, O&M, deb 3,180,227$      3,047,334$      3,044,715$      3,101,970$      2,988,894$       (does not include depreciation/amortization) Operating Fund 6,241,074$      5,772,656$      4,615,180$      3,755,116$      3,494,436$       Groundwater Preservation Fees 2,721,255         2,673,807         1,672,736         1,997,540         432,445             AWRD Impact Fee Fund 7,749,890         8,452,168         7,524,528         4,505,894         2,467,501          PWSD Impact Fee Fund 5,358,489         4,694,469         4,886,338         3,798,119         2,151,687          Total  Ending Cash Balance 22,070,708$    21,593,099$    18,698,782$    14,056,668$    8,546,068$       A‐6                     APPENDIX   B    Rate Schedules & Tables for Bill Comparisons  B‐1   Proposed Water Rate Schedule  B‐2   Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size ‐ Potable  B‐8   Tables for Bill Comparisons by Meter Size ‐ Reclaimed         METER  SIZE (in inches) 5/8 x 3/4 $18.26 $14.62 3/4 x 3/4 $27.38 $21.93 1 $45.63 $36.54 1.5 $91.26 $73.08 2 $146.03 $116.94 3 $292.03 $233.86 4 $456.31 $365.41 6 $912.62 $730.83 8 $1,460.19 $1,169.32        METER COMMODITY COMMODITY COMMODITY COMMODITY SIZE TIER 1TIER 2TIER 3TIER 4 $2.34 $3.25 $4.53 $6.29 COST PER 1000 GALS. COST PER 1000 GALS. COST PER 1000 GALS. COST PER 1000 GALS. 5/8 x 3/4 0 ‐ 7,000  7,001 ‐ 16,000 16,001 ‐ 32,000 OVER     32,000 3/4 x 3/4 0 ‐ 10,000 10,001 ‐ 24,000 24,001 ‐ 48,000 OVER     48,000 10 ‐ 17,000 17,001 ‐ 40,000 40,001 ‐ 80,000 OVER     80,000 1.5 0 ‐ 35,000 35,001 ‐ 80,000  80,001 ‐ 160,000 OVER   160,000 20 ‐ 56,000   56,001 ‐ 128,000 128,001 ‐ 256,000 OVER   256,000 30 ‐ 112,000 112,001 ‐ 256,000 256,001 ‐ 512,000 OVER   512,000 40 ‐ 175,000 175,001 ‐ 400,000 400,001 ‐ 800,000 OVER   800,000 60 ‐ 860,000    860,001 ‐ 2,000,000 2,000,001 ‐ 3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000 80 ‐ 860,000    860,001 ‐ 2,000,000 2,000,001 ‐ 3,500,000 OVER 3,500,000    RECLAIMED WATER $ 0.47 per 1000 gallons for all  water use    MASTER‐METERED MULTIFAMILY CLASSIFICATION      $2.32 per 1000 gallons for all  water use    CONSTRUCTION  WATER      $7.05 per 1000 gallons for all  water use ORO VALLEY  WATER UTILITY PROPOSED WATER RATES POTABLE BASE RATE RECLAIMED BASE RATE COMMODITY RATES ‐ POTABLE WATER RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS    COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION B‐1 GROUNDWATER PRESERVATION FEES COMMODITY RATES ‐ RECLAIMED WATER     ALL RECLAIMED WATER USES & CLASSIFICATIONS      $2.32 per 1000 gallons for all  water use $ 2.27 per 1000 gallons for all  water use    POTABLE WATER $ 0.90 per 1000 gallons for all  water use      TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES & PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION  CUSTOMERS WITH A 5/8‐INCH METER Tier Levels   GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 16.45             ‐              16.45          18.26           ‐              18.26          1.81              11.0% 1,000           18.79            0.90            19.69          20.60          0.90            21.50          1.81              9.2% 2,000           21.13            1.80            22.93          22.94          1.80            24.74          1.81              7.9% 3,000           23.47            2.70            26.17          25.28          2.70            27.98          1.81              6.9% 4,000           25.81            3.60            29.41          27.62          3.60            31.22          1.81              6.2% 5,000           28.15            4.50            32.65          29.96          4.50            34.46          1.81              5.5% 6,000           30.49            5.40            35.89          32.30          5.40            37.70          1.81              5.0% 7,000           32.83            6.30            39.13          34.64          6.30            40.94          1.81              4.6% 8,000           36.08            7.20            43.28          37.89          7.20            45.09          1.81              4.2% 9,000           39.33            8.10            47.43          41.14          8.10            49.24          1.81              3.8% 10,000         42.58            9.00            51.58          44.39          9.00            53.39          1.81              3.5% 11,000         45.83            9.90            55.73          47.64          9.90            57.54          1.81              3.2% 12,000         49.08            10.80          59.88          50.89          10.80          61.69          1.81              3.0% 13,000         52.33            11.70          64.03          54.14          11.70          65.84          1.81              2.8% 14,000         55.58            12.60          68.18          57.39          12.60          69.99          1.81              2.7% 15,000         58.83            13.50          72.33          60.64          13.50          74.14          1.81              2.5% 16,000         62.08            14.40          76.48          63.89          14.40          78.29          1.81              2.4% 17,000         66.61            15.30          81.91          68.42          15.30          83.72          1.81              2.2% 18,000         71.14            16.20          87.34          72.95          16.20          89.15          1.81              2.1% 19,000         75.67            17.10          92.77          77.48          17.10          94.58          1.81              2.0% 20,000         80.20            18.00          98.20          82.01          18.00          100.01       1.81              1.8% 21,000         84.73            18.90          103.63        86.54          18.90          105.44       1.81              1.7% 22,000         89.26            19.80          109.06        91.07          19.80          110.87       1.81              1.7% 23,000         93.79            20.70          114.49        95.60          20.70          116.30       1.81              1.6% 24,000         98.32            21.60          119.92        100.13       21.60          121.73       1.81              1.5% 25,000         102.85         22.50          125.35        104.66       22.50          127.16       1.81              1.4% 26,000         107.38         23.40          130.78        109.19       23.40          132.59       1.81              1.4% 27,000         111.91         24.30          136.21        113.72       24.30          138.02       1.81              1.3% 28,000         116.44         25.20          141.64        118.25       25.20          143.45       1.81              1.3% 29,000         120.97         26.10          147.07        122.78       26.10          148.88       1.81              1.2% 30,000         125.50         27.00          152.50        127.31       27.00          154.31       1.81              1.2% 31,000         130.03         27.90          157.93        131.84       27.90          159.74       1.81              1.1% 32,000         134.56         28.80          163.36        136.37       28.80          165.17       1.81              1.1% 33,000         140.85         29.70          170.55        142.66       29.70          172.36       1.81              1.1% 34,000         147.14         30.60          177.74        148.95       30.60          179.55       1.81              1.0% 35,000         153.43         31.50          184.93        155.24       31.50          186.74       1.81              1.0% 36,000         159.72         32.40          192.12        161.53       32.40          193.93       1.81              0.9% 37,000         166.01         33.30          199.31        167.82       33.30          201.12       1.81              0.9% 38,000         172.30         34.20          206.50        174.11       34.20          208.31       1.81              0.9% 39,000         178.59         35.10          213.69        180.40       35.10          215.50       1.81              0.8% 40,000         184.88         36.00          220.88        186.69       36.00          222.69       1.81              0.8% 41,000         191.17         36.90          228.07        192.98       36.90          229.88       1.81              0.8% 42,000         197.46         37.80          235.26        199.27       37.80          237.07       1.81              0.8% 43,000         203.75         38.70          242.45        205.56       38.70          244.26       1.81              0.7% 44,000         210.04         39.60          249.64        211.85       39.60          251.45       1.81              0.7% 45,000         216.33         40.50          256.83        218.14       40.50          258.64       1.81              0.7% 46,000         222.62         41.40          264.02        224.43       41.40          265.83       1.81              0.7% 47,000         228.91         42.30          271.21        230.72       42.30          273.02       1.81              0.7% 48,000         235.20         43.20          278.40        237.01       43.20          280.21       1.81              0.6% 49,000         241.49         44.10          285.59        243.30       44.10          287.40       1.81              0.6% 50,000         247.78         45.00          292.78        249.59       45.00          294.59       1.81              0.6%   B‐2       TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR SF & MF RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 3/4‐INCH METER BASE RATE 27.38$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  10,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 10,001 ‐ 24,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 24,001 ‐ 48,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 48,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 24.67             ‐              24.67          27.38           ‐              27.38          2.71 11.0% 7,000           41.05            6.30            47.35          43.76          6.30            50.06          2.71 5.7% 11,000         51.32            9.90            61.22          54.03          9.90            63.93          2.71 4.4% 28,000         111.69         25.20          136.89        114.40       25.20          139.60       2.71 2.0% 50,000         214.87         45.00          259.87        217.58       45.00          262.58       2.71 1.0% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL  CUSTOMERS WITH A 3/4‐INCH METER BASE RATE 27.38$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 24.67             ‐              24.67          27.38           ‐              27.38          2.71 11.0% 7,000           41.05            6.30            47.35          43.76          6.30            50.06          2.71 5.7% 11,000         50.41            9.90            60.31          53.12          9.90            63.02          2.71 4.5% 28,000         90.19            25.20          115.39        92.90          25.20          118.10       2.71 2.4% 50,000         141.67         45.00          186.67        144.38       45.00          189.38       2.71 1.5% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR SF & MF RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 1‐INCH METER BASE RATE 45.63$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  17,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 17,001 ‐ 40,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 40,001 ‐ 80,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 80,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 41.11             ‐              41.11          45.63           ‐              45.63          4.52 11.0% 17,000         80.89            15.30          96.19          85.41          15.30          100.71       4.52 4.7% 27,000         113.39         24.30          137.69        117.91       24.30          142.21       4.52 3.3% 38,000         149.14         34.20          183.34        153.66       34.20          187.86       4.52 2.5% 50,000         200.94         45.00          245.94        205.46       45.00          250.46       4.52 1.8% B‐3       TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS WITH A 1‐INCH METER BASE RATE 45.63$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 041.11             ‐              41.11          45.63           ‐              45.63          4.52 11.0% 15,000         76.21            13.50          89.71          80.73          13.50          94.23          4.52 5.0% 27,000         104.29         24.30          128.59        108.81       24.30          133.11       4.52 3.5% 38,000         130.03         34.20          164.23        134.55       34.20          168.75       4.52 2.8% 50,000         158.11         45.00          203.11        162.63       45.00          207.63       4.52 2.2%   TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 1.5‐INCH METER BASE RATE 91.26$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  35,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 35,001 ‐ 80,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 80,001 ‐ 160,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 160,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 082.22             ‐              82.22          91.26           ‐              91.26          9.04 11.0% 38,000         173.87         34.20          208.07        182.91       34.20          217.11       9.04 4.3% 64,000         258.37         57.60          315.97        267.41       57.60          325.01       9.04 2.9% 90,000         355.67         81.00          436.67        364.71       81.00          445.71       9.04 2.1% 125,000      514.22         112.50       626.72        523.26       112.50        635.76       9.04 1.4% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 1.5‐INCH METER BASE RATE 91.26$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 082.22             ‐              82.22          91.26           ‐              91.26          9.04 11.0% 30,000         152.42         27.00          179.42        161.46       27.00          188.46       9.04 5.0% 64,000         231.98         57.60          289.58        241.02       57.60          298.62       9.04 3.1% 90,000         292.82         81.00          373.82        301.86       81.00          382.86       9.04 2.4% 125,000      374.72         112.50       487.22        383.76       112.50        496.26       9.04 1.9% B‐4       TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A  2‐INCH METER BASE RATE 146.03$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  56,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 56,001 ‐ 128,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 128,001 ‐ 256,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 256,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0131.56          ‐              131.56        146.03        ‐              146.03       14.47 11.0% 57,000         265.85         51.30          317.15        280.32       51.30          331.62       14.47 4.6% 130,000      505.66         117.00       622.66        520.13       117.00        637.13       14.47 2.3% 250,000      1,049.26      225.00       1,274.26    1,063.73    225.00        1,288.73    14.47 1.1% 325,000      1,510.45      292.50       1,802.95    1,524.92    292.50        1,817.42    14.47 0.8% TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A  2‐INCH METER BASE RATE 146.03$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0131.56          ‐              131.56        146.03        ‐              146.03       14.47 11.0% 57,000         264.94         51.30          316.24        279.41       51.30          330.71       14.47 4.6% 128,000      431.08         115.20       546.28        445.55       115.20        560.75       14.47 2.6% 250,000      716.56         225.00       941.56        731.03       225.00        956.03       14.47 1.5% 325,000      892.06         292.50       1,184.56    906.53       292.50        1,199.03    14.47 1.2%   TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A 3‐INCH METER BASE RATE 292.03$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  112,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 112,001 ‐ 256,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 256,001 ‐ 512,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 512,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0263.09          ‐              263.09        292.03        ‐              292.03       28.94 11.0% 50,000         380.09         45.00          425.09        409.03       45.00          454.03       28.94 6.8% 150,000      648.67         135.00       783.67        677.61       135.00        812.61       28.94 3.7% 300,000      1,192.49      270.00       1,462.49    1,221.43    270.00        1,491.43    28.94 2.0% 500,000      2,098.49      450.00       2,548.49    2,127.43    450.00        2,577.43    28.94 1.1% B‐5       TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A 3‐INCH METER BASE RATE 292.03$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0263.09          ‐              263.09        292.03        ‐              292.03       28.94 11.0% 50,000         380.09         45.00          425.09        409.03       45.00          454.03       28.94 6.8% 150,000      614.09         135.00       749.09        643.03       135.00        778.03       28.94 3.9% 300,000      965.09         270.00       1,235.09    994.03       270.00        1,264.03    28.94 2.3% 500,000      1,433.09      450.00       1,883.09    1,462.03    450.00        1,912.03    28.94 1.5% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A  4‐INCH METER BASE RATE 456.31$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  175,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 175,001 ‐ 400,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$             FOR 400,001 ‐ 800,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 800,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0411.09          ‐              411.09        456.31        ‐              456.31       45.22 11.0% 300,000      1,226.84      270.00       1,496.84    1,272.06    270.00        1,542.06    45.22 3.0% 550,000      2,231.34      495.00       2,726.34    2,276.56    495.00        2,771.56    45.22 1.7% 700,000      2,910.84      630.00       3,540.84    2,956.06    630.00        3,586.06    45.22 1.3% 850,000      3,678.34      765.00       4,443.34    3,723.56    765.00        4,488.56    45.22 1.0% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A  4‐INCH METER BASE RATE 456.31$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0411.09          ‐              411.09        456.31        ‐              456.31       45.22 11.0% 300,000      1,113.09      270.00       1,383.09    1,158.31    270.00        1,428.31    45.22 3.3% 550,000      1,698.09      495.00       2,193.09    1,743.31    495.00        2,238.31    45.22 2.1% 700,000      2,049.09      630.00       2,679.09    2,094.31    630.00        2,724.31    45.22 1.7% 850,000      2,400.09      765.00       3,165.09    2,445.31    765.00        3,210.31    45.22 1.4% B‐6       TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR RESIDENTIAL & IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS WITH A  6‐INCH METER BASE RATE 912.62$        COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  860,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 860,001 ‐ 2,000,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$            FOR 2,000,001 ‐ 3,500,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 3,500,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0822.18          ‐              822.18        912.62        ‐              912.62       90.44 11.0% 425,000      1,816.68      382.50       2,199.18    1,907.12    382.50        2,289.62    90.44 4.1% 1,000,000   3,289.58      900.00       4,189.58    3,380.02    900.00        4,280.02    90.44 2.2% 1,500,000   4,914.58      1,350.00    6,264.58    5,005.02    1,350.00    6,355.02    90.44 1.4% 2,000,000   6,539.58      1,800.00    8,339.58    6,630.02    1,800.00    8,430.02    90.44 1.1% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A  6‐INCH METER BASE RATE 912.62$        COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$            FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0822.18          ‐              822.18        912.62        ‐              912.62       90.44 11.0% 425,000      1,816.68      382.50       2,199.18    1,907.12    382.50        2,289.62    90.44 4.1% 1,000,000   3,162.18      900.00       4,062.18    3,252.62    900.00        4,152.62    90.44 2.2% 1,500,000   4,332.18      1,350.00    5,682.18    4,422.62    1,350.00    5,772.62    90.44 1.6% 2,000,000   5,502.18      1,800.00    7,302.18    5,592.62    1,800.00    7,392.62    90.44 1.2% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  8‐INCH METER BASE RATE 1,460.19$    COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$             FOR   0  ‐  860,000 GALLONS TIER 2 = 3.25$             FOR 860,001 ‐ 2,000,000 GALLONS TIER 3 = 4.53$            FOR 2,000,001 ‐ 3,500,000 GALLONS TIER 4 = 6.29$             FOR ALL USAGE OVER 3,500,000 GALLONS      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 1,315.49       ‐              1,315.49    1,460.19     ‐              1,460.19    144.70 11.0% 425,000      2,309.99      382.50       2,692.49    2,454.69    382.50        2,837.19    144.70 5.4% 1,000,000   3,782.89      900.00       4,682.89    3,927.59    900.00        4,827.59    144.70 3.1% 1,500,000   5,407.89      1,350.00    6,757.89    5,552.59    1,350.00    6,902.59    144.70 2.1% 2,000,000   7,032.89      1,800.00    8,832.89    7,177.59    1,800.00    8,977.59    144.70 1.6% (There are no active 8‐inch potable meters in the OVWU system) B‐7       TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WITH A  8‐INCH METER BASE RATE 1,460.19$    COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.34$          FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 = N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 1,315.49       ‐              1,315.49    1,460.19     ‐              1,460.19    144.70 11.0% 425,000      2,309.99      382.50       2,692.49    2,454.69    382.50        2,837.19    144.70 5.4% 1,000,000   3,655.49      900.00       4,555.49    3,800.19    900.00        4,700.19    144.70 3.2% 1,500,000   4,825.49      1,350.00    6,175.49    4,970.19    1,350.00    6,320.19    144.70 2.3% 2,000,000   5,995.49      1,800.00    7,795.49    6,140.19    1,800.00    7,940.19    144.70 1.9% (There are no active 8‐inch potable meters in the OVWU system) TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  1.5‐INCH METER ‐ RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE 73.08$          COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.27$              FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 =N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 73.08             ‐              73.08          73.08           ‐              73.08          0.00 0.0% 50,000         186.58         23.50          210.08        186.58       23.50          210.08       0.00 0.0% 135,000      379.53         63.45          442.98        379.53       63.45          442.98       0.00 0.0% 200,000      527.08         94.00          621.08        527.08       94.00          621.08       0.00 0.0% 250,000      640.58         117.50       758.08        640.58       117.50        758.08       0.00 0.0% TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  2‐INCH METER ‐ RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE 116.94$        COMMODITY RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.27$              FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 =N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0 116.94          ‐              116.94        116.94        ‐              116.94       0.00 0.0% 150,000      457.44         70.50          527.94        457.44       70.50          527.94       0.00 0.0% 240,000      661.74         112.80       774.54        661.74       112.80        774.54       0.00 0.0% 450,000      1,138.44      211.50       1,349.94    1,138.44    211.50        1,349.94    0.00 0.0% 600,000      1,478.94      282.00       1,760.94    1,478.94    282.00        1,760.94    0.00 0.0% B‐8       TABLE FOR MONTHLY CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON   FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  3‐INCH METER ‐ RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE 233.86$        COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.27$              FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 =N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0233.86          ‐              233.86        233.86        ‐              233.86       0.00 0.0% 20,000         279.26         9.40            288.66        279.26       9.40            288.66       0.00 0.0% 80,000         415.46         37.60          453.06        415.46       37.60          453.06       0.00 0.0% 100,000      460.86         47.00          507.86        460.86       47.00          507.86       0.00 0.0% 150,000      574.36         70.50          644.86        574.36       70.50          644.86       0.00 0.0% TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  4‐INCH METER ‐ RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE 365.41$        COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.27$              FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 =N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0365.41          ‐              365.41        365.41        ‐              365.41       0.00 0.0% 220,000      864.81         103.40       968.21        864.81       103.40        968.21       0.00 0.0% 300,000      1,046.41      141.00       1,187.41    1,046.41    141.00        1,187.41    0.00 0.0% 450,000      1,386.91      211.50       1,598.41    1,386.91    211.50        1,598.41    0.00 0.0% 600,000      1,727.41      282.00       2,009.41    1,727.41    282.00        2,009.41    0.00 0.0%   TABLE FOR MONTHLY  CHARGES AND PERCENT INCREASE COMPARISON FOR CUSTOMERS WITH A  6‐INCH METER ‐ RECLAIMED WATER USE BASE RATE 730.83$        COMMODITY  RATE:  TIER 1 = 2.27$              FOR ALL WATER USAGE TIER 2 = N/A TIER 3 =N/A TIER 4 = N/A      GALLONS CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL PERCENT USED IN WATER GPF MONTHLY WATER GPF MONTHLY MONTHLY INCREASED 1 MONTH   BILL  BILL INCREASE 0730.83          ‐              730.83        730.83        ‐              730.83       0.00 0.0% 900,000       2,773.83      423.00       3,196.83    2,773.83    423.00        3,196.83    0.00 0.0% 5,000,000    12,080.83   2,350.00    14,430.83  12,080.83 2,350.00    14,430.83 0.00 0.0% 10,000,000  23,430.83   4,700.00    28,130.83  23,430.83 4,700.00    28,130.83 0.00 0.0% 15,000,000  34,780.83   7,050.00    41,830.83  34,780.83 7,050.00    41,830.83 0.00 0.0% 20,000,000  46,130.83   9,400.00    55,530.83  46,130.83 9,400.00    55,530.83 0.00 0.0% B‐9                 APPENDIX   C    5‐Year Capital Improvement Schedules  C‐1   Operating Fund  C‐2   Groundwater Preservation Fee  C‐3   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  C‐3   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund           Oro Valley Water Utility Proposed Capital Projects Program Project No. Project Name 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5 YearTotals Wells 1 Nakoma Sky D Zone Well 800,000$ 800,000$ 2 Well D8 Replacement Drill & Construct 700,000$ 900,000$ 1,600,000$ 3 Mag Meter Replacements (10/yr.) 75,000$ 75,000$ 4 Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement (1/yr) 150,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 550,000$ 5 Well Rehabilitation (D1 & CS, E5B & E3, TBD)150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 450,000$ 6 Well Rehabilitation (TBD, TBD)150,000$ 150,000$ 300,000$ Subtotal 1,175,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 950,000$ 1,150,000$ 3,775,000$ Reservoirs 7 Reservoir Rehabilitation (no planned work)-$ Subtotal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Boosters 8 High Mesa E & F Zone Bstr. Enhancements 50,000$ 50,000$ 9 El Con Storage - Operational Improvements 50,000$ 50,000$ 10 Replace Crimson Canyon Booster Station 250,000$ 250,000$ 11 Hydropneumatic Tank Replace (High Mesa) 100,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 12 E-F Booster Station at LC Res. (Woodburn) 100,000$ 500,000$ 600,000$ 13 Booster Rehab (RDO & Woodshade) 150,000$ 150,000$ 14 Booster Rehab (WP4 & TBD) 150,000$ 150,000$ 300,000$ 15 Booster Rehab (TBD & TBD) 150,000$ 150,000$ 300,000$ Subtotal 400,000$ 750,000$ 400,000$ 150,000$ 200,000$ 1,900,000$ Mains 16 12-inch F-zone main (Woodburn Booster) 100,000$ 100,000$ 17 Fireline Backflow Protection 200,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 18 Drinking Fountain Re-w ork 50,000$ 50,000$ 19 Palisades Neighborhood Pipeline Redudancy 500,000$ 500,000$ 20 Countryside DVA Replacements 210,000$ 210,000$ 21 6-inch PRV on Rancho Sonora Dr 70,000$ 70,000$ 22 6-inch PRV on Stargazer Dr. 70,000$ 70,000$ 23 Rancho Verde Hydrants 100,000$ 100,000$ 24 Main Valve Replacements 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 150,000$ 25 La Cholla -Lambert to Tangerine (RTA) 480,000$ 480,000$ 26 Hilton Hotel & Casitas Main Replacement 150,000$ 150,000$ 27 Linda Vista Citrus Tracts Main Replacement 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 750,000$ 28 Pusch Ridge Estates Main Replacement 250,000$ 250,000$ 500,000$ Subtotal 940,000$ 720,000$ 720,000$ 500,000$ 650,000$ 3,530,000$ Structures & Walls 29 Wall Upgrades and Improvements 100,000$ 100,000$ Subtotal 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$ Meters & Equipment 30 Water Meters - New Connections 106,000$ 116,500$ 99,000$ 66,800$ 61,600$ 449,900$ 31 SCADA Legacy Replacement 100,000$ 100,000$ 32 Instrumentation Replacement 250,000$ 250,000$ 33 Electric Sub-metering Wells/Boosters 75,000$ 75,000$ Subtotal 281,000$ 116,500$ 349,000$ 66,800$ 61,600$ 874,900$ Vehicles 34 Replacement Vehicles - Meter Operations 75,000$ 50,000$ 125,000$ 35 Replacement Vehicles - Dist Vehicles 50,000$ 70,000$ 120,000$ 36 Replacement Vehicles - Production Vehicles 70,000$ 75,000$ 145,000$ 37 Replacement Vehicles - Const Inspectors 80,000$ 80,000$ Subtotal 70,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 70,000$ 80,000$ 470,000$ Total Existing System Improvements 2,966,000$ 1,961,500$ 1,844,000$ 1,736,800$ 2,141,600$ 10,649,900$ Existing System Improvement Water Utility Operating Fund C-1      Oro Valley Water Utility Proposed Capital Projects Plan Project Project Name % 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5 Year Total NWRRDS Partnered Projects: 1 Program Support Services 40% 44,000$ 192,000$ 296,000$ 8,000$ 540,000$ 2 Pipeline Design (recovered w ater & transmission 40% 440,462$ 440,462$ 3 NWRRDS Forebay Design 40% 66,154$ 66,154$ 4 Well Improvement Analysis & Recovery Permits 40% 40,000$ 40,000$ 5 Well Drilling & Testing 40% 234,000$ 234,000$ 6 Pipeline Construction 40% 880,923$ 880,923$ 1,761,846$ 7 NWRRDS Forebay Reservoir Construction 40% 132,077$ 132,077$ 264,154$ 8 Construction Permitting, Drill, Develop, Testing 40% 780,000$ 780,000$ 9 Well Equiping Design & Site Improvements 40% 390,000$ 390,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Partnered Projects 590,616$ 426,000$ 1,309,000$ 2,191,000$ -$ 4,516,616$ NWRRDS Independent Projects: 10 Pipeline Route Study & Prelim Design 40%-$ 11 Shannon Rd Forebay Res & Bstr Prop Acquistion 40% 80,000$ 80,000$ 12 Pipeline Easement Acquisition (9.68 miles) 40% 300,000$ 300,000$ 13 Pipeline Design (9.68 miles 16-inch DIP) 40% 560,000$ 560,000$ 14 NWRRDS Forebay Reservoir Bstr Station Design 40% 40,000$ 40,000$ 15 Shannon Rd. Forebay Res & Bstr Station Design 40% 120,000$ 120,000$ 16 Bstr Station Construct at NWRRDS Forebay Res e 40% 200,000$ 200,000$ 17 Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir Construction 40% 280,000$ 280,000$ 560,000$ 18 Bstr Station Construct at Shannon Rd Forebay R 40% 100,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 19 Pipe Const. from Bstr. at NWRRDS to LC Reserv o 40% 3,920,000$ 3,920,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Independent Projects 980,000$ 120,000$ 200,000$ 380,000$ 4,300,000$ 5,980,000$ NWRRDS Internal Projects: 20 NWRRDS Interconnect to Tangerine Rd. 40% 180,000$ 180,000$ 21 NWRRDS Interconnect to Lambert Ln. 40% 340,000$ 340,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Internal Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ 520,000$ 520,000$ Total NWRRDS Capital Improvements 1,570,616$ 546,000$ 1,509,000$ 2,571,000$ 4,820,000$ 11,016,616$ Groundwater Preservation Fees CAP Water Delivery System Improvements (Existing Customers) C-2      Oro Valley Water Utility Proposed Capital Projects Plan Project Project Name % 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5 Year Total NWRRDS Partnered Projects: 1 Program Support Services 60% 66,000$ 288,000$ 444,000$ 12,000$ 810,000$ 2 Pipeline Design (recovered water & transmission 60% 660,692$ 660,692$ 3 NWRRDS Forebay Design 60% 99,231$ 99,231$ 4 Well Improvement Analysis & Recovery Permits 60% 60,000$ 60,000$ 5 Well Drilling & Testing 60% 351,000$ 351,000$ 6 Pipeline Construction 60% 1,321,385$ 1,321,385$ 2,642,770$ 7 NWRRDS Forebay Reservoir Construction 60% 198,116$ 198,116$ 396,232$ 8 Construction Permitting, Drill, Develop, Testing 60% 1,170,000$ 1,170,000$ 9 Well Equiping Design & Site Improvements 60% 585,000$ 585,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Partnered Projects 885,923$ 639,000$ 1,963,501$ 3,286,501$ -$ 6,774,925$ NWRRDS Independent Projects: 10 Pipeline Route Study & Prelim Design 60%-$ 11 Shannon Rd Forebay Res & Bstr Prop Acquistion 60% 120,000$ 120,000$ 12 Pipeline Easement Acquisition (9.68 miles) 60% 450,000$ 450,000$ 13 Pipeline Design (9.68 miles 16-inch DIP) 60% 840,000$ 840,000$ 14 NWRRDS Forebay Reservoir Bstr Station Design 60% 60,000$ 60,000$ 15 Shannon Rd. Forebay Res & Bstr Station Design 60% 180,000$ 180,000$ 16 Bstr Station Construct at NWRRDS Forebay Res e 60% 300,000$ 300,000$ 17 Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir Construction 60% 420,000$ 420,000$ 840,000$ 18 Bstr Station Construct at Shannon Rd Forebay R 60% 150,000$ 150,000$ 300,000$ 19 Pipe Const. from Bstr. at NWRRDS to LC Reserv o 60% 5,880,000$ 5,880,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Independent Projects 1,470,000$ 180,000$ 300,000$ 570,000$ 6,450,000$ 8,970,000$ NWRRDS Internal Projects: 20 NWRRDS Interconnect to Tangerine 60% 270,000$ 270,000$ 21 NWRRDS Interconnect to Lambert 60% 510,000$ 510,000$ Subtotal NWRRDS Internal Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ 780,000$ 780,000$ Total NWRRDS Capital Improvements 2,355,923$ 819,000$ 2,263,501$ 3,856,501$ 7,230,000$ 16,524,925$ Project Project Name Catego r 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5 Year Total 1 Steam Pump D-Zone Well Potable 800,000$ 800,000$ 2 Palisades C-Zone Storage Tank & Pipe Potable 500,000$ 300,000$ 1,450,000 2,000,000 4,250,000$ 3 Moore Rd. Interconnect F-Zone Potable 750,000$ 750,000$ Total Expansion Related Capital Improvements 800,000$ 1,250,000$ 300,000$ 1,450,000$ 2,000,000$ 5,800,000$ Expansion Related Improvements Alternative Water Resources Develoment Impact Fee Fund CAP Water Delivery System Improvements (New Growth) Potable Water System Develoment Impact Fee Fund C-3               APPENDIX   D    Assumptions for Preferred Financial Scenario  D‐1   Operating Fund  D‐6   Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee Fund  D‐7   Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Fund       D‐1    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND    Growth  SFR growth rates for FY 2019‐20 through FY 2023‐24 were provided by Community Development staff. Growth  projections were based on worksheets provided by D. Laws on 2/8/19 and are consistent with Town financial  forecasting. Other growth rates include commercial, irrigation and multi‐family connections that were  projected by Water Utility Staff.     Connections FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  SFR 300 370 325 265 182  Other 4      4   4      4         4      Current Water Rate Structure     The following base rates are for both the potable and reclaimed water meters:    Meter Sizes   (in inches) Potable Reclaimed  5/8 x ¾      $       16.45      $       14.62  3/4 x ¾      $       24.67      $       21.93  1      $       41.11      $       36.54  1.5      $       82.22      $       73.08  2      $     131.56      $     116.94  3      $     263.09      $     233.86  4      $     411.09      $     365.41  6      $     822.18      $     730.83  8      $  1,315.49      $  1,169.32    The following commodity rates are the cost per 1,000 gallons for potable and reclaimed water use:    Classifications Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4  Single Family Residential $ 2.34 $ 3.25 $ 4.53 $ 6.29  Irrigation $ 2.34 $ 3.25 $ 4.53 $ 6.29  Multi‐family Residential $ 2.34 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Commercial $ 2.34 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Construction Water $ 7.29 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Reclaimed Water $ 2.27 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  GPF – Potable $ 0.90 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  GPF – Reclaimed $ 0.47 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐    Proposed Water Rate Structure for FY 2019‐20     The following are the proposed base rates for the potable and reclaimed water meters:    Meter Sizes   (in inches) Potable Reclaimed  5/8 x 3/4      $       18.26      $       14.62  3/4 x 3/4      $       27.38      $       21.93  1      $       45.63      $       36.54  1.5      $       91.26      $       73.08  2      $     146.03      $     116.94  3      $     292.03      $     233.86  4      $     456.31      $     365.41  6      $     912.62      $     730.83  8      $  1,460.19      $  1,169.32                                                                   D‐2    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND continued    The following proposed commodity rates are the cost per 1,000 gallons for potable and reclaimed water use:     Classifications Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4  Single Family Residential $ 2.34 $ 3.25 $ 4.53 $ 6.29  Irrigation $ 2.34 $ 3.25 $ 4.53 $ 6.29  Multi‐family Residential $ 2.34 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Commercial $ 2.34 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Construction Water $ 7.29 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  Reclaimed Water $ 2.27 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  GPF – Potable $ 0.90 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  GPF – Reclaimed $ 0.47 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐    There are no proposed changes to the usage allowed in each tier of the SF Residential and Irrigation  classifications.     Proposed Potable Water Rate Increases  The “overall increase” and “monthly impact” are representative of a customer with a 5/8‐inch water  meter using 7,000 gallons of water per month.                       Base                        Overall       Monthly                      Rate        Tier 1      Tier 2     Tier 3      Tier 4          GPF Increase        Impact                   FY 19‐20   11.0%  0.0%      0.0%       0.0%       0.0%           0.0%        4.6%        $ 1.81                  FY 20‐21   10.0%  0.0%      0.0%       0.0%       0.0%           0.0%      4.5%        $ 1.83                   FY 21‐22      5.5%  0.0%      0.0%       0.0%       0.0%           0.0%      2.6%        $ 1.10                  FY 22‐23      5.5%  0.0%      0.0%       0.0%       0.0%           0.0%      2.7%        $ 1.17              FY 23‐24       5.5%  0.0%      0.0%       0.0%       0.0%           0.0%      2.7%        $ 1.23    Proposed Reclaimed Water Rate Increases  The proposed reclaimed rate increases are shown below:                      Base          Commodity             Overall        Monthly                      Rate                Rate                 GPF           Increase         Impact                           FY 19‐20      0.0%         0.0%                 0.0%        0.0%            $ 0.00                  FY 20‐21   10.0%         0.5%                 0.0%      0.6%        $ 173.08                   FY 21‐22   10.0%         0.5%                 0.0%      0.6%        $ 180.39                  FY 22‐23   10.0%         0.5%                 0.0%      0.7%        $ 188.43              FY 23‐24    10.0%         0.3%                 0.0%      0.7%        $ 197.28    Groundwater Preservation Fee Rates (cost per 1,000 gallons)   There are no proposed changes in the GPF throughout the five‐year projection period.    Water Use Trends  The average monthly water use for a residential customer with a 5/8‐inch water meter increased in FY 2017‐18  to 7,900 gallons per month due to extreme weather conditions. However, this analysis assumes the same water  use trends as the last 3 years which was 7,300 gallons per month as this provides a more realistic projection.  Projected reclaimed deliveries were reduced by 100 million gallons annually for the reduction in water  deliveries to Vistoso Golf Course.     Other Revenue  Other revenue is based on FY 2018‐19 proposed budget. With the exception of revenue from sewer billing,   Other revenue is not projected to increase because misc. charges fluctuate annually. Other revenue includes   Late fees, reconnect fees, new service establishment fees, sewer billing, stormwater billing and meter income.  Sewer billing is projected to increase 1% annually over the five‐year period.     D‐3    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND continued      Beginning Cash Balance  Cash balance is estimated based on budgeted revenue, expenditures and known cost over runs for FY 2018‐19.  Began with actual cash balance at 6/30/18 as shown on the Balance Sheet report dated 10‐17‐18, added   budgeted revenues, subtracted budgeted and known unbudgeted expenditures.    Interest Income  The interest rates vary for the five years in the analysis period. FY 2019‐20 through 2022‐23 were provided by  the Finance Department on 8/29/18. FY 2023‐24 was estimated by the Water Utility Staff.    FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  2.58% 2.69% 2.73% 2.75% 2.00%    Personnel Costs  No new employees were added during the projection period.  The following increases were provided by the  Finance Department on 8/29/18 and are consistent with Town financial forecasting: the annual merit increase  is projected to be 3% annually and health care costs are projected to increase by 5% annually. It is projected  that the state pension is projected to increase 2.5% annually over the five‐year projection period.    O&M Costs ‐ Potable  Based on the Utility’s proposed budget for FY 2018‐19 plus 1.5% inflation. Costs increase annually by 1.5%   inflation except power costs. Projected 10% increase in power costs for a potential Tucson Electric rate   increase in FY 2021‐22.     Groundwater Extinguishment Credits  Costs for the purchase of Groundwater Extinguishment Credits are included in potable O&M costs. The  following table outlines Groundwater Extinguishment credits to be purchased during this projection period:    FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  $800,000 $800,000 $500,000 $500,000  ‐‐‐    O&M Costs ‐ Reclaimed  Due to the reduction in reclaimed water usage by Vistoso Golf course, costs specific to reclaimed water  deliveries (chemicals, power and reclaimed water wheeling costs) were reduced by $87,983. Remaining O&M  costs are based on the Utility’s proposed budget for FY 2018‐19 plus 1.5% inflation. Costs increase annually by  1.5% inflation except power costs. Projected 10% increase in power costs for a potential Tucson Electric rate  increase in FY 2021‐22. The O&M costs now include allocations for personnel, administrative costs, fleet service  costs and trustee services which had not been done in the past. The allocations were based on the gallons of  reclaimed water sold compared to the total gallons of water sold. The allocations represent 23% of the total  applicable costs with the exception of personnel costs. Personnel costs have been allocated based on the  function of the staff within a division as follows:  Administration = 5%; Billing = 5%; Conservation = 0%;  Engineering = 5%; Construction Inspection = 0%; Operations = 23%.     Inflation Rates  The Town’s Finance Department provided a range of 1‐2% per year for inflation rates on 8/29/18. For purposes  of this report, the inflation rate will be 1.5% annually for the 5‐year period.    FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%    D‐4    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND continued    Reclaimed Water Wheeling Costs  Pursuant to the existing IGA, the reclaimed water is delivered on a non‐interruptible basis at an interruptible  rate. Inflationary increases of 1.5% are included annually.     CAP Wheeling Costs  Costs include the fees charged by Tucson Water to wheel the CAP water through their recharge and recovery  system.  Tucson Water fees are in accordance with an IGA. The increases will be 7% for FY 19‐20 and 4% each  following year. It is also assumed that the Utility will wheel 2,510 AF annually for the 5‐year period.    CAP Recharge Costs  Costs are based on the rate schedule adopted by CAP 6/07/18. The figures represent the annual cost to deliver  the Utility’s entire allotment of CAP water (10,305 AF) for recharge.    Capital Improvements – Operating Fund   The following table identifies the amount of the capital projects for the existing potable water system for  each fiscal year and the projected financing as identified in the revised five‐year CIP dated 12/26/18.     Fiscal       Total    Project Financing      Year               Capital Costs  Cash Reserves     New Debt                  2019‐20                 $  2,966,000 $     661,000 $ 2,305,000    2020‐21                 $  1,961,500 $     661,500 $ 1,300,000    2021‐22                 $  1,844,000  $  1,844,000         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   2022‐23                 $  1,736,800 $  1,736,800        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐                    2023‐24                $   2,141,600  $  2,141,600  ___‐‐‐‐‐‐‐___                                                                                                                    $10,649,900 $  7,044,900 $ 3,605,000    Capital Improvements – Groundwater Preservation Fee   The following table identifies the capital projects for the existing customers’ portion of the NWRRDS  CAP water delivery system and the projected financing as identified in the revised CIP dated 12/26/18.  The projects will be both cash funded with revenue from groundwater preservation fees and new debt.    Fiscal       Total    Project Financing      Year               Capital Costs  Cash Reserves     New Debt                2019‐20                 $   1,570,616 $  1,570,616        ‐‐‐‐‐‐     2020‐21                 $      546,000 $     546,000        ‐‐‐‐‐‐     2021‐22                 $   1,509,000  $  1,509,000         ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2022‐23                 $   2,571,000 $                 0 $  2,571,000   2023‐24                 $   4,820,000 $  2,391,000     $  2,429,000                                               $ 11,016,616 $  6,016,616 $  5,000,000    Debt Service   The following table identifies the existing and proposed debt service included in this pro forma:     Bonds  Type  Description  Amortization Schedule By                2008  Sr. Lien  Reclaimed Ph. 2  WIFA   2009  Sr. Lien  Existing System CIP  WIFA   2012  Sr. Lien  Refunding (Reclaim Ph. 1) Stone & Youngberg   2012  Sr. Lien  Refunding (2003)  Stone & Youngberg   2014  Sr. Lien  AMI Project  WIFA   2015  Excise Tax Refunding (2005)  Stifel & Nicolaus & Co.   2017  Excise Tax Refunding (2007)  Stifel & Nicolaus & Co.   2018  Excise Tax Existing System CIP  Stifel & Nicolaus & Co.   2023  Sr. Lien  NWRRDS    Oro Valley Water Utility Staff    D‐5    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPERATING FUND continued        Minimum Debt Service Coverage Requirement  1.30 debt service coverage ratio for 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds, proposed 2023 Sr. Lien Bonds & all WIFA Loans  1.00 debt service coverage ratio for all Excise Tax Pledged Bonds    Cash Reserve Requirement  Mayor and Town Council Water Policies require the Utility to maintain cash reserves in the Operating Fund of  not less than 20% of the combined total of the annual budgeted amounts for personnel, O&M and debt service.  This specifically excludes costs for capital projects, depreciation, amortization and contingency.     D‐6    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR AWRDIF FUND    Growth  SFR growth rates for FY 2019‐20 through FY 2023‐24 were provided by Community Development staff and  are consistent with Town financial forecasting.  The projected growth has been estimated based on  worksheets provided by D. Laws on 2/8/19. Other Service Units (SU’s) include commercial, irrigation and  multi‐family connections and were projected by Water Utility staff.      FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  SFR  SU’s 300 370 325 265 182  Other SU’s 10 10 10 10 10    AWRD Impact Fees  Impact fees are $4,045 per service unit, Ordinance No. (O) 14‐05, effective 7/01/14. The mandatory 5‐year  Impact Fee Analysis will be performed in 2019. It is not anticipated that the fees will increase.    Beginning Cash Balance  Cash balance is estimated based on budgeted revenue and expenditures for FY 2018‐19. Began with  actual cash balance on 6/30/18 as shown on the Balance Sheet report dated 10‐17‐18, added budgeted   revenue and subtracted budgeted expenditures.  Interest Income  The interest rates vary for the five years in the analysis period. FY 2019‐20 through 2022‐23 were provided by  the Finance Department on 8/29/18. FY 2023‐24 was an estimated projection by the Water Utility Staff    FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  2.58% 2.69% 2.73% 2.75% 2.00%    Debt Service  There is no new debt in this fund during the projection period. The following table identifies the existing debt  service included in this pro forma:     Bonds  Type  Description  Amortization Schedule By                    2023  Sr. Lien    NWRRDS    Oro Valley Water Utility Staff    Debt Service Coverage  1.3 debt service coverage ratio for the proposed 2023 Senior Lien Bonds     CAP Capital Costs  Based on 3,557 AF at rate schedule adopted by CAP 6/07/18.     Capital Improvements   The following table identifies the amount of the NWRRDS CAP water capital projects for each fiscal year  and the related financing as identified in the revised five year CIP dated 12/26/18:       Fiscal           Total         Project Financing      Year  Capital Costs Cash Reserves              New Debt                 2019‐20  $  2,355,923 $  2,355,923    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2020‐21  $     819,000 $     819,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2021‐22  $  2,263,501 $  2,263,501    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2022‐23  $  3,856,501 $  3,856,501    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2023‐24  $  7,230,000 $  2,230,000                         $ 5,000,000     $16,524,925 $11,524,925              $ 5,000,000  D‐7    PREFERRED FINANCIAL SCENARIO    ASSUMPTIONS FOR PWSDIF FUND    Growth  SFR growth rates for FY 2019‐20 through FY 2023‐24 were provided by Community Development staff and  are consistent with Town financial forecasting.  The project growth has been estimated based on worksheets    provided by D. Laws on 2/8/19. Other Service Units (SU’s) include commercial, irrigation and multi‐family  connections and were projected by Water Utility staff.      FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  SFR  SU’s 300 370 325 265 182  Other SU’s 10 10 10 10 10    PWSD Impact Fees  Impact fees are $2,015 per service unit, Ordinance No. (O) 14‐05, effective 7/01/14. The mandatory 5‐year  Impact Fee Analysis will be performed in 2019. It is not anticipated that the fees will increase.    Beginning Cash Balance   Cash balance is estimated based on budgeted revenue and expenditures for FY 2018‐19. Began with  actual cash balance on 6/30/18 as shown on the Balance Sheet report dated 10‐17‐18, added budgeted   revenue and subtracted budgeted expenditures.    Interest Income  The interest rates vary for the five years in the analysis period. FY 2019‐20 through 2022‐23 were provided by  the Finance Department on 8/29/18. FY 2023‐24 was an estimated projection by the Water Utility Staff.    FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24  2.58% 2.69% 2.73% 2.75% 2.00%    Debt Service  There is no new debt in this fund during the projection period. The following table identifies the existing debt  service included in this pro forma:      Bonds  Type  Description  Amortization Schedule By                    2012  Sr. Lien  Refunding (2003)  Stone & Youngberg    Debt Service Coverage  1.30 debt service coverage ratio for 2012 Sr. Lien Bonds     Capital Improvements   The following table identifies the amount of growth‐related capital projects for each fiscal year  and the related financing as identified in the revised five year CIP dated 12/26/18:       Fiscal           Total         Project Financing      Year  Capital Costs Cash Reserves              New Debt                 2019‐20  $    800,000 $    800,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2020‐21  $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2021‐22  $    300,000 $    300,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2022‐23  $ 1,450,000 $ 1,450,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐   2023‐24                   $  2,000,000 $ 2,000,000    ‐‐‐‐‐‐                                                      $  5,800,000 $ 5,800,000