HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1070) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
BUDGET WORK SESSION
MAY 10, 2005
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
1. REVIEW OF MAY 2, 2005 BUDGET SESSION — FOLLOW-UP
MEMORANDUM
2. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Community Development Administration Page 166
B. Planning and Zoning Page 189
C. Parks and Recreation Page 202
D. Building Safety Page 240
E. Library Services Page 280
F. Library Construction Fund Page 320
G. Steam Pump Ranch Acquisition Fund Page 329
H. Honey Bee Village Acquisition Fund Page 332
I. Naranja Town Site Page 335
ADJOURNMENT
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 Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700
POSTED: 05/06/05
4:30 p.m.
Ih
IVEMORAMUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
David Andrews, Finance Director/Assistant Town Manager
Joseph Meyer, Management and Budget Analyst
DATE: May 10, 2005
SUBJ: Follow-up Issues from May 2 Budget Review Session
A number of issues were raised during the Mayor and Council's Budget Review Session
on May 2. This memorandum serves as staff follow-up to these issues.
1) Issue: Pie charts for proposed departmental expenditures
Response: At the request of the Mayor, these charts will be distributed for
each department/division at the scheduled budget study session.
2) Issue: Telecommunications Survey
Response: The Information Technology Division will compile this information
and report back to Council.
3) Issue: Validity of 440 single family residential permits assumption
Response: Current data provided by the Building Safety Division indicates that
346 permits have been issued through April 30, 2005. This figure annualizes at
415. This issue is being closely monitored.
4) Issue: Miscellaneous Revenue Line Item within the Highway Fund.
Response: The Town received these funds from Vistoso Partners to build a
traffic signal at the intersection of Tangerine Road and Innovation Park Drive.
The traffic signal is now complete.
5) Issue: Accuracy of$100,000 of seizure revenue within the Justice Fund for FY
2005/06.
Response: The $100,000 estimated revenue amount is based upon current
seizures pending forfeiture adjudication within the court system.
G:\BUDGETWY 05-06\Issue-Response 5-10-05.doc
6) Issue: Council Travel and Training Budget.
Response: $7,500 will be added for three (3) Council Members to attend the
National League of Cities (NLC) Conference. Another $2,500 will be added for
board and commission members to attend conference and training sessions.
Also, $1,000 will be added for other government agency luncheons with
Tucson, Pima County, and Marana, etc.
7) Issue: Funding for Project Graduation.
Response: $10,000 has been included in the Council budget for Project
Graduation. $10,000 has been deleted from the General Administration budget
for the same item.
8) Issue: Estimated Actuals for Town Council Travel and Training line item.
Response: The estimated actuals have been revised to $27,000.
9) Issue: Town Council Fax Lines.
Response: All fax lines except for the Mayor's office will be cancelled,
effective July 1, 2005.
10)Issue: Town Clerk recording fees.
Response: $500 was added to the Town Clerk's recording fees budget line
item for a total of$1,500.
11) Issue: Ballot by mail election reports.
Response: Attached please find a memorandum from the Town Clerk, Kathi
Cuvelier.
12) Issue: Town Manager Public Information Services Line Item.
Response: The estimated actuals for the Public Information Services line item
in FY 2004/05 will be reduced by $12,000 and added to the FY 2005/06
Manager's recommended amount. This results in a total of $24,000 including
$12,000 for General Plan Outreach and $12,000 for four (4) newsletters.
13) Issue: Assistant Town Manager hire date of July 1, 2005.
Response: Staff was directed to evaluate the accelerated implementation of
this position from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2005. Staff was also directed to
evaluate the salary and related costs for O&M/Capital Outlay. A request was
also made to review changes in the organizational structure of the Town
Manager's Department. Attached please find a memorandum from the Town
Manager in regard to these issues.
G:\BUDGET\FY 05-06\Issue-Response 5-10-05.doc
14) Issue: Human Resources Analyst Position.
Response: There did not appear to be a consensus among the Council relative
to this issue. As an informational item, the starting salary and related benefits
would total $60,595. This figure includes a salary of$40,040.
15) Issue: Economic Development Budget Supplemental Detail.
Response: Attached please find a more thorough breakdown of the
supplementary detail for budgetary line items included in the Economic
Development Division's budget.
16) Issue: Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce Funding.
Response: Attached please find a response from the Town's Economic
Development Administrator, Mr. Jeff Weir.
17) Issue: Prioritized list of Economic Development Marketing Efforts for the
$30,325 and $48,500 figures.
Response: Attached please find a response from the Town's Economic
Development Administrator, Mr. Jeff Weir.
18) Issue: Removal of pages 102-103 from final budget document.
Response: Staff will remove the aforementioned pages from the final budget
document.
19) Issue: Finance Department Enterprise Resource Software.
Response: As directed by Vice-Mayor Gillaspie, staff will develop a timeline
and related schedule for project implementation if funding is approved in FY
2005/06.
20) Issue: FY 2005/06 CIP Projects Listing.
Response: Attached please find a projects listing for CIP items included in the
FY 2005/06 Town Manager's Recommended Budget.
21) Issue: Information Technology Breakdown of Outside Professional Services
Line Item.
Response: The $8,000 amount for outside professional services is for IKONOS
satellite imagery. This is aerial photography with a 3ft. resolution that will be
purchased in an annual basis on conjunction with the Town of Marana. Staff
intends to purchase aerial photography with a 6" resolution from PAG every
other year (FY 2006/07).
G:\BUDGET\FY 05-06\Issue-Response 5-10-05.doc
Josh Meyer
Y
Management and Budget Analyst
6-4/1/Ar'
David Andrews
Fina ce Director
40)
�� � Chuck Sweet
Town Manager
CC: All Department Heads
Bob Kovitz, Public Information Officer
G:\BUDGET\FY 05-06\Issue-Response 5-10-05.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Oro Valley Mayor and Council
FROM: Kathi Cuvelier, Town Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2005
SUBJ: Ballot By Mail Election Reports dated December 18, 2002; December 30,
2003 & January 31, 2005
As requested during the Budget Study Session held on Monday, May 2nd, attached are 3
Ballot By Mail Election Reports for your review.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Thank you.
c,,,euza,‘
Kathi' E. Cuvelier, CMC
Town Clerk
Attachments
ALLY '1h'/
p1:4"at,,," TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
s - ' 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
t--
- ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737
Administrative Offices(520)229-4700 Fax(520)297-0428
= �y www.townoforovalley.com
t
I r_
;fr
qk
-LADED •
January 31, 2005
The Honorable Ken Bennett
President of the Senate
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The Honorable Jim Weiers
Speaker of the House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Ballot
R.E. Town of Oro Valley, Arizonaby Mail Election held March 9, 2004.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to ARS 16-409 B,the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona hereby submits its Mail
for the Ballot ByMail Primary Election held on March 9, 2004.
Ballot Election Report
Due to an oversight, report re ort is being filed past the December 31st deadline. We
respectfully apologize to you for this oversight.
p y P
ballot bymail election conducted by the Town of Oro Valley. This
This was the fourth
election was the Town'sregularprimary election for 2004 to elect 5 council members to
the Oro Valley Town Council.
1. CHANGES IN VOTER TURNOUT:
According to the Pima CountyRecorder, as of the voter registration cutoff date of
there were 19 910registered voters in Oro Valley town limits. A total
February 9, 2004, � this
6,942 voters returned their voted ballots on time. The turnout for election was
34.65%.
2. RELATIVE
COSTS OF MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS COMPARED TO
TRADITIONAL ELECTIONS.
01
/31/05 Ballot by Mail Election Report 2
03/09/04
PrimaryElection — Conducted by Mail (Note: Stand alone Election. Cost of
election paid entirely by Oro Valley):
U.S. Postmaster $ 10,000.00
Pima County Recorder $ 29,321.00
Total Cost $ 39,321.00
05/18/04 General Election — Conducted at the Polling Place due to a consolidated
election with Pima County (Note: Since this was a countywide election, the county is
obligated to payall pollingplace expenses. Therefore, Oro Valley costs included
Pg
rintin costs for our ballot and processing of Oro Valley ballots).
Elections Operations Services $ 8,569.11
Pima County Division of Elections $ 7,012.95
No charge from Pima County Recorder $ - 0 -
(Due to our assistance with early voting
at Oro Valley Town Hall)
Total Costs $ 15,582.06
The
Town conducted their March 9, 2004 Primary Election entirely by mail because there
were no other issues in Pima County that would affect Oro Valley voters. However, the
Pima Supervisors CountyBoard of Su ervisors called a countywide Bond election to be held on May
18,
2004. Therefore, the Town's May 18, 2004 General Election was conducted as a
Polling
Place Election to lessen voter confusion. The Town will only conduct ballot by
mail elections when there is no other issue on the ballot that affects Oro Valley voters.
3.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR REFINEMENTS IN THE
MAIL BALLOT PROGRAM.
We have discussed the issue of the mailing date for the ballots. Currently, the Oro Valley
Town Council, with agreement by the Pima County Recorder,has determined in each
election to mail the ballots on the earliest possible date, 33 days prior to the Election Day.
Ballots for the March 9, 2005 Primary Election were mailed out 33 days prior to the
election.
Whileappears it a ears that almost 50 percent of the voters returned their ballots in the first two
weeks after mailing, there continued to be a steady return through the entire election
cycle. Based on this information,we do not recommend moving the mailing date closer
to the election date at this time.
Q
4. FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF MAIL BALLOT IRREGULARTIES.
appears that a number of Oro Valley residents are not full-time, year round residents.
It pp
Manytravel or live in other areas during the summer months. While they may notify
the
Postal Service of a forwarding address, they also notify the Postal Service that they are
only temporarily away tem orarilfrom their residence. Since ballots cannot be forwarded by the
01/31/05 Ballot by Mail Election Report 3
Postal Service, ballots for the voters who have temporary holds on their mail are returned
to the Pima County Recorder's Office. However, the Postal Service does not provide the
forwarding address; the ballots are simply marked "temporarily away." From the initial
mailing of ballots, approximately 631 were returned with no forwarding address or
forwarded out of the Oro Valley Town Limits and 338 returned with forwarded addresses
in Oro Valley resulting in 2nd ballots being mailed.
5. VOTER SATISFACTION WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS.
During this Election cycle, no complaints were received from Oro Valley voters.
Overall, Oro Valley voters like the convenience of voting by mail and prefer this type of
an election rather than a traditional polling place election.
Because the Town's May 2004 General Election had to be conducted as a polling place
election, we did have several complaints from Oro Valley voters that they wanted to vote
by mail as they had done during our March 2004 Primary Election. The Bill coming
before the Legislature to allow Counties the opportunity to conduct Ballot By Mail
Elections would be beneficial to the voter who has become accustomed to voting by mail
and would save the Recorder time and money by being able to mail all ballots at the same
time instead of having to mail early ballots throughout the election process when they are
requested by the voter. If you have further questions, please contact Pima County Deputy
Recorder Chris Roads at (520)740-4340 for more details on this process.
SUMMARY:
As the Election Official for the Town of Oro Valley, I find that ballot by mail elections
are more expensive than "polling place" elections, however, they do appear to insure a
higher voter turn-out and our voters like the convenience of voting by mail. Receipt of
the election results were timely,with the Pima County Division of Elections providing
the Town with unofficial results at 8:01 p.m. Election evening. The final results of this
providedWednesday
election were on the after the Tuesday, March 9th election.
With the assistance of the Pima County Recorder and Division of Elections, I am
committed to making the voting process in Oro Valley as convenient and easy as possible
and hope to see our voter turn-out rise above 50%.
Sincerely,
Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona
C: Mayor& Town Council
Town Manager
December 30, 2003
The Honorable Ken Bennett
President of the Senate
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The Honorable Jake Flake
Speaker of the House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
RE: Town of Oro Valley, Arizona Ballot by Mail Special Election held November
4, 2003.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to ARS 16-409 B, the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona hereby submits its Mail
Ballot Election Report for the Ballot By Mail Special Election held on November 4,
2003. This was the third ballot by mail election conducted by the Town of Oro Valley.
Thep �u ose of the election was to submit the Oro Valley General Plan to our voters.
1. CHANGES IN VOTER TURNOUT:
According to the Pima County Recorder, as of the voter registration cutoff date of
October 6, 2003, there were 20,491 registered voters in Oro Valley town limits. A total
of 8,971 voters returned their voted ballots on time. The turnout for this election was
43.78%. Please note that the official canvass of the election indicates a total voter
registration of 20,579, however, Pima County Voter Registration records show that
20,491 is the correct number.
2. RELATIVE COSTS OF MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS COMPARED TO
TRADITIONAL ELECTIONS.
11/04/03 Special Election
Division of Elections $ 6,893.94
Pima County Recorder $ 42,001.30
Total Cost $ 48,895.24
12/30/03 Ballot by Mail Election Report 2
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR REFINEMENTS IN THE
MAIL BALLOT PROGRAM.
We have discussed the issue of the mailing date for the ballots. Currently, the Oro Valley
Town Council,with agreement by the Pima County Recorder,has determined in each
election to mail the ballots on the earliest possible date, 33 days prior to the Election Day.
Pima County Recorder records show the following breakdown by week of returned
ballots. Ballots were mailed on October 2, 2003.
Returned by October 10, 2003 3,119
Between October 11 and October 17 1,704
Between October 18 and October 24 1,458
Between October 25 and October 31 1,267
Between November 1 and November 4 508
A total of 567 replacement ballots were issued and 122 additional voters voted in person
either at the Pima County Recorder's Office or at the Oro Valley Town Hall. A
significant number of those voters appeared in person on Election Day (November 4,
2003).
Given these numbers, while it appears that almost 54 percent of the voters returned their
ballots in the first two weeks after mailing, there continued to be a steady return through
the entire election cycle. Based on this information, we do not recommend moving the
mailing date closer to the election date at this time.
4. FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF MAIL BALLOT IRREGULARTIES.
A hardware component in the Pima County Recorder's Office computer system
malfunctioned in the middle of ballot printing. When the component was replaced, the
printing batch restarted at the beginning of the batch even though the printers were in the
p g
middle of the batch at the time of the malfunction. While other hardware components
had failed in the past, the ballot printers had always returned to the spot where the
malfunction occurred. As a result, staff did not realize that duplicate ballots were being
printed. Approximately 1,000 duplicate ballots were printed and mailed to voters
erroneously. Only 35 voters voted and returned both ballots. Steps have been put into
place in the Recorder's Office to check for duplicate printings in the future.
It appears that a number of Oro Valley residents are not full-time, year round residents.
Manytravel or live in other areas during the summer months. While they may notify the
Postal Service of a forwarding address, they also notify the Postal Service that they are
only temporarily orarily away from their residence. Since ballots cannot be forwarded by the Postal Service, ballots for the voters who have temporary holds on their mail are returned
to our office. However, the Postal Service does not provide the forwarding address; the
ballots are simply marked "temporarily away." From the initial mailing of ballots,
approximately 250 were returned with that notation from the Postal Service. On October
12/30/03 Ballot by Mail Election Report 3
27, 2003, the Recorder's Office mailed second notices to those voters to determine if they
were still away. Only five responded that they were back and replacement ballots were
issued to those voters.
5. VOTER SATISFACTION WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS.
Approximately 15 voters contacted our office or the Pima County Recorder's Office to
-
saythat they had received two ballots for this election. One of the "temporarily away"
voters who did receive and vote a replacement ballot voiced his concern with the
Recorder's Office concerning the lack of forwarding information the Postal Service
provides on the temporarily absent voters.
Overall, Oro Valley voters like the convenience of voting by mail and prefer this type of
an election rather than a traditional polling place election.
6. NUMBER OF NONDELIVERABLE BALLOTS
The Pima County Recorder reported that a total of 2,522 ballots were returned
undeliverable as addressed. Please note that some of these ballots included duplicates
i.e., both ballots sent to the voter were returned), but the exact number of duplicates was
not tracked. Of those returned, 619 were returned with no forwarding address noted, 567
were returned with forwarding addresses within the limits of the Town of Oro Valley and
1,336 ballots were returned with forwarding addresses that were outside the town limits.
Those with forwarding addresses within the town limits were mailed second ballots to
their new addresses along with voter registration forms.
As the Election Official for the Town of Oro Valley, I find that ballot by mail elections
are more expensive than "polling place" elections, however, they do insure a higher voter
turn-out. The Pima County Division of Elections provided the Town with unofficial
results at 8:01 p.m. Election evening. The final results of this election were provided on
the Thursday after the Tuesday,November 4th election.
Sincerely,
3J(
Ka hryn E. Cuvelier, CMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona
C: Mayor & Town Council
Town Manager
Pima County Elections
Pima County Recorder
•
LEY Aq
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
77
V ^•
1 000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
- . • ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737
4 Administrative Offices(520)229-4700 Fax(520)297-0428
www.townoforovalley.com
;4!- .• -A
°UNDEO�d
December 18,2002
The Honorable Randal Gnant
President of the Senate
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The Honorable James Weiers
Speaker of the House of Representatives
- 1700 W. Washington
Phoenix,Arizona 85007
RE: Town of Oro Valley,
Arizona Ballot by Mail Elections held March 12, 2002
and May 21, 2002.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to ARS 16-409 B, the
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona hereby submits its Mail
Ballot Election Report. For the first time, Oro Valley held a Ballot By Mail Election for
our March 02 Primary ElectionMay
and our 02 General Election. An increase in voter
participation ation did occur for both elections:
1. CHANGES IN VOTER TURNOUT:
Election Date # of Registered Voters # of Ballots Cast Voter Turnout
3/14/00 Primary 16,982 4,023 24%
(Polling Place) candidates.
Ballot Issues —— Nomination for 3 council member seats 9
3/12/02 Primary 17,079 7,105 42%
(Ballot By Mail)
ion 3 candidates (Mayor elected at Primary Election)
Ballot Issues- I Mayor nomination
I Council Member nomination--3 candidates.
Alternative Expenditure Limitation--Borne Rule Option—Approved
Referendum--Annexation question--Annexation Approved
•
•
12118102
Ballot by Mail Election Report
5116/00 General 17,389
5,450 31%
(Polling Place)
Ballot issues
— 3 Council Member seats— 6 candidates running.
5/21102 General 17,079
6,454 38%
(Ballot by Mail)
Ballot Issues— 1 Council Member Seat—2 candidates g.
2. RELATIVE COSTS OF MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS COMPARED TO
TRADITIONAL ELECTIONS.
3/14/00 Primary Total Cost $21,586.84
(Polling Place)
DivisionElections $ 17,631.64
of
Pima County
Recorder $ 3,955.20
3/12/02 Primary
Total Cost $55.225.07
(Ballot By Mail)
Division of Elections lections $ 13,123.99
Pima County.Recorder
Mass Mailing/Voter Roll Cleanup $ 7,643.28
-Ballot By Mail Costs $34,457.80
5/16/00 Primary
Total Cost $26,713.46
(Polling Place)
Division of
Elections $ 22,033.91
Pima County
Recorder $ 4,679.55
5/21/02 General
Total Cost $43,071.16
(Ballot By Mail)
Division of
Elections $ 4,917.46
Pima County
Recorder $ 3 8,15 3.70
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR REFINEMENTS IN THE
MAIL BALLOT PROGRAM.
The certified results of our ballot
bymail elections were not received until the Friday
Now that ARS 16-558.02 has been amended to allow for
after the Tuesday election. N ithe processing of the ballots by mail should assist in receiving
counting the first ballot n
the results by the day after our election.
4. FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF MAIL BALLOT IRREGULARTIES.
nor the Pima County Division Neither the Town of Oro Valley of Elections or the Pima
County Recorder's Office observed any mail ballot irregularities.
.
Ballot by Mail Election Report _
3
12/18/02
6 T
5. VOTER SATISFACTION WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS.
3/12/02 Primary Election: mail election, we
March 12, 2002 was the first ballot by
Since our Primary Election of
spent the money to send out a mailer to everyregisteredistered voter explaining that they
would
This served two purposes, 1) to clean up the voter
be receivingtheir ballot by mall. p�"P .
. voter of the change in the voting process. However,
registration rolls and 2) to inform the g .
� � voters that the process was confusing and that
'd receive some complaints from some
w e dl
they preferred to vote at the polls.
5/21/02 General Election; s from the voters about
General Election, we received
During the Town's less complaint positive comments were made
their preference to vote at the polls. Many
the process and
• that the voters loved the convenience of voting by
mail.
informing us
Overall, a vast majority of Oro Valley
voters were satisfied with the Ballot By Mail
voting process.
6. NUMBER
OF NONDELIVERABLE BALLOTS
The Pima County Recorder reported that for the March 12, 2002 Primary Election:
17,139 ballots mailed out.
7,061 returned and voted by mail.
53 duplicate ballots issued.
Total of 7,114 ballots returned.
353 ballots returned undeliverable.
orwardin addresses and new ballots issued.
87 ballots returned with fg
The Pima County Recorder reported that for the May 21, 2002 General Election:
17,264 ballots mailed out.
6,483 returned and voted by mail.
15
additional ballots voted on a walk-in basis.
223
duplicate/replacement ballots issued.
25
0 ballots returned undeliverable— estimate.
' sent to each registered voter in Oro Valley, 2,000
Since a Call of Election notice was �
the rolls before the
voters were eliminated from ballots were mailed (either by incorrect
addresses, moving out of Oro Valley, etc).
Bycleaning up the voter rolls before the
ballots were sent out, the
amount of undeliverable ballots were greatly reduced.
• Town of Oro Valley, I find that ballot by mail elections
As the El ect�on Official for the �'�� lace" elections, however, they do insure a higher voter
are more expensive than polling p
less concern regarding the receipt of the final results now
turn-out. There appears to be g
that the citizens are aware of the process, and with the amendment to ARS 16-558.02
s
12/18/02 Ballot of byMail Election Report 4
now allowing that we may
count the first ballot in, I anticipate that results of our
elections will be known much sooner than the Friday after the Tuesday elections.
Sincerely,
*c.,. c.,...,46,1.
Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona
C: Mayor& Town Council
Town Manager
Pima County Elections
Pima County Recorder
NEORN
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
DATE: May 10, 2005
SUBJ: Assistant Town Manager/Organizational Structure
On May 2, 2005, the Town Council directed me to evaluate the implementation of the
Assistant Town Manager position. Attached to this memorandum, please find two
organizational charts for your review. The first chart (Exhibit A) identifies the Town's
organizational structure as proposed in the FY 2004/05 Tentative Budget. The second
chart (Exhibit B) outlines the proposed modifications to that organizational Town
structure. I am recommending that the following departments report directly to the
Assistant Town Manager:
• Community Development
• Public Works
• Finance
Council also inquired about the potential cost impact of implementing the Assistant
Town Manager on July 1, 2005 in lieu of a January 1, 2006 hire date originally
proposed. The impact of this change would have the following financial impact on the
Town Manager's and Finance Department's Budgets:
Category Town Manager's Finance Department Net Effect
Department
Salaries $59,733 ($12,502) $47,231
Group
Insurance $0
r Benefits $9,685 ($7,831) $1,854
Othe
O&M $2,300 $1,450
Capital Outlay ital $2,500 $2,500
Difference $70,270 ($13,741) $53,035
As indicated in the table above, the effective cost of implementing the Assistant Town
Manager at July 1, 2005 will be $53,035. Please note these estimates include a salary
of$90,000 for the Finance Director and $110,000 for the Assistant Town Manager
positions.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
CC: All Department Heads; Bob Kovitz, Public Information Officer
G:\BUDGET\FY 05-06\TM's memo 5-10-05.doc
..
ti
, ,
....Dm
.a
i 1
Cd
E O
E2 o a) o
a) a up cu N
cu =
Q
a
as
— O
EEwcci oU
—
o P4
aw
>-0 ,
- = 7.3 U
r •�--�
a,
.4`L) , , r 1
�' °
:Eci)0
.0 ci.)E1 T. .:
$:1.H ct t3 61)
a_ a) =U a,
W
-----.
cn aA
O
a' o
U
z
O py "_' f—,O
O i
'O
E
E x O
0 =
U ►--+
CO
cn
I-
at
0
a4
Exhibit A
i
,
W
V J a)
.0.) to
cz O
2 a) -c
0 c)
cu
V
�
O
�
C 1
it
E— I
Q I ca A,
a)
= I E ❑
0 N
3
L
Z I — o
I— N 0 0. N
Z I Q 06
.oco
a)
= J •......Z 0
Q a
�
/ I Tu>
f.i�. 0
0 I A
_
'C
IX
W I E o
CO
`t3J0 cov)Q o O
Z O a) CC
< Ci = ,..
0)
O c m m
O " o ca
Z cv o 0 g
0 L1- i-
›,
O :=
I— L
Z I
au
0
CO I
_ C
> I
E
W .t IX I
Ncts
v a..
E a a)
W I o '� 8
U) o o .
o '- a.
0 I u
a. 0 W
I `n
o ,_
L
Ct0
CL C
I
1-
i 1
NN
C w
_o C1
L
'N >, m
u) d O0
•E E
E o I
O
0 c CC
o Em
I' -
� i
L
cocti
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER
FROM: JEFFREY H. WEIR, CEcD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MAY 6, 2005
SUBJECT: FY 2005-2006 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION BUDGET
REQUEST CLARIFICATIONS AND RESPONSE.
During the review of the Economic Development Division's FY 2005-2006
Budget request the Mayor and Council asked for a prioritization of the
Marketing Funds in the amount of $ 30,325 and a second consideration for
additional Marketing Funds in the amount of $ 48,500. I have enclosed
Attachments 1 and 2 which provide the prioritization for the two funding
considerations as requested.
Secondly, the Mayor and Council requested the Northern Pima County
Chamber of Commerce provide a breakout of their funding sources similar
the GOVAC History of Town Funding Requests chart, as shown on page
188 of the Budget. The Chamber has responded to this request and I have
enclosed this chart/table as Attachment 3.
Economic Development Division Attachment 1
Marketing Plan Budget Request
FY 2005-2006
New Town of Oro Valley Marketing Plan Approach.
years During
the past six the Marketing of the Town of Oro Valley has been mostly passive.
The Town has prospered from carefully preparing the needed infrastructure required to allow
for successful Commercial/Industrial/Retail development to occur. However, it is time for
the Town to create a Marketing Effort that reflects the goals, capabilities and potential
which will result in achievement of the location of the businesses identified by our residents as
desirable.
The primary focus areas for the new Marketing Plan will concentrate on recruitment of new
Resort Properties, High-Tech Manufacturing and Research &Development businesses,
National &International Central Office Facilities, Retailers that offer distinguished products
and Service Providers that enhance the quality of living in Oro Valley.
Priority
I. Basic Marketing Plan. Rating
This approach identifies the minimum events, expenditures and commitments.
New printed collateral materials.
The new printed materials will be pocketed folders that will
contain double sided full color pages in response to the
information requested, a copy of the DVD and a business card.
Typically the information sheets will be: Demographics,Area
Sites, Infrastructure Identification (Maps), Existing Businesses
Testimonials and other items as needed.
The planned initial purchase will be for 250 sets of materials. $ 17,500 1
Folders w/Pockets, Logo and Message @ $10.00 $ 2,500
New Area Photo's $ 2,500
Full Color Double sided sheets $ 2,500
Marketing Firm Fees $ 7,500
Tri-Fold's $ 2,500
BIO-2006 Conference. Chicago IL April 9-12, 2006 $ 3,450 2
Partnership costs w/Arizona Dept. of Commerce(booth space $ 1,500
Travel costs and four(4)day stay $ 1,950
Medical Devices &Manufacturers (MDM) Show. Anaheim CA $ 3,000 3
Partnership costs w/Arizona dept. of Commerce &APS $ 1,500
Travel costs and four(4)day stay $ 1,500
Financial participation in various local and regional activities. $ 4,000 4
U of A Office of Economic Development's Global ADVANTAGE $ 1,000
Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) $ 2,000
Hosting of visits from ADOC leads $ 1,000
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) Las Vegas NV $ 2,375 5
Conference Admission $ 350
Travel costs for five (5) day stay $ 2,025
Total Basic Plan $ 30,325
Marketing Plan ED Budget Supplemental Info Prioritized Marketing Plan 5/4/2005
Economic Development Division Attachment 2
Marketing Plan Budget Request
' FY 2005-2006
II. Expanded Marketing Plan.
The following describes the next steps for an Expanded Marketing Plan based on the availability
of additional funding. Contained in the Expanded Plan are additional recruitment efforts directed
toward increased identification of new business prospects, greater interactions with potential
expansion candidates, more emphasis on entrepreneurial opportunities and continued focus
on Retention &Expansion of existing businesses.
The additional funding for the Expanded Marketing Plan may come from a dedicated portion of
an increased Bed Tax (refer to the Proposed New Distribution of a Bed Tax Rate Increase to 6%)
attached hereto. Priority
Rating
Identification of New Business Prospects. $ 48,500
These efforts will increase direct exposure and awareness of Oro Valley
through face-to-face meetings, advertising, identification of businesses
analyses of firms that are considering expansion or relocation, and
establishing a positive relationship with Site Selectors.
Market research efforts using an external service organization $ 10,000 1
Establishing community awareness with Site Selectors $ 5,000 2
Participation w/ADOC&AOT co-advertising efforts (4) $ 10,000 3
Participation w/TREO visits (3) - Ottawa, California & Unname $ 7,500 4
Participation w/Global ADVANTAGE (UofA) visits (2) overseas $ 6,000 5
Advertising in Trade Publications (4) $ 10,000 6
e
Attachment 3
Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce
Revenues by categorical source from 2001-2005
Revenue Source 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
Membership $ 105,000 $ 91,500 $ 89,000 $ 81,000 $ 82,000
Networking Events $ 32,000 $ 26,000 $ 23,200 $ 24,000 $ 20,900
Special Events $ 107,000 $ 85,000 $ 76,000 $ 38,000 $ 44,600
Sponsorships $ 18,825 $ 3,575 $ 4,400 $ 1,950 $ 6,800
Town or OV contract $ 27,500 $ 27,500 $ 27,500 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Other $ 10,000 $ 9,300 $ 10,700 $ 20,000 $ 24,500
Total: $ 302,330 $ 244,879 $ 232,803 $ 191,952 $ 203,800
Town's contribution as
a Percent of Total 9.1% 11.2% 11.8% 13.0% 12.3%
The Chamber's Fiscal Year
Starts October 1
Ends September 30.
Town of Oro Valley
General Fund
FY 2005/06 CIP Projects
Description _ Department Amount
Recommended CIP Projects ,
Fire Panel Vehicular Protection System for Crown Victorias _Police $ 20,200
Replacement of Patrol Car Mobile Data Computer Systems Police 48,300
Re, placement Patrol Vehicles Police 180,800
-
Replacement Unmarked Police Vehicles .Police 85,000
Pick Up Truck Parks 6,860
Playground Surface-JDK Park ,Parks 45,000
Coyote Run Replacement Vehicles Transit 6,840
Computer Replacement Program IT 87,000
Server Hardware Upgrade IT 20,000
Total Approved FY 2005/06 CIP Projects _ $ 500,000
FY 2005/06 Budget Request Not CIP Approved _ ,
Financial Accounting & Human Resources Software Finance 350,000
Total Not Approved FY 2005/05 CIP Projects , $ 350,000
TOTAL CIP PROJECTS REQUESTED IN FY 2005/06 $ 850,000
. ,
Community Development Administration
Manager's
Recommended
2004/2005 Budget Estimated Actuals Budget
Personnel $ 218,340 $ 204,504 $ 229,019
Greater OV Arts Council
Agreement $ 133,200 $ 133,200 $ 133,200
Office Supplies $ 16,600 $ 13,000 $ 17,000
Equipment Repair and
Maintenance $ 12,000 $ 8,000 $ 10,070
Contract Professional
Services $ 1,000 $ - , $ 4,000
All Other $ 7,175 $ 6,497 $ 7,575
TOTAL: $ 388,315 $ 365,201 $ 400,864
Contract
Professional
Equipment Services
Repair and $4,000 All Other
p
Maintenance (1°/0) $7,575
$10,070 (2%)
(3%)
Office Supplies
$17,000
(4%) ,._,4„ ,_,„ _
p
h Personnel
:.
$229,019
Greater OV Arts
. (58%)�
Council K : ;: T ,,, -
Agreement £ y x
$133,200
(34%)
G:\Danielle\For Joseph\Budget Spreadsheet
Planning and Zoning
Manager's
Recommended
2004/2005 Budget Estimated Actuals Budget
Personnel $ 713,137 $ 658,752 $ 772,340
Outside Professional
Services $ 22,600 $ 22,600 $ 20,000
Postage $ 5,000 $ 5,300 $ 5,300
PrintingBinding& $ 14,100 $ 10,000 $ 8,500
Travel & Training $ 10,700 $ 10,000 $ 10,900
All Other $ 43,870 $ 42,650 $ 22,160
TOTAL: $ 809,407 _ $ 749,302 $ 839,200
Printing &
Travel & Training
$10,900
Binding
(1°/0)
$8,500
(1c/0)
Postage All Other
$5,300 $22,160
(1%) (3%)
Outside
Professional
Services
$20,000
(2%)
Personnel
$772,340
(95%)
P�-y: Tk,-r` l`o gi�.?�� ,x-
4:ciettoitifittn , ret:''
G:\Danielle\For Joseph\Budget Spreadsheet
Building Safety
Manager's
Recommended
2004/2005 Budget Estimated Actuals Budget
Personnel $ 939,768 $ 832,720 $ 968,161
Outside Professional
Services $ 147,000 $ 200,780 $ 171,250
Equipment Repair and
Maintenance $ 54,800 $ 43,800 $ 41,000
Printing & Binding $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 11,500
Travel & Training $ 11,850 $ 11,850 $ 12,000
All Other $ 108,363 $ 104,763 $ 49,990
TOTAL: $ 1,264,281 $ 1,196,413 $ 1,253,901
Travel & Training
Printing & Binding $12,000
$11,500 (1%)
(1%) All Other
Equipment ui ment $49,990
q p
Repair and (4%)
p
Maintenance
$, oJ0
-,,,, \
5 T r t
1s
i: :
r f 'd - ✓ y� y _ � � f� �,��
'.
-:-- -741
-41
_lr-
lPersonne
� „C� 3� -xx ' ,,,,-,7!,,,',1,---!,,,,,----447,---,s�r� TM-'a4� �� . �r'-'�; ° -i.--.;-1,-----,,!:'-,--,,;-1,-----,,--:-----4,1,-,.YRaFbr �x 4,1�Outsidel $9(68,/1 61''F ,y ProfessionacL,a v,: ,:: v.��� 74:1::; ri'Services -,--i-,'----, y S$171250
(14°/0)
G:\Danielle\For Joseph\Budget Spreadsheet
Library
Manager's
Recommended
2004/2005 Budget Estimated Actuals Budget
Personnel $ 552,383 $ 540,745 $ 804,139
Outside Professional
Services $ 134,750 $ 121,774 $ 128,900
Natural Gas & Electricity $ 41,000 $ 44,000 $ 68,060
Collection Materials &
Subscriptions $ 170,000 $ 170,000 $ 180,000
Custodial Services $ 18,000 $ 8,474 $ 18,880
All Other $ 51,696 $ 51,896 $ 65,233
TOTAL: $ 967,829 $ 936,889 $ 1,265,212
Custodial
Services
Collection
Materials &
$18,880
(2%� All Other
$180,000 ions $65,233
(5%)
(15%)
Subscript
Natural Gas &
ElectricityF
s s 4 �,,y fs-�a a
:::„.„,,,,._
$68,060 _ :,
(6%)
,f r./� '-�f
r r+ r
r.,
r, f L ,yJ' X1-Frif::�H�sr ct:';','!--7;'_17, -,1v.-,,,,.
r�,';'_1 ,�i+ � �,--z ff x-.4;
;k5°' . y sw, � zCs ��'_ Ka
a u !$GAOutside
Professional
Services
P$e8(r60s64o%,n1n)3e9l
$128,900
(11%)
G:\Danielle\For Joseph\Budget Spreadsheet
Parks and Recreation
Manager's
Recommended
2004/2005 Budget Estimated Actuals Budget
Personnel $ 734,580 $ 791,588 $ 807,601
Outside Professional
Services $ 126,050 $ 135,000 $ 142,000
Water & Sewage $ 107,000 $ 118,000 $ 100,000
Natural Gas & Electricity $ 99,500 $ 101 397 $ 110,000
Field Supplies $ 59,700 $ 65,000 $ 63,000
All Other $ 440,178 $ 435,587 $ 382,700
TOTAL: $ 1,567,008 $ 1,646,572 $ 1,605,301
All Other
$382,700
Field Supplies (24%)
$63,000
(5%)
Personnel
$807,601
(66%)
Natural Gas &
Electricity
$110,000
(9%)
Water & Sewage
$100,000
(8%) Outside
Professional
Services
$142,000
(12%)
G:\Danielle\For Joseph\Budget Spreadsheet
* OzOO < * �
0 o -' 0 M = a)
-, a O O CD 3 5-
0- 1— a < <
v
0 C0 `�
O C OD
CD
-a C)
CD
a
4 N O) co N - n D
CO --, -P C) N W
-P 4, O) tJ1 O) 00 -P c C
W -.1 01 -L On -� a) a)
-1-.-P N CO� co -1. 00 01 O "G�
U)
C
T
O) O1 U1 C71 CJ1 _O) _co O CD
V V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -n
01 O O O O 01 O O (D0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a)O
f��
0 =
C2
r
5. 0 DJ
O
C7 73
O Cn
N _' O HT1 10
c" 1.1 N " " ."1 N :P IN
C11 C31 O co 41. 031 Ul 6 -n
Cl)EMU
O
C
O -L al W O W W �l -n -�
-.II -.1 0 -.I O) co h
-1. (3) CJ1 -� O) 00 11 0
a)
CD
.-1 -1 CO co
O O O N CO Co 01 W C
N -,1 CO C) W W N O) Q
00 01 O) CA C) N 0) -PCO
O N W N 00 N O -.1
11 O -,1 -1 00 CO 4 CD
0) 0) 0) N CO 0) 0) 0)
U)
C
a)
CAC) 01 00 000 te �P O O
C
N CJ1 W O N N O N
O
ET
CD