Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1384) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2001 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) and (A)(4) discussion or consultation with the Town Attorney for legal advice and/or consultation with the Town Attorney regarding pending or contemplated litigation relating to Wong Family, L.L.C. v. Town of Oro Valley, Pima County Cause No. 20005064 and Wong Family L.L.C. v. Town of Oro Valley, Pima County Cause No. C20013660 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal Advice regarding the Tucson Water Settlement Negotiation RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS — TOWN MANAGER The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING CALL TO AUDIENCE —According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience"cannot be discussed by the Town Council as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience'; please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 10/17/01 Agenda, Council Regular Session 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes — 10/3/01 B. Information Activities Report C. Police Report—August 2001 D. Finance Report—August 2001 E. Coyote Run Monthly Report— September 2001 F. Building Safety Activity Report — September 2001 G. Resolution No. (R)01-91 Acceptance of a proposal and award of contract to Southern Arizona Paving in the amount of$33,060.00 for OV30-01/02 10 "Annual Special Maintenance Projects" H. Resolution No. (R)01- 92 Authorizing and Approving a contract with Westland Resources Inc. for professional engineering design and construction period services for a new E zone well I. Resolution No. (R)01-93 Authorizing and Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Central Arizona Water Conservation District and the Town of Oro Valley providing for the delivery of excess Central Arizona Project Water J. Resolution No. (R)01-94 OV7-00-02 Declaring proposed amendments to Chapter 11 and all references to Chapter 11 within the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading by deleting said Chapter it its entirety and inserting a new Chapter 27 General Development Regulations, Section 27.6 Off-Street Parking, amending Chapter 2 Definitions, Chapter 9 Conditional Use Regulations, and amending Article 16-1 Design Guidelines within the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, as a public record K. Resolution No. (R)01- 95 OV7-01-05 Declaring proposed revisions to Chapter 14, Article 14-2, et seq., Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer Yard Plans and all references thereto, Chapter 2 Definitions, and Article 16- 1 Design Guidelines of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, as a public record L. Resolution No. (R)01- 96 OV7-01-06 Declaring proposed addition of Chapter 17, Outdoor Lighting to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, and amending all references to Outdoor Lighting in Chapters 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13, adding definitions in Chapter 2, amending Article 16-1 Design Guidelines of the Oro Valley Zoning Code, and amending the Oro Valley Town Code by deleting in its entirety, Article 6-7, Outdoor Lighting Code, as a public record M. Resolution No. (R)01-97 OV7-01-09 Declaring proposed revisions to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised that include Chapter 8 Commercial District Regulations, Chapter 9 Conditional Use Regulations, Chapter 2 Definitions, Article 3-2 Use Permits, Chapter 4 Subdivisions and Development Plans, Article 5-2 Effect of Districts, Article 10-0 Tangerine Corridor Overlay District, Article 10-4 Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District Regulations, Article 6-2 R1-144 Single 10/17/01 Agenda, Council Regular Session 3 Family Residential District and Article 16-1 Design Guidelines, as a public record N. Extension of terms for the Government Review Task Force through December 31, 2001 0. Resolution No. (R)01-98 Declaring as a public record that certain document regulating Smoking in public places and in places of employment, filed with the Town Clerk and entitled "Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control," of the Town of Oro Valley Town Code 2. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)01-23 RELATING TO SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL; ADDING ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE SECTION 10-1-19 BY REFERENCE Explanation: The proposed ordinance regulates smoking in public areas. The proposed Amendment A, if adopted, will exclude Bars from those areas outlined within Section 10-1-19D as regulated Public Places. Proposed Amendment B, if adopted, will allow for a "Hardship Phase-In" and/or a "Hardship Smoking Exemption" for those areas outlined within Section 10- 1-19(D) as regulated Public Places. The language contained within Proposed Amendment B mimics the hardship language used in Pima County's smoking regulation. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION NO. (R)01-84 OV11-01-01 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO, NEIGHBORHOOD 11, BORDERED ON THE EAST, NORTH AND WEST SIDES BY THE TOWN BOUNDARY, AND BY STONE CANYON III, II, AND IV ON THE SOUTH. (ASSESSOR'S PARCELS #219050101A, 21905011C AND 21906014A) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 19, 2001) Explanation: The Town Council continued this item from the September 19, 2001 meeting to October 17, 2001. However, no action may be legally taken on this item because it was not properly advertised. Staff recommends continuance of this item to November 7, 2001. 4. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)01-24 AMENDING CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-4-2 (SPECIAL MEETINGS) OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE BY MAKING THIS PROVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN COUNCIL PARLIAMENTARY RULES & PROCEDURES AND CODE OF CONDUCT BY DESIGNATING THAT EITHER THE MAYOR OR TWO (2) COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CALL A SPECIAL MEETING WITH AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS NOTICE 10/17/01 Agenda, Council Regular Session 4 Explanation: If this ordinance is approved by the Town Council, it will amend Chapter 2, Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code by allowing either the Mayor or 2 Council Members to call a special meeting with at least 24 hours notice pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law. 5. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH 2001 TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT CALL TO AUDIENCE—According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience"cannot be discussed by the Town Council, as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience'; please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 10/10/01 4:30 p.m. lh 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 Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 229-4700. 10/17/01 Agenda, Council Regular Session 5 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", 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. Please state your name and address for the record. 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. A MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 3, 2001 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION 441:A> CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Fran LaSala, Vice Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member Bart Rochman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Loomis made a special presentation from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to Town Manager Chuck Sweet for his twenty-five years of service to local government. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming meetings. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member Wolff, Mayor Loomis pulled Item D from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item D. Vice Mayor LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 -0. A. Minutes— September 4, 19, 2001 B. Building Codes Activity Report—August 2001 C. OV12-95-14 Approval of Substitute Assurance Agreement between Daystar Homes LLC and First American Title Insurance as Trustee of Rivers Edge Lots 70 through 102, Common Areas A and B 10/03/01 Minutes, Council Regular Session 2 D. Resolution No. (R)01-86 Authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley to transfer County bond funds to the Town of Oro Valley for the design and construction of the Canada Del Oro Linear Park situated between La Canada Drive and First Avenue (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) E. Resolution No. (R)01-87 Accepting those streets within the Ram's Canyon Phase 1 and 2 subdivision as public streets F. Resolution No. (R)01-88Accepting those streets within the Sunridge II subdivision as public streets D. RESOLUTION NO. (R)01-86 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PIMA COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TO TRANSFER COUNTY BOND FUNDS TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANADA DEL ORO LINEAR PARK SITUATED BETWEEN LA CANADA DRIVE AND FIRST AVENUE In response to a question from Council Member Wolff, Town Engineer Bill Jansen explained that the Town's portion of funding for the project would come from impact fees that have been programmed into Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities. If any additional funding is needed, it can be supplemented from Pima Association of Governments (PAG) funds. He stated that there would be no demand on the Town's General or Operating funds. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)Ol-86 authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley to transfer County Bond Funds to the Town of Oro Valley for the design and construction of the Canada del Oro Linear Park. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 2. POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OR POSTPONEMENT OF NOVEMBER 21, 2001 REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY MOTION: Vice Mayor LaSala MOVED to CANCEL the November 21, 2001 Town Council meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 STATUS REPORT #1 Community Development Director Brent Sinclair explained that monthly status reports on the General Plan Update project would be provided to the Council as part of the Consent Agenda. He explained that the status reports would track events from the project's initiation through the end of the project. He also explained that quarterly reports would be provided to the Council during the Council's regular meetings. 10/03/01 Minutes, Council Regular Session 3 Mr. Sinclair also reported that an invitation would be mailed out to over 13,000 residences inviting citizens to attend the General Plan Update Kickoff Mayor Loomis asked that the Status Report include a 30 or 60 day preview of upcoming meetings. Council Member Johnson stressed that the General Plan Update be ready to go to the November 2002 election for citizen approval in order to avoid additional election costs. 4. RESOLUTION NO. (R)01-89 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND JOE A. TYLER,ARTIST,IRONWOOD BOTANICAL SCULPTURES,INC., TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC ART, "LEAVES UNFOLDING" RELATING TO THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE SCRIPT FOR THE SCULPTURE PUBLISHED BY PREMEDIA CORPORATION Managing Librarian Mary Hartz-Musgrave reported that in May 2001, the Town hired the Greater Oro Valley Arts Council (GOVAC) to oversee the Oro Valley Public Library Art Project. Four finalists were selected from nineteen public art applications and the Public Art Selection Committee has recommended the piece "Leaves Unfolding"created by Artist Joe A. Tyler. Mr. Joe Tyler described his art proposal "Leaves Unfolding." He explained that the entire sculpture is made from welded steel and should last for many generations. Ms. Hartz-Musgrave also stated that staff is recommending approval of the art piece along with the following script to be added to the base of the sculpture: "The more you read, the more you know. The more you know, the more you grow. The smarter you grow, the stronger your voice, When speaking your mind, or making you choice." (Reproduced with permission from Highsmith, Inc. under license with Primedia Corporation.) Ms. Hartz-Musgrave explained that it is recommended that the sculpture be located at the south patio of the library in the southwest corner of the site. She explained that the site meets all ADA requirements and has also received the Fire Marshall's approval. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)01-89 authorizing and approving the execution of the contract between the Town of Oro Valley and Joe A. Tyler, Artist, Ironwood Botanical Sculptures, Inc. to provide the public art, "Leaves Unfolding"relating to the Library Project and the appropriate script for the sculpture published by Premedia Corporation. Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 10/03/01 Minutes, Council Regular Session 4 5. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE ORO VALLEY STORMWATER UTILITY COMMISSION MOTION: Council Member Wolff MOVED to APPOINT Mr. Nick Bokaie, Mr. Thomas Waddell, Mr. Richard Hawkinson, Mrs. Leann O'Brian and Mr. Ralph Stein to the Oro Valley Stormwater Utility Commission. The term of each member shall be determined by drawing lots at the first scheduled meeting of the Commission. Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 6. RESOLUTION NO. (R)01-90 ADOPTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY GUIDELINES Economic Development Administrator Jeff Weir explained that Resolution No. (R)Ol-90 would address the expansion of existing Lodging Industry Incentive Policy Guidelines that were originally adopted by Council in August 1999. He explained that examples of incentives are presented in Exhibit"A" of the proposed Resolution for Council's consideration. Mr. Weir also explained that each individual request would be handled individually. Discussion followed regarding retention, new developments, time frames regarding incentives in retail centers, focus on larger projects, never committing to anything greater than the actual benefits to the community, setting limits on sales tax not to exceed one- half of one percent, terms no longer than five years based on a trigger mechanism, removing item 13 from Exhibit "A" as it is repetitive, incentives should be performance based where applicable, and the fact that the Incentive Policy Guidelines is a working document and each individual request would be handled on its own merits. MOTION: Vice Mayor LaSala MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)01-90. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION: Council Member Rochman asked to change Item#7 of Exhibit "A"by adding "nor shall the incentive value be more than 50% of the benefits that the project could reasonably expect to return in benefits within a ten year period." Mayor Loomis asked to change Exhibit "A"by deleting Item#13. Mayor Loomis asked to add, "Specific performance criteria for each project will be established." Mayor Loomis asked to change Exhibit "A"by adding a fourth bullet to Item #1 that states "A situation wherein incentives are needed to induce a business to locate their operation to the Town of Oro Valley." Vice Mayor LaSala and Council Member Johnson accepted the amendments. MOTION as amended carried, 5 — 0. 10/03/01 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Chuck Sweet reported that the first quarterly report on the Town's Departmental Performance Standards would be ready to submit to Council in the next few days. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Mayor LaSala MOVED to ADJOURN AT 8:02 p.m. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity, Deputy Town erk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the _3rd_ day of October 2001. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of , 2001. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Bob Kovitz, Public Information Officer Kevin Verville, Information Systems Administrator S U BJ: Information Activities Report September, 2001 BACKGROUND: In July 2001, the Mayor and Council were provided with the first report that summarized both the public information and Town website activities for the month. This third report will continue to make comparisons among the statistical data being gathered to track the traffic on the Town website. Other public information activities are also noted. Public Information Activities Similar to last month, the majority of the print media articles have been follow-up stories regarding Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and Development Review Board actions. In addition, there have been features or news articles on the following subjects: 1) "Ready, Steady, Go & Win" planning campaign, Northwest Explorer, 9/12 2) "Retail Space Galore," AZ Daily Star, 9/6 3) "Crime-Free Apartments," Northwest Explorer, 9/19 4) "Oro Valley Immersed in Sorrow," Northwest Explorer, 9/19 5) Oro Valley Police training, Northwest Explorer, 9/20 6) KUAT-Radio, "Pusch Ridge Majesty Dedication," 9/20, 5:05 p.m. 7) KOLD-TV, "Pusch Ridge Majesty Dedication," 9/21, 5:30 p.m. The initial "Ready, Steady, Go and Win!" planning activities brochure was mailed to all Oro Valley households. A follow-up postcard piece was also developed and mailed to all Oro Valley residences; this piece featured the general plan update and the Naranja Town Site. A video presentation regarding the Naranja Town Site was also finalized with script and picture changes. And the Fall Recreation Activities Guide was 411, reviewed and edited prior to publication and distribution. Website Activities In September, the number of visits to our web site jumped dramatically. In fact, it is the highest number of sessions the site has ever seen. This month, Public Works made the Top 5 Most Commonly Accessed Pages. Clearly, there has been an upswing in activity over the last 3 months, as shown by the chart below: Total Sessions 13483 15000 ' 9704 0 10000 8t4<\`f 6x:sOY,4�Kr9/,F:y%;rj1•4 6639 �: .•�':�. xnM 3Fc{] h AVO 5000 „; .i ti ti-, r k :'..•.y%.»Y :;.'o•..:} .v'+g}.<:. :.:�}.7r�}�/,,`/}•i�:.b..:,.::;}.;,x,.,..{�����,}�ioQt•: ...-:Y.yfrc.Oa/1.•'.'F:.:r/r4rr '?S,:•+'R'.•� 2? �:.,H. :..f,. c 0 .::..'...�:...:::rr.3.,Y..../.A,}'•r::..dr'...r....:%:,.{.%�,:.rJ:�'1f..;7...j......Ci,:.f3.,`....�}../Y,rr..:.r/..r.'!::r.,:'..;•....•.:..,.�.•.::.r:.!..:.:..nr...t.:.:r.<.!.r....r. ..•..r...:n....x.:...1.�:..r.,:vti.rfcr1;;t.:?.::...:.r r..rr..'...f....::...r...../.�...,...y.S...�C. ..:.n..S{:i..nS:."...!...1,:•...:r..:..r,.:, .��.y�.....:......+..:..:.Y.i........:..T.:}r.-:.•...:v;.....�::..:.....<....K.....:,.r:.+.t:a\:�....:..xr:r:%.::+:,.::.r'.:.r:/:r..}•};:.::r:.•:;n}:4:�r..,.�..:..!,....,......i......,..rr{.0: ....}t.o.:.4.�.,.L�..S.�y.'.H?.:.b.!..:..tr...�•.:.S}....°;..4..;...}:..+7..:N..\.r'�......?:..t.v�:N......,:.5..2.:...:..:.r.v.:.r.}.W..:.:..;:h2'.. <:r:..;'%.3.:),y..,/}.:s:v.�.::{YY,..y...Y..•.:,.,Y.a.�S:,:1i,/.i,%•..:r:^•.:...;::o.{2,r•i,Y.rri:.Yri.:%t:,%r:...Afr prY�•:}:Y.:S?J.{y..::.:r:ir;::..r..:r4 45,0*:$awv:YiS �1 � Y01 /r r:!.:{v..noh.b?v::.•P�.r:...i:`{;�::•;::l£r'r.�?/...• <•,.�: ..,....:R,'{°.:f.t+u.,e.;.�tt.:!.<F.• •...:::.,.:...:i ✓.:}'r.;..:. .:.c:.i.. ../!.r:./r:•..;,.....:.:: 12 Month Avg. July August September Statistics for September 2001 Total Sessions: 13483 Total Blind Sessions: 7135 Average Daily Sessions: 449 Top Five Most Commonly Accessed Pages Home 7394 page views Human Resources 1471 page views Agenda 317 page views Clerk 359 page views Public Works 248 page views Top Five Entry Point Pages Home 4463 page views Human Resources 399 page views Clerk 147 page views Court 122 page views Agenda 117 page views Top Five Exit Point Pages Home 3265 page views Human Resources 767 page views Clerk 112 page views Court 111 page views Agenda 109 page views Terminology Session: A visit to the web site where at least one link was selected (meaning the visitor viewed more than one page). Blind Session: These are visits to the site byviewers who have "bookmarked" or saved the site name of their "favorite places." This means that search engines did not refer the as one viewers for their visits. Page Views: Number of g requested pages from the web server during an individual session. q p Entry Point Page: First page viewed when arriving at the site. Exit Point Page: Last page viewed before leaving the site. Note: Town of Oro Valley employees account for approximately 3% of the total sessions for the month. These employees usually access the site to check on information, links or projects that they have been working on. C C1740 Bob Kovitz, Public I of rmati•n Officer /4 6/-__:--/.,-- f Kpille, Inf''rmati'• System A iministrator iiiir ' Or ( uc Sweet, To n Y anager ' C ", P�I.EY q • I t I <z-,,Yin NN O 1�� , 2 11000 N. La Canada Dr. ��,,Q��c' � \fes � • ate i 'I . t� Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 L:__ 1 i- \ C. Phone (520) 229-4900 FAX (520) 797-2616 DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief of Police www.ovpd.org `wb 'IA °N DE D 1° ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Loomis and Town council �R, -'- ` Daniel Sharp, Chief of Police FROM: �..�. p, DATE: September 25, 2001 RE: Monthly Breakdown of Citations by Violation and Police activity Summary Attached please find the updates through August 2001. Co 0 0 0 n * G) C7 C3 7J 13 7J * n D 7 D D 5 --I D = v r 0 D --I CO '-- D D D D o _ . -• c.•�• cn -I -, c� 3 c0 = C o `-. c2 A) Q 'V -v cQ coCD _. A) = N _ as o ,..� - LD -. �. s� -• a) ° v a n) cn rn ., N cn co cp cp cp M --�, -, 3 Cr - a cn 0 a N 0 = c 7 -• to Cf) = * 0 N c)._ m 71 = w — 0 . w -. (7) Cf) 0 CD C M. _ = D o (D O o n y N F 5 0 vs N OPC -` C ° cn U) 0 7... cp cD 0 n u) -� < O < u, n D D D y ( �' - t.* U o c co co --1 till 01 - ao -, 00 --, CO N - 01 CP --, c0 -a N �1 N) .A N N N) D n CO CO. O N O O O C31 N) co W CO C11 O N -.1 CO W O 00 - 00 01 r U1 CT1 W .A N — 01 CO W Co N CJ1 CO -s W -, N -A 01 CO - N 01 CO 00 (/) *It o co —' D O 0) CO --LOt"..11 =. CO CO N) CO CD CO -A CO CO CO N -A -A N O - CO -a W -A Z o - a 01 O N U1 U1 ---LCJ1 —1 CO - Co 00 — - - W O N CO O - CO CO O -1 - -a **1'1 U) l 1 0 'T1tit CA) rn CD -A N -, N --, CO W -- 01 -' CO En 3' O __. -a CO --L -� -- -J 01 CO - N N -, N) CO W -A — — N CO CP O Co CO 01 -.1 CD W Co CO CO - N N --A 01 01 Oo O -A W -� N CO N t"N CD - . till )'t a) w w _ CD _ -� D n N N N W W CD CO ----, O CO O N G.) — N 01 O N O 7 = U1 01 -A U1 CO W -A -.1 CO N CO N 01 - 01 CO -a CO -A N o 00 01 CO -1 N O CO 0) Pt co D N (D CO w -A -�► -U O CO O N) N) -.1 -A --, O -� O Z74 O -A _, -4 -A W .A _a _a N Cn W -, 00 -A 01 — — W C71 01 01 -1 -1 --, CO -.1 01 CO O CO o CO -A. CO CO -.l GJ -1 -a O CO C31 N W N N CO tt_ g -� 01 N _ _ .....a .. N CO - • CO -A W CO CO CO 01 W -A N N -A W CO N N O W W N CO CO C O W W W W CO -.1 CO - CO 0) -1 N) - CO 01 O CO *it O w C ti* CO CO CD 0) — N) o 0 CON - . 01 -A N) CD w O CO CO — W �1 Z . 01 W CO W -.1 N CO -A CO N - -A CO - -- O --, CO O CO O 01 CA) o O W CO L till 1 r�j (•) I I (O _:. co -a r� W —a O r' _a .� -A I 1 -' _..aa _a CA) N t al W -A. 01 I N) O 01 �1 I\ COW 'tel CO CO CT1 O -.1 O N O Co O CO N -.1 CO N CO W CO -. CD O N CO CO O W W 2_ D y w C N N) ---LCO W CA) O CO O CO -.1N O _.1 - CO - CO N U1 Cn CO 01 01 -a N -4 -1 - -A. Co CO 00 CO CO CO O O CD O U1 CO 00 W �1 .A 00 Cn rn -o CA O4n _, 4 , , • , , , , , , , o P:J , , . a • m 0 —i > ' r -v rn C) to -n cn x r cn x v v x Z to --i o � _"'� D fJ = rnD D � v Z rn n c � rn � N 0 m c r- r= -� m rim G� C rn — O � T o v � � cn r- < ° r � � � � Z %eN• = Z z X rn m - G� — Z rn Z m 0 0 � m O rn rn r G) = 0 0 cn � n O r.,. . O .� O Z r —, m Z v �* < p 0 — o <_ o -c x m z z < -1 o - � > O Z rFii z < � < I- r 0 --i > --I - p Cl) Z m — > — > N O -I O O < r p o � o z o � z � ci�z D - � O z O 4 z _ _ _ _ _ _ __I oO 01 -� _, -, 0) _, _p. cn D w 01 -IN. N 01 N N -A -.1 CO � C) 0) r N) CO O 0) N N) -.J G) CO CO 01 .-- 0 ) W G) GCO D M"'C z tit O CO CT) O CO CO CO N -,. C3) CO O CO CO .A -A O -.1 m w � -_. cn -,. -A -., --I rncn r CO .A O N CO O C) --, CA) -t. N .A O -a. 01 CO CD ti. ),,iii.itl y n O O N N ti* > ON N O N N --, G) CO N O CY) O CO GJ CJ1 G) .A -A N ao n O 'Vo U1 N _a CJl -� CJl O M""r -' *III t.° M� O N O 01 O N 0) O co cn O O -A co O N) N C N) n nr � till W y n-< d 1 - O --.100 O O N -.1O-.1 0) 1 CO O -.1 CO00 CO00 M.....1--.1C) O tt CA C O -A, N .A. N) -, O -A CD O) z - O O CO N) � CO CO C) -Si CO O O CO 01 01 CO O -,1 CA Pt r -- CJi -, O -), 0) N O O -.I CO O CO Com) G) - G) N O CO N) � CO O 01 C� til O C r *I N) �1 N) O N) -� --� GJ -� Ul COCb N CO CO O -1 -A - O C) -� C) --. 01 O CO N G) -A -� -P Cn ~ rn C 0 C) —1 z 0 v m C) 07J " 7 * 0D7175 --i > 00 > --IWH 0X "V7J * 0D '� T ' H > 0CI > -ICO -I 0) cD c (D a) c) -1' co < o cn -t C c = c o a� cD c cD a) c'� -' co c O cn _ C c m- c o -1 cn cr...O -1 p) n, rC1) V) r N = — r* CD -1 ' 0 O- -i fl) n. W , cp N c _ ri- CD -1 rt r CD _. Sy _ c O� CD D a, =': D c O —I a) C) N = °CD -+ O cD D = D a O N -1_. C) N O CD m ' " Cc " r+ ' S ' CD O tD Cc = Q 7_ Cc r+ -4. =al SU 0 s (I) c. C = . = + w NOn s n cC • N O CD (DM H v D _ y N 1 cD — cD H a) DO y cn N 0 o c Ny INcn yCN N N N yrin (1) al n of 2 cn N O c 0 0 c 0 0 N w N N 0 -1 --1 t.* r D till _a -a -a N r" N —a 41. N Co CA —.% �1 N N I- 41, 41, N C) W N) 00 N C) W Q) N) -a W C3) N W -� W W 0 C 00 N --)► N CA CA 4N, N N C) N —A -, -,1 C) a) N) 01 C11 CJ1 C3) to 0 Co CA — 0 N) •1. N C3) C+J C3) .A• 0 0 -x Cr1 Q) Co Co .P. 0 �J -1 W 0 'J W W CA 0 0 CA 00 Co W Co V .A• 00 41. .A► 01 00 a) C_ L )ut C C I- r 0 O -- Co — 0) CEJ - -,, -- 0 --.• - (A) N -,1 .A — 0) -- CD t"11 01 N -- 0) 01 -Si -, — N Co �1 -,- - W N CJ1 0 a) 0 0) N N — — N) v --L N N N 0 00 CDa) N �1 00 N CO - O N CD O W W 01 0) Co -A O al -L O -, C11 a) 00 0o W N - a) Co a) DD 11 C C ril _, 0 _, _, 0 -P. --), N — 01 -A -� CO -, -_, N -A N a) 01 -J N O co O co (3) co -1 N O -. co - W N — co co - co Cn N Co (A) co -P -- W -. N 4 - -A -A CO co 00 a) O O O U1 0o co �1 -A 00 -L 0) Co N 0) O -,1 (A) N W 01 N) 01 CD -A 0 Co -,! t..: C!) U) t• ill rn rn -v -n *Nt CEJ- -� N Co -A -.1 N CO 0 — -A 01 N 0 N CO -• Co N — - co 0-1 -1 , N (0 0o 0 N O --�► N 01 01 ',1 CO 0) --- O a) --L N O 0 Pt n C) *1.3 () �1 .A 00 N O4 4, 01 CD CO CD -J N 00 --L --L (A) --, -� Co 0) -1 - O 0 0 Co CD Co N) 00 (0 -N 0) �1 N O -' CD O 0 < C ill CO -. W N �1 -A► 01 — CO Co �1 C11 N -.1 (0 Co CO -. - --, -� --- N Co CD .A N -L -� -� N -L Co 0) 0) --• v — N CO -- W o rn rn C) 0 o — (A) -.. o 01 -'. a) -" CD Co -,1 -,1Co -1CA) No -., --L -,1 w 0 -.1 CD �1 0) (A) — -A N 0 0) N -► 01 -. Co W .A _ , • l 1 c_ D D tt 1 1 i 1 . 1 . Z _,? 0 a) co03IQ -, - CA -. I. -,1c .A CO Co ---). -A. 0 N.) -A, Co COLD - - rn rn *11.3 COCo N- N - 0) W -' 01 - 00 01 CO -A N N - co - -- -� N C.0 --1 W Co CO CD �1 N N C11 00 - GJ -,. N 0 -� N ** gg Sulle cn Co N Co CI) a) — 0 0 CD — 0) CO 0 N co --, C11 a) N -.L CA -A --,1 cD N W N 01 -,1 C11 a) - O --L N O 00 01 C00 a D D 13 13 X --- 7:1 4 CO — N N - -� 0) - O GJ 0 — — N 01 - W -A U1 -. -. — CA) 01 , , . , -1 -A cD 0 0) 0 Co — CD CA) �1 --� 0) N W N N 0) 4 › › pti -< _, -< _. a, CA) ---, N) ._.., 0) CO a)(0 (11 (A) -o, N N -, N GJ --L -, W O �1 CO �1 Co CA) - N -, - 0 N 0) -A - W N 0) �1 C- C- C C Z — Z 0 -� W N -,1 .A — 0) --L CD • C11 O .A 0 �1 -,1 N 0 -• -A CO --L -- CA) --,1 01 N 0) -A CD N 01 CD 01 -1 CW CD - N N O co -., , TOWN OF ORO VALLEY P----Ir CIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Finance Report for the Month Ended August 31, 2001 SUMMARY: Attached to this communication is the Finance Report for the month ended August 31, 2001. In light of the recent national tragedy of September 11, we are assessing the potential impact to the Town's General Fund. g y p The impact can be better assessed with next month's report which will provide the data necessary to make a more definitive analysis. GENERAL Select points are as follows: Retail sales tax collections through August 31 are 3% less than the same period last year. This trend projects a $75,000 negative impact at fiscal year end. The local lodging hospitality industry is estimating an occupancy rate of 56% over the next twelve months. This could have a significant negative impact on the local economy. q> State sales tax collections could be significantly impacted due to the tragedy. Revised state sales tax collection estimates are currently not available from the Arizona Department of Revenue. t;k5 The impact of the Governor's proposal to cut 4% from both state sales and income tax distributions to cities and towns would be about $220,000. b Departmental expenditures are under budget. We will closely monitor these figures and provide another update as soon as more information becomes available. Other Funds q> State shared fuel tax collections are tracking to budget. q> Collections from Townwide roadway development impact fees total$269K which is annualizing at $211 K above the budgeted amount of$1,403,000. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 Collections from water connection fees total $199K which is annualizing below budget by $151K. This shortfall will be monitored as the fiscal year progresses. Project costs to date for the Oro Valley Public Library total $1,344,817. Oro Valley Water Utility t:b Revenues from water sales are tracking to budget. $453K of the capital budget has been spent. Current retained earnings are $3,790,274. tea. David L. Andrews Finance Director iLd A__ /4 Chuck Swe-t Town Manager CC: Chuck Sweet,Town Manager All Department Heads Town of Oro Valley GENERAL FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through August 31,2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2112= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Local Taxes $ 498,485 $ 498,485 $ 6,150,000 8.1% State Shared 551,445 - 809,712 6,521,000 12.4% Other Intergovernmental - - 191,329 0.0% Fines 18,316 35,565 220,000 16.2% Licenses & Permits 154,297 294,163 2,240,000 13.1% Charges for Services 38,842 73,435 357,425 20.5% Federal Grants 8,501 8,510 277,441 3.1% State Grants 19,027 19,027 204,500 9.3% Interest Earnings 29,118 29,301 385,000 7.6% Miscellaneous 129 188 25,500 0.7% Fund Balance Carryforward 10,008,603 TOTAL REVENUES 1,318,160 1,768,386 26,580,798 10.7% . EXPENDITURES: Town Council 11,626 24,228 126,408 19.2% Town Clerk 24,220 36,297 321,084 11.3% Magistrate Court 43,686 64,020 489,081 13.1% T^,^in Manager 27,162 38,186 284,953 13.4% an Resources 22,286 30,426 210,374 14.5% E nomic Development 16,307 19,596 706,992 2.8% Finance 34,345 52,756 438,030 12.0% Information Systems 68,718 96,141 315,989 30.4% Legal 54,974 71,685 603,884 11.9% Community Development Administration 41,255 50,611 436,496 11.6% Planning &Zoning 91,870 119,559 1,117,888 10.7% Parks& Recreation 141,633 203,730 1,311,658 15.5% Library Services 8,417 10,895 360,058 3.0% Geographical Information Services 5,778 9,943 110,133 9.0% Police 717,144 961,348 7,323,863 13.1% Police-Grant Contingency - - 93,000 0.0% Building Safety 120,322 134,659 1,235,101 10.9% Public Works 30,112 38,828 321,101 12.1% Custodial & Facility Maintenance 11,110 12,709 146,475 8.7% General Administration: Operations & Maintenance 54,780 62,941 400,198 15.7% Improvements - - 1,341,752 0.0% Equipment 7 1,125 1,125 - 100.0% Transfers to Other Funds - - 1,155,104 0.0% ,Contingency 7,731,176 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,526,870 $ 2,039,683 $ 26,580,798 10.8% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (208,710) $ (271,297) F"^ID BALANCE AT JULY 1,2001 * $ 10,370,093 fir CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 10,098,796 * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley HIGHWAY FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through August 31,2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: State Shared Fuels Tax $ 159,508 $ 159,508 $ 2,350,000 6.8% PAG Reimbursements - - 471,000 0.0% Other Revenues 7,367 29,206 93,000 31.4% Fund Balance Carryforward 1,484,394 TOTAL REVENUES 166,875 188,714 4,398,394 6.5% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 111,417 150,891 1,046,663 14.4% Operations& Maintenance 65,297 72,980 979,535 7.5% Capital Improvements 33,835 33,835 1,436,000 2.4% Equipment& Vehicles 19,790 58,432 115,000 50.8% Contingency 821,196 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 230,339 $ 316,138 $ 4,398,394 8.8% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (63,464) $ (127,424) cUND BALANCE AT JULY 1,2001 * $ 1,656,886 !CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 1,529,462 _ * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through August 31, 2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: HB 2565 State Grant $ - $ - $ 39,174 0.0% Federal Grant $ 182,400 0.0% Local Transportation Assistance Funds 19,575 19,575 170,000 11.5% Other 4,143 7,233 27,000 26.8% Fund Balance Carryforward 228,232 r TOTAL REVENUES 23,718 26,808 646,806 6.4% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 24,504 32,534 245,993 13.2% Operations & Maintenance 6,158 8,972 88,993 10.1% Vehicles 46,404 46,404 228,000 20.4% Contingency 83,820 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 77,066 $ 87,910 $ 646,806 15.6% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (53,348) $ (61,102) !-1. 4D BALANCE AT JULY 1,2001 * $ 238,475 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 177,373 * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley TOWNWIDE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FUND Budget Campared to Actuals Report Through August 31, 2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: PAG Reimbursement $ - $ - $ 4,011,012 100.0% Interest-Investments 22,682 22,682 160,000 14.2% Development Impact Fees 152,608 269,072 1,403,000 19.2% Fund Balance Carryforward 7,061,478 TOTAL REVENUES 175,290 291,754 12,635,490 5.2% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 14,576 19,583 243,925 8.0% Operations & Maintanence 5,325 5,325 284,100 1.9% Capital Improvements 57,114 57,114 9,866,012 0.6% Vehicles - 17,407 9,000 193.4% Contingency 2,232,453 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 77,015 $ 99,429 $ 12,635,490 1.0% ENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 98,275 $ 192,325 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1,2001 * $ 6,776,736 CURRENT FUND BALANCE _ $ 6,969,061 * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION Project Costs From Inception thru August 31, 2001 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Actuals 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 From Inception Project Budget Actuals Actuals Actuals To Date Construction $ 2,952,000 $ - $ 131,554 $ 267,359 $ 398,913 Collections 1,250,000 - - 550,304 550,304 Computers/Telecommunications 80,000 - - - - Interior Furnishings 300,000 - - - - Public Art 30,000 - 2,000 - 2,000 ' Contingency 265,000 - - - - Architectural & Other Professional Services 378,000 70,629 322,971 - 393,600 Total Project Costs $ 5,255,000 _ $ 70,629 _ $ 456,525 $ 817,663 $ 1,344,817 Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER CONNECTION FEES FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through August 31,2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Interest-Investments $ 20,179 $ 20,179 $ 50,000 40.4% Fund Balance Carryforward 6,619,618 TOTAL REVENUES 20,179 20,179 6,669,618 40.4% EXPENDITURES: Capital Outlay - - 2,963,500 0.0% Contingency 3,706,118 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ - $ - $ 6,669,618 0.0% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 20,179 $ 20,179 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1,2001 * $ 7,103,695 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 7,123,874 * ore-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER CONNECTION FEES DEBT SERVICE FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through August 31,2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Single FamilyConnections $ 126,661 $ 198,509 $ 1,242,000 16.0% g Commercial Connections - - 100,000 0.0% Interest - Investments 3,102 3,102 30,000 10.3% Fund Balance Carryforward - - 677,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 129,763 201,611 2,049,000 14.7% EXPENDITURES: Debt Service Payment 1 - - 1,372,000 0.0% Contingency - - 677,000 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ - $ - $ 2,049,000 0.0% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 129,763 $ 201,611 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 2001 * $ 724,035 -'IRRENT FUND BALANCE _ $ 925,646 * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Budgeted Income Statement Through August 31,2001 Percentage of Year Completed 2/12= 16.7% 2000/2001 Percentage August Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed OPERATING REVENUES: Water Revenues $ 513,846 $ 742,511 $ 7,154,300 10.4% Service Charges & Meter Income 33,724 204,747 412,500 49.6% , TOTAL REVENUES 547,570 947,258 7,566,800 12.5% OPERATING EXPENSES: Personnel 136,325 186,576 1,439,160 13.0% Operations &Maintenance 142,090 279,389 2,469,219 11.3% Depreciation &Amortization 85,792 208,838 1,377,200 15.2% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 364,207 674,803 5,285,579 i 12.8% OPERATING INCOME 183,363 272,455 2,281,221 11.9% NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) +^rest Income 33,958 33,958 235,000 14.5% IF ;st Expense 151,300 302,600 1,697,883 17.8% TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) (117,342) (268,642) (1,462,883) NET INCOME $ 66,021 $ 3,813 $ 818,338 RETAINED EARNINGS AT July 1, 2001 * $ 3,786,461 i $ 3,276,783 CURRENT RETAINED EARNINGS $ 3,790,274 $ 4,095,121 * Pre-audit figure. Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Capital Budget Through August 31, 2001 August Y-T-D 2001/2002 % Budget CAPITAL BUDGET Actuals Actuals Total Budget Completed Machinery & Equipment $ - $ - $ 69,900 0.0% Vehicles 20,598 20,598 49,500 41.6% Land - - 500,000 100.0% Meters 3,517 3,517 135,000 2.6% Wells 59,042 59,042 480,000 12.3% Booster Stations - - 650,000 0.0% Transmission/Distribution Main 176,169 176,669 1,904,500 9.3% Reservoirs 193,616 193,616 2,247,000 8.6% Hydrants - - 50,000 0.0% Telemetry - - 160,000 0.0% Structures - - 140,000 0.0% Water Rights - - 5,000,000 0.0% TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $ 452,942 $ 453,442 $ 11,385,900 4.0% . .. .. E a. Rail, ritgt REF 1i ..1 .,..) i _HE] I, ugswm iiitt ..1.1 „ September 2001 Ito ,iii,1 ivt, 2„,,......„.„ ,.,,,, c.;:,:-p;.,:;,-:-i,,„:r,.,,--.......__.--::-Rll..\t::::„6:,-:117.;:,..::...,:cf::z:t:::::_,:ll1,,:::::.„,'.Vi_:,_, gl.,, - .., __,,_ .,,,,,..,_ _. COYOTE RUN . - General Overview of Coyote Run Operations for the month of September 2001 . Total Registered Clients Total Scheduled Trips Total Trips 551 1 ,076 1,017 19 Days of Service Total Service Miles for the Month = 13,160 • Service End Service Total ServiVeh�cie Veh[cle Start , sif- - i I - , - - ,,Number— , titites,, Mites ,.„.•,_ Miles- -**1 1996 Ford 92 140,371 141 ,565 1,194 1996 Ford 96 150,680 152,991 2,311 1998 Ford 64 104,459 107,144 2,685 1999 Dodge 49 59,596 62,059 2,463 2000 Dodge 13 50,055 52,750 2,695 2001 Ford 69 256 2,094 1,838 Average Daily Total Trips = 53.53 Cancellations = 59 , Denials Due to Demand = 0 I A �• 0 0)t N N O �f� to C`�O f� r N N t� ill CD*-.- O CO Auk o;0)00 00 O O N C7 1n Ito^r O MN �•�.�/� r 4 CD O r.-I 6 r 4 V/W O Oka y r r N EA CU F- 6R 6R(A 6R r >- >- >-:11 >- }8 } 'r N. In CD NTOS c ) � cg c0- N V r 0(01 it it r iL r it r ,t i ' _ i c9 2 P.82 ' O O)0 O O j A(0 N V t1). N f I N`�t In CO*^ (U r r N z L r - - al r Cf3 EA 6R Z3 CT)n CO co ki rn , Cdr cv � � c � --. a)rn a�rn a)C.rn m� a� a� co 0) c: I opn'oro c � � � �li PI 8 ` 8 O N to ini —CO O N Ln N II), t IL r tL it it r LL N u_N T-v CD 00 O , i••,€ •`fA r r r 0 Nil LL: ® ■ ❑ 0 ■ • C `- ,4'F l t f l-' 11ti Q ffl Eft 6A Eft r O N f-r 00 p I 0 000 A CD O�8 ,� ' 1i G L r ((DD O T `In N C)C) l �" ili Cis C4 T---C•i.c4 r-, 11 E �1 1 U r t O CD N O� �.* k r A4)C6D 000 , ' a M N N 0000_ '�`� I L.L.p • Q , EAVIVIEA r r r N ;. . 4111 , '.,-- i ..... ..: In r O 0 i CD 0)N In CO Q N CSD 1 t= bR Cl. Q ,Ntisi ) U o ff?fA 7 CC M k)O r- CD C) O 2(n O O N N O)CD r- — co Lf)N�t O Q� . r coin CO 0 EA EA r r°c\I ! ', Q O ii 0 Eft ffl UI '.,. j Iiii Oro >EA NO) o cm p N iii O ,ft w ff3 T.�n CD N ' C .6 ' ,, I— 0?-0 to N in O)o a l C`)C LOf)(DD Cr, � cCC N tC)CO Cn AN 8 ER ER FA r N . - al b.,,s* - i 0 iii NI U. NMI F-, 1- ....co N. o o co I`o COD C - 842E3. 01 r CA r N �.. 'r CC Cll ` • r r r r N r' 1 6R FA f!9 t fA II..\ 'C"r O c. O�p O 0 m O CC)cD t7)cD CD N O O 00�f 0hi bR r N r �n CD C%?n S W N \ _ O 6R N 69~ O r ` . � va4 V Q UIli r . ° oOa000 0 0 O co co In co Tr rn A O N z M O In N m. S CD Q)Q)Q) ►� r Cn >•, N to CD O °� O a7 O CO >+ N CD Ln O r E P N ._ N r _ ,...-- ,—.6 r O O r r 69 fA H9 if) li , WEAEA bR fA r r r Yri, 8 _ 8 is OCA) E ai _ „,(1)0 0 0 0 �_c _ OOOO .CO xxxx Ir1 -6 Q .. Zr, o o o o 1.1 m a N U) 2 U) x 2 2 28 cc cc cc �' ami MIMI Q cc ;1-' ' 1111 x x x x x (9 O , 2E222 b cts ac of c0 cv ~N 00 O)O•- N 0 F- F- H- /- _ to lL lL lL Li! lL O)(7)O)0 0 O tp y N 45 6 -----..._-._ 00 07 r r f� 00 O *- CMCT)�000 a aaaa rnrnrn25gg o� rnm $ g 0) Cn 07 N N N CA Cn 8 § N (DN aoa)oo c o 0 0 �' .. 3rn 3i , rnc3 O)O)Q)0)O O Q 0 0 0 U p)O)Q) -O O 8 8 o r r r r N N co0 00 r .- .- N N T- T- T- N O O O O 0 Q) U) ro W W W W o rn m N 8 Cd ny C0 Co 0) c s C0 0 0 0 0 }}}}}} v ti,-.; c) rng OO000Ooo °' �' °) �' P °' °' °) °' °) 0c0 CU CU CO CU CU11 0) O N V-N O 00 CD V N Or ll U-_it U- U- 11 ,�, LL_u- U IL iL if lL lL IL it it it lL lL ll.. Fr, O• m O m 0 o p o o m ni a = 0 0 0 C w flu m j m m m XI ANN. g � 3 � o � zN � �• rna $- o � � o � XXp O n 3 6 0 C.!' • 5 72. o — cn o m < a o 0 0 00 0cp �' N • cu m •o Co N -_v - 0 C co < (1) < cn 3 n c f w cn V S n o n w 1 r � � 4) ma) 373 , 50u) rn0 ° c �' owa arn � r a FYI • a) () j 0. CD o N U) con N 3 C cn n P. N o O -< CD =o �' cmn o 7 N Z U) o 00000000000000 � � c0000n w w W w w w w w w w w N • I.) GJ N N N) N N) N) N) N •, -a - 0 w !L,3 C,3 N) 0 0 0 fn 00 11 CO �l CA w N --, OCD 00 w CP CO -I CD N m 0 I m o 0) �, co JO) ow wE -I IC) C c 40 40 o r m m 4N. 0 w 0 CSDCmZ N O D -1 CA 0) 0) 0 oo O Omo CO t° 40 C° Z p3 z '4 ', N .tea Eft Eft N Eft Eft Eft 40 m 0) N wIA 0) CO 0 (0U) ...a-03 -4 a)) m O W N CTI 40 w (Oa) CA COJ, O � C�T1 O) C lo — O j I m w0 01 0 •-� w00 •, 000000000 wwo cDONOa) o0mE -�m OC - r .w, CO COom{� N N N CO Z Z C71 N 034A EA- •A En Efl- Eft EH Eft H9 Efl Efl Efl Eft to co Efl U,Efl EA co m -I 0 o)O) NO c�D O " Cn00r000000000 A w000 9 o Z 2 73 j co co _a N O CO 0 CO 0) - m rn Ca� m In --I 4 > .., -� �a ..a _a -u N 3 0 0) 0) -.. 0) 000W00000000 Q) N ., 0 CO CA CD 0 u, 3 m os CO Cl) O D -I m o N W Eft N Eft Eft Eft Eft N < O N— co to ul W N in Eft Eft CO Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft -� 0)Eft al to W co 00 EA NCD m z SCA o0 o NO) R000 .p00000000 0 NC08 � aO z m o v o CA tD 11 0) — 0 ..,Ti) N CO 0 N C -< CA u' 0 �"' w 'v Nm rn > M , m C) -- Foo) C� C"1 -, -a - O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w N •A 0 _I 00 N 3 '_ o -� A w cr, -4 C Cl) -1 -< < mm 404040 a► E0 {ft 0 .11....n , . < ft Eft- m m w . ., w U E'o U N �� y w m 0 -.. �1 CO -i N„ N•- i_ Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft A -�I 0 tG (00) 40t000000000 1p �D OO 00 -A •-.4 �1 �_N Z m N OD 00 �► 0 ~1 ol 5; 00 CO 0) Oo 0 O CJ, �1 C) 00 C O) 0) N 0 w -a O O N _, m 0 co . D r m C) C w O V CA N 00 O N -a .A 0 0 0 -, 0 0 0 0 M m Cn N 0 m .N 0 0 3 C 4 C U -Imm 0 D eovtio to �► to -� R1 0)i O W Efl j rCCDD N CSO W �► EA Eft E-Z N milli < CO 0 C)Eft w O Eft Eft Eft to- Eft to Eft Efl N v v al Eft Eft Cn m Cl) > IL CA O N O Q) CO 0O000000 CT, O CQ COJ, O �1 O 1J Z 0 NN) w 11 0) -� t0 O U] CN N) N - t m cn n • E Z TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Lory Warren, Street Superintendent SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R) 01-91 Acceptance of a proposal and award of Contract OV30-01/02 10 "Annual Special Maintenance Projects". SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works has advertised and solicited bids for the Annual Special Maintenance Projects Contract OV30-01/02 10. This contract will provide the Town of Oro Valley with an ""On- Call" contractor and their equipment for special street and drainage maintenance needs that the Town of Oro Valley Public Works employees are not equipped or skilled to do. Reimbursement under this contract is mostly on a "per hour" quote for equipment with operator. One bid was received. This bid was the bid from Southern Arizona Paving in the amount of $ 33,060. The Town of Oro Valley has the option of renewing this contract for an additional two (2) years. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 001-.1 FISCAL IMPACT: Contract amount of $33,060.00 to come from the Highway Funds. The Department of Public Works budgeted $50,000.00 for this contract in the 2001/2002 fiscal year budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the implementation of this program. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve Resolution (R) 01- 91 Or I move to deny Resolution (R) 01-91 '4\'' '' ''--\-x---- IV L.01,-,....L._ ----- Department H/Lee, Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL AND AWARD CONTRACT 0V30-01/02 10 FOR THE ANNUAL SPECIAL MAINTENANCE PROJECTS CONTRACT. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley Department of Public Works has advertised and accepted bids for Annual Special Maintenance Projects Contract; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has verified that the lowest responsive bid is from Southern Arizona Paving for $33,000.00; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has the option of renewing this contract for an additional two (2) years; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley Department of Public Works has verified that Southern Arizona Paving has complied with all preliminary requirements in the contract necessary to accept and award Contract 0V30-01-02 10 for the Annual Special Maintenance Projects contract. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: Authorizing the Mayor to approve the contract with Southern Arizona Paving for the Annual Special Maintenance Projects Contract OV30- 01-02 10. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 17 th day of, Oc fi ob e r, 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date Date TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ;OUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17,2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Robert Jacklitch Project Manager, Oro Valley Water Utility SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R) 01- 9 2 A Resolution of the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona Authorizing and Approving a Contract with WestLand Resources, Inc. for Professional Engineering Design and Construction Period Services for a new E zone Well SUMMARY: Thispj roect provides professional engineering design and construction period services for equipping a new E- zone well. Thispj roect is identified in the Oro Valley Water System Master Plan and in the first year of the five-year capital plan.improvement WestLand Resources will provide plans and specifications for pumping and piping equipment required to deliver potable water for the new E Zone production well to our existing system. Based on the fact that the well will be drilled prior to equipping the engineers will be using existing Geo-technical reports required for site design. The Oro Valley Water Utility (OVWU) requested Statement of Qualifications from multiple engineering firms. The OVWU staff rated the firm's capabilities on project understanding, approach, project team and firms capabilities. Staff selected WestLand Resources, Inc and negotiated a contract fee of $80,500 for Professional Engineering Design and Construction Services.The following is a breakdown of services: Design = $ 36,500 Contract Administration = 24,000 Inspection = 20,000 Total Contract $ 80,500 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are identified in the 2001-2002 year budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff respectfully recommends award of this contract to WestLand Resources,Inc. through the adoption of the attached Resolution (R) 01- 9 2 ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT#1 Resolution No. (R) 01-9 2 SUGGESTED MOTION: The Mayor and Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve the Resolution (R) 01 -9 2 Authorizing and Approving a Contract with WestLand Resources, Inc. for Engineering Design and Construction Period Services for a New E Zone Well. Or I move to F Project Mana r 13* W. .ty Dire or Town Manag r EXIIIBIT , 0,0:7,,Ntj-.1‘11-1,DE,:,.0,.. ,,,,,,,,;,_.: ,A , .„,,,„„,,,,,4„..,,ii, ,, ie.,,,,„4,,,,,,0 , ,,,,,. ,., ..,,,„,,,,.,,,..,„,,,,,,,,,,t,,,, _ 'A'l'....''''..-.P;4iii, 4,7.77.k:---,',44A °a':ik:.:,,c,tc,',..... .--',:':::1,:ii,r. : ''-'.1'; .-p . e_ ,,....:...,...., _ . .A.7::Qiii;•:;;i:':':ii&li, *82'`..";;;.. ...:,_c::-& ).--- Aso.-,,,,,,,,,;--------4- -....• -A,.. ED'01= � ` _ RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND WESTLAND RESOURCES INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES FOR A NEW E ZONE WELL. WHEREAS, the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, andursuant to Article 13, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, is vested with p all rights, privileges,rivile es, benefits, and is entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of p Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into this Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, with WestLand Resources, Inc., and that Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, authorize and approve the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that the Contract (attached hereto as Exhibit A) between the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, and WestLand Resources, Inc. is authorized to be signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and any other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Contract. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 17th day of October , 2001 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney EXHIBIT A Contract Is> :3"." A•„ utiNDED �PLLEY qR�n c'-4,10-. ',,,;;;*dsiaa`H. °UNDER'\g1 AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES PROJECT TITLE: Contract with WestLand Resources, Inc. for Professional Engineering Design, and Construction Period Services for New E Zone Well PROJECT NO.: OVWU01/00 04 This contract is made and entered into by and between the Town of Oro Valley, a municipal Corporation, hereinafter called the TOWN and WestLand Resources Inc.hereinafter called the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, the Mayor and Town Council/Town Manager of the Town of Oro Valley are authorized and empowered by the revisions of the Town Charter to execute contracts for Professional Services; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT as follows: SECTION I-DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The project will consist of providing plans and specifications for pumping and piping equipment required to deliver potable water for the New E Zone production well. SECTION II-SCOPE OF SERVICES See WestLand Resources,Inc.,proposal September 26,2001.Attachment"B" This project shall set aside 1% of the construction cost for the public art. SECTION III-PAYMENT SCHEDULE The negotiated fee process shall be utilized for this contract. For services described in Section II of this Agreement, the TOWN shall pay the ENGINEERING fee as negotiated. Payment shall be made monthly on the basis of progress reports. An Application and Certification for Payment Sheet must be provided. In addition, the following must also be included: a clear, detailed invoice reflecting items being billed for, a summary sheet showing percentage of work completed to date, amount/percent billed to date and current status of all tasks within the project; any/all backup documentation supporting the above items. Work schedule updates will be included in the monthly progress payment requests. SECTION IV-PERIOD OF SERVICE Following receipt of a "Notice to Proceed" with the work, the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall complete all services described in Section II within 120 calendar days after "Notice to Proceed" is issued by the TOWN. In the event delays are experienced beyond the control of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, the completion date may be extended as mutually agreed upon by TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. SECTION V—APPROVALS All work shall be subject to the approval by the Oro Valley Water Utility. ENGINEERING CONSULTANT agrees to exercise the skill and care which would be exercised by comparable professional engineers performing similar services at the time and in the locality such services are performed. If the failure to meet these standards results in faulty work, ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall undertake at its own expense, the corrective adjustments or modifications. SECTION VI--REPORTING Written monthly reports, along with updated work schedules, will be made by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT in the formatescribedthe TOWN. These reports will be delivered to the TOWN no later than the 561 of the following month. ln' by When requested by the TOWN, the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT will attend Council meetings and provide finished documents including correspondence for Council action, supporting charts,graphs drawings and colored slides of same. SECTION VII—LIABILITY See Attachment A SECTION VIII--AMENDMENTS Whenever a change in the scope of work contemplated in this Contract is determined to be necessary, the work will be performed in accordance with the Contract provided,however,BEFORE such work is started, a Contract Amendment shall be executed by the TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. Additions to, modifications of, or deletions from the project provided herein may be made and the compensation to be paid to the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT may be adjusted accordingly by mutual agreement of the contracting parties. It is agreed that no claim for extra work by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT will be allowed by the TOWN except as provided herein, nor shall the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT do any work not covered by this agreement unless such work is authorized through an executed amendment. SECTION IX—TERMINATION The TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants contained herein, except that the TOWN reserves the right,at its discretion,to terminate or abandon the service provided for in this Contract or abandon any portion of the project for which services have been performed by the CONSULTING ENGINEER. A. In the event that the TOWN shall abandon the services or any part of the services herein provided, the TOWN shall notify the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT in writing and immediately after receiving such notice, the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall discontinue advancing the work under this Contract and shall proceed to close such operations. B. Upon such termination or abandonment, the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall deliver to the TOWN all drawings, notes, calculations, sketches and other materials entirely or partially completed, together with all unused materials supplied by the TOWN. C. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall apprise the work he has completed and submit his appraisal to the TOWN for evaluation. D. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall receive as compensation in full for services performed to date of such termination, a fee for the percentage of work actually completed. This fee shall be a percentage of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT fee described in this Contract under Section III and shall be in the amount to be agreed mutually by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT and the TOWN. The TOWN shall make this final payment within sixty (60) days after the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT has delivered the last of the partially completed items. SECTION X--LIQUIDATED DAMAGES If the work to be performed by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT under Section II of this agreement is not completed when agreed, the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall pay to the TOWN $500.00 as liquidated damages for each day the work remains incomplete alter the scheduled completion date. This amount is agreed upon because of the impracticability and extreme difficulty of ascertaining the actual damages the TOWN would sustain.The scheduled completion date for terminating liability for liquidated damages shall be 360 consecutive days from the effective date of TOWN'S "Notice to Proceed"to ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. For the purpose of determining liquidated damages,if any,completion time shall be extended only when delay in completion of the work by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT results from an unforeseeable cause beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. SECTION XI---ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES Any dispute arising under this contract which is not settled by the TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT may upon mutual agreement of the parties be decided by an Arbitration Board composed of a representative of the TOWN,a representative of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, and a representative mutually acceptable to the TOWN and the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. The TOWN,however, reserves its rights as set forth in Title 12, Chapter 9, Article I of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall continue to render all services requested in this Contract without interruption, notwithstanding the provisions of this section. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require arbitration except at the TOWNs discretion. SECTION XII—OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents, including,but not limited to, tracings, drawings, original mylars, estimates,field notes, investigations, design analysis and studies which are prepared in the performance of this Contract are to be,and remain the property of,the TOWN. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall furnish the TOWN, upon its request, originals or reproducible of technical specifications and copies of all other documentslisted above. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT shall endorse, by his professional seal,all plans and engineering data furnished by hint SECTION XIII—NO KICK-BACK CERTIFICATION The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT warrants that no person has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,brokerage or contingent fee; and that no member of the Town Council or any employee of the TOWN has an interest,financial or otherwise,in the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT For breach or violation of this warranty, the TOWN shall have the right to annul this Contact without liability, or at its discretion to deduct from the Contract Price or consideration,the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee. SECTION XIV—CONFLICT OF INTEREST The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT stipulates that its officers and employees do not now have a conflict of interest and it further agrees for itself,its officers and its employees that it will not contract for or accept employment for the performance of any work or services with any individual business, corporation or government unit that would create a conflict of interest in the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Contract. Pursuant to AR S. Section 38-511, the TOWN may cancel this contract within three (3) years after its execution, without penalty or further obligation by the TOWN if any person significantly involved in initiating,negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract on behalf of the Town of Oro Valley is, at any time while the contract is in effect, an employee of any other party to the contract in any capacity or a consultant to any other party of the contract with respect to the subject matter of the contract. SECTION XV—ASSIGNMENT This Contract shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the parties hereto; and it shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs,executors,administrators,successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT may assign money due to him under terms of this Contract to a banking or lending institute. The TOWN shall assist the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT in performing the assignment by testifying to the progress of the work as may be required. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have hereunto subscribed their names this day of ,20 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: ENGINEERING CONSULTANT: By: By: Paul H.Loomis,Mayor e! � (title) A1"1'EST: ATTEST: (If Corporation) Secretary Katherine E.Cuvelier,Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: WITNESS: (If Individual or Partnership) Dan Dudley,Town Attorney N 0 eN 0 .x44,41.41S-kkg4::/,' 1/4j,, <ZL"' , , ‘, •73, • * * .-• d< St t4 °tINDED ( ATTAcontract ToCcoIIME ATTACHMENT A The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT agrees to obtain insurance coverage of the types and amounts required consistent with the coverage limits shown below. Coverage Afforded Limits of Liability Workmen's Compensation Statute Employer's Liability $100,000 Comprehensive General $1,000,000-Bodily Injury Liability Insurance Combined Single Limit (including blanket contractual $100,000 Property Damage and premises/operations) Professional Liability Insurance $500,000(Minimum) Combined Single Limit The ENGINEERING CONSULTANT will provide satisfactory certificates on the required insurance coverage before beginning work. All policies will contain an endorsement providing that written notice be given to the TOWN at least thirty (30)calendar days prior to termination,cancellation,or reduction in coverage policy. Insurance policies shall remain in force until all work has been completed and the completed project has successfully fulfilled its warranty period. If a policy does expire during the life of the Contract, a renewal certificate of the required coverage must be sent to the Town of Oro Valley not less than five(5)work days prior to expiration date. Each certificate shall include project description,and project number and the signed acknowledgement of the insurance company. The Town of Oro Valley will be included as an additional insured on all policies except Worker's Compensation and Professional Liability. Policies for General,Automobile,and Excess Liability are primary over any insurance available to the TOWN and as to any claims resulting from the Contract, it being the intention of the parties that the insurance policies so effected shall protect both parties and be primary coverage for any and all losses covered by the described insurance. In regard to Professional Liability, ENGINEERING CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Town of Oro Valley, its Mayor and Council, appointed boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees individually and collectively;from all losses, claims, suits,actions,payments and judgments, demands, expenses, attorney's fees, defense costs, or actions of any kind and nature resulting from personal injury to any person, including employees of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT or of any subcontractor employed by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT (including bodily injury and death)or damages to any property, arising or alleged to have arisen solely out of the negligent performance of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT for the work performed hereunder. Furthermore,ENGINEERING CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town of Oro Valley, its Mayor and Council, appointed boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees individually and collectively; against any an all claims arising out of errors, omissions or negligent acts in the performance of services by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT. The amount and type of insurance coverage requirements set forth in the Contract will in no way be construed as limiting the scope of indemnity in this paragraph. In regard to General,Automobile,and Excess Liability,the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify,defend and save harmless the Town of Oro Valley, its Mayors and Council, appointed boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, individually and collectively,from all losses, claims,suits, actions,payments and judgments,demands,expenses, attorney's fees, defense costs, or actions of any kind and nature resulting from personal injury to any person, including employees of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT or any subcontractor employed by the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT (including bodily injury and death) or damages to any property, arising or alleged to have arisen out of the negligent performance of the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT for the work to be performed hereunder,except any injury or damages arising out of the sole negligence of the TOWN, its officers, agents or employees. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES to this Contract that the Town of Oro Valley,its Mayors and Council,appointed boards and commissions,officials, officers, employees, individually and collectively, are to be indemnified against their own negligence unless and except that negligence is found to be the sole cause of the injury to persons or damages to property. The amount and type of insurance coverage requirements set forth in the Contract will in no way be construed as limiting the scope of indemnity in this paragraph ABI LITY INSURANCcESTL-1 OP ID DS DATE(MM/DD/YY} Acc��� CER�"1 FiCAT'E �F L 06/27/01 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Stuckey Ins & Assoc Agencies HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,EXTEND OR 0. Box 7020 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE ROLICIES`:BELOW; )enix AZ 85011-7020 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE. rnone: 602-2 64-5533 Fax:602-27 9-9 3 3 6 - ;r`7= Pi:;, INSURED .._ ---- ---- ._._. - - - __ -- INSURER'A:" _ •SeCuri.ty..Ins Co oft''_Hartfo d9r, .. - .::.t.._.._ INSURER B: '- .:. .' .':}�`'.... i, ��� tc, INSURER C: - - F-.-:----- ,n.,,+.(7. '4'.--' -- . - Westland Resources Inc ` .� �' 2343 E Broadway #202 INSURER D: jy.. Tucson AZ 8571 .`.�_ _,--. l l INSURER E: �-` COVERAGES -- THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATE?,NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY.CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY-BE:ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE(MM/DD/YY1 DATE(MM/DD/YY) LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $ CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED EXP(Any one person) $ 1 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ I GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ - - ---1 POLICY PRO LOC JECT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per person) - .. $ --... SCHEDULED AUTOS HIREDoAUTOS '` ` : BODILY INJURY • . .__ - _ (Per accident). $ NON-OWNED AUTOS -1,;.:.. . . • . • PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) • GARAGE LIABILITY - - AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTOEA ACC $ OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $. $ WC STA I U- OTH- WORKERS COMPENSATION AND TORY LIMITS ER EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY EL.EACH ACCIDENT $ . E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER A Prof Liability AEE0111658 02/26/01 02/26/02 2000000 2000000 per claim aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS Professional Liability - Claims Made - $5000 deductible - Retro date 2-26-97 RE: Professional Engineering, Design, Bidding, Spection and Construction Period Services for New E-Zone well, booster station improvements at the Bid Wash Water Plant and New Country side Booster Station and Offsite Main WP # 3 to Bald Eagle a CERTIFICATE HOLDER N ADDITIONAL INSURED;INSURER LETTER: CANCELLATION OROVA-3 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN Oro Valley Water Utility NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Robert Jacklitch IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER,ITS AGENTS OR 11000 N LaCanada Dr Oro Valley AZ 85737 REPRESENTATIVE& AUTHORIZED REPRESENT I E 1 • ACORD 25-S(7197) 4iceri.L/ ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988 1 (S , .,!.. ruNn :� _: Certificate of Insurance . . :,IL,.:. -� TUCSON ( 520} 292,,-4000 06/27/01 WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Name of Insured: WESTLAND RESOURCES INC �- 234.3 E BROADWAY BLVD STE 202 Certificate Mailed To: TUCSON AZ 85719 6007 ATTN ROBERT JACKLITCH ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Date Issued: 06•/27/200 . 11000 N LACANADA DR Certificate Number: P0064 ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Policy Number: 285664 Origin Date: 02/27/1997 Expiration Date: . 02/01/2002 12:01 A.M. Liability Limits (000 Omitted) 1 , 000/1 , 000/1 , 000 Description of Operations: _ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING/DESIGN/BIDDING/SPECTION/CONST -7,- ,< PERIOD •SVCS VARIOUS* AZ LOCATIONS : .. -----„,..7,,::7. .3:•(:.,.. .„ N _....7,' 4. ._..,,, ,,,, y \ - , , .., .;,,.\ i,,:, SA s L°'" , ,l'..,1 F . ,,, \-::::,,, icr,, \ . \\::: +. ',J N\,yd r-- This Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. • This certificate does not amend,extend, or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed hereon. This is to certify a workers'compensation policy has been issued to the insured listed hereon and is in force for the period referenced. Certificate Issued To: ATTN ROBERT JACKLITCH John Webster ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Authorized Representative 11000 N LACANADA DR f ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 61-004 08-99 JUL-10-2001 TUE 03:06 PM WESTLAND RESOURCES INC. FAX NO, 520 206 9518 P, 02 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Bloomington,Illinois ��, r•��� � at � STATE FARM ��ticln D STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois ,;, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Scarborough, Ontario �'.�_� "= D [] STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Winter Haven, Florida 'NSU ANC 0 STATE FARM LLOYDS, Dallas,TexH9 Insures the following policyholder for the coverages indicoted below: Name of policyholder WESTTAND RESoTJRCE5 INC Address of policyholder olic holder 2343 m. BRoADWAY, STD Z 02, TunON AZ 85719 Location-o#operations 017.0 'MLLE AZ w Doecri tion of operatlon� CONSULTING SzRVICE5 is P • e® issued to the policyholder for the policy periods shown- The insurance described in these policies The pol-c--- !l9ted below ha-o been P y subject to all the terms exclusions, and conditions of those pol1es• The limits of liability shown may have been reduced by any paid claims, — POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY • OLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date ; Expiration s (et b�Qinning of policy period) P �C]DILY INJURY AND 3- 5-6ao5-0 Coat rehenslve 3/17/2001 3/17l2002 � Hp Business Liability : .. PROPERTY DAMAGE Prod cts-Completed Operations Yhi9 insurance includes; inu 21 Contractual Liability ❑ Underground Hazard coverage Each Occurrence $ 1,000,000 9 , IDPemonni Injury 23 Advertising injuryGeneral Aggregate $2,000,000 0 Explosion Hazard Coverage Hazard Coverage Products—Completed $ O Collapse Operations Aggregate ❑ PROPERTY DAMAGE POLICY PERIOD BODILY INJURY AND PR EXCESS LIABILITY Effective Date ; Expiration tea (Combined Single Limit) � Umbrella 3/1?/2001 3/.7/2042 Each Occurrence 3 2,000,000 mi__,__________,_A ro Arte❑Other' g� Part 1 STATUTORY Part 2 BODILY INJURY Workers'Compensation and Em io ars Liability Ench Accident. $ P Y Disease Each Employee $ Disease Polley Limit $ POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE ' Effective Date 3iration Date _ tad beginning of policy period L___ I THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY MENDS EXTENDS OR ALTtY G THE COVEROE APPROVED BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN. A It any of the described policies are canceled before its expiration date, State Form-will try to mail a written notice to the certificate holder 30 days before Name and Address.of Certificate Holder • cancellation. If however, we fall to mall such notice, no •4;ligation or liability will be imposed on State CRC v ,1.z/ WATIER UTYMMTX Far' or it- -•-=nkr repro en eS, /j RoSERT JACXLI T cit 11000 N La CANADA DRI _ ,�% ,e,...4r' Ono VALLEY 2 B573/ Signature of •u.5* • - p--.- I. he ;WENT 1Glinsin Title bite r � �. Agent's Code Stamp G � FLANAGAN 1450 AFC��d .. • TUSON BAST F752 �--�.� o�-�ase Primed In U.s JUL-10-20D1 TUE 03:07 PM WESTLAND RESOURCES INC, FAX NO. 520 206 9518 T. 03 o7io9/o1 moN 15:04 FAX 50-6752 �� poky N0. 93"814 5-6005-4 PATS ISM ADDITIONAL.INSURED ENDORSEMENT Owners, Lessees or Contractors (Form B) Policy NO.: 93-81-60Q5-0 Named!floured: �s�,nrta 1�X�cVs INC ;sm;otP.Tlon at organhetion: ORS VARY wATsF. 1rrY7rxTY C/o ROBERT C'ACKI,ITCH ziouo 11 zAr.MnaR na ORO VALLEY AZ 55737 RED, Is amended to inciucia WHO IS AN INSURED, n shown�boV•Nbut only wiII th respect�TION OF )liability arising out of your work tor that Insured am Insured the person dr organization by or for you. ptinW M USA, aim - JUL1 0-2001 TUE 03:07 PM WESTLAND RESOURCES INC. FAX NO. 520 206 951.8 P. 04 CERTIFICATE OF INSuKRN �� CAHG���O OR OTHERWISE Off THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER WILL NOT BELOW, BUT IN NO NCE AS RESPECTS THE INTEREST 1C! TO THE CERTIFICATE NOLD�A NAMED 1NSUt�ANCE SUCH 1NSUpA VT alV1N0 10 DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOT w 0FROM THE DATE WRITTEN, THIS CERTIFICATE � EAMIHaTLD VI11TN ! ICA'TE �E VALID MORE THAN 30 DAVE fR 'ENT SN11LL THIS CERT� PROVIDED BY ANY POLICY p1sSCN!®LD BELOW. ��S NOT CHANGETHEC4tiER�AGE PAOV o�Bloomington, lilinold, of This a il�a trial; lia STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANYTY COMPANY of Bioo rOson,tylnaL n STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY e in fade for the following Named insured as Shown below; hac c�v 4 a8 WESTLAND RESOURCES INC Narnecl insured - Address of Named Insured 2343 E bRO*DWAY BLVD STE 2012 Z 857.19-60,21______-__---_ ' - �-�- o�� 8012 X03 Qag 99g1 ��4' , 18 7947 C29 009 0+431 AZ7 791 B15 428 4075 El7 N 009 157 A28 412 '9 Po�ucY Num 'no 0526 EZO . - li'PECTEvE DATE oF cY - ..0--.-- d, '4 0 Ford 1 5 0 _ 9 6 Ford F2 g,8. Islissan = , 00 Ford Expo 15p - a�, Cord. 25040 ViNICLPrbN o� 9 9 GMC Yukon 00 Ford �' v�H��E 9 8 Isuzu t�----11 .._. Irl 1.� NO YES 0 No NO L.1�8r1 mr GOVZRAt� , El YESQ NO in , - -- WAITS OF LWWU as WE*WIPPY dd���� �l .+ '..n.w�wr� ,, '� 'j V _ -r- ♦- Cie b. Property DUB - -- 1,000,000 .a MOI � Ini d t 1,000,000 1 O00,000 _ ar,�.P Sind.UM 1,000,000 .-:.ii YES [J NO [J YES Q Na PHYSICAL DAMAGE CDY� 0 NO C] n YES El No 'OVERAGES Ded�tible i Dodudlbb S„_____._ Deductible U�ttlble S— No p �YEs [:::1 N0 Q Y� . C�n'p+°trn�w _ i YES ( N �]Y� [� No ED �� 1.1....r_______Ded,) �o S 4. p�uct1...2______.„..L.... ,. Dodix� F3Ac YEA'SNOYE& NO �] YES No NON-OWNERSHIP ri YES 0 NO D YES 0 VEAACie • , ' E]YES Q NO CD YES ]NO Q YES NO HIRED CAR COVERAGE C=I YES a N &Tatum of Authorized Representative Title Agent's Code Number Date Name and Address of Cartlticata Molderr 7 r Name and Address of Agent Oro Valley Water Utility Gerald Flanagan 11400 N. La Canada Dr 6590 E. Tanque Verde Oro Valley AZ 85737 Tucson AZ 85715 . L J L_ - CERT1FICATE HOLDER COPY ' r 11;,‘LEY 7=7,,,- AdiatiPSON 0 0 - r,, ‘jUNDED‘N`j ATTACHMENT B WestLand Resources,Inc. Proposal WestLand Resources, Engineering and Environmental Consultants 4- , /5 September 26, 2001 Mr. Robert Jacklitch, Project Manager ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY 11,000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 RE: REVISED PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN, BIDDING,INSPECTION,AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES FOR NEW E ZONE WELL AT WATER PLANT NO. 4 WESTLAND PROPOSAL NO.P.1247.01 Dear Mr. Jacklitch: In accordance with your request, WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand) is pleased to provide the Oro Valley Water Utility (OVWU) a fee proposal for the professional engineering services required for equipping a new E-Zone well as defined in the Town's 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). It is our understanding that a new well will be located by Brown and Caldwell and drilled within the next three to six months. The scope of services associated with WestLand's portion of the design of this project will be to provide plans and specifications for the pumping and piping equipment required to deliver potable water from the new production well to the Water Plant No. 4 reservoir. The following is a detailed list of services we propose to provide for this project. These services include coordination with other consultants, professional engineering design, bidding, and construction period and inspection services for the project. TASK 1.0-PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES • 1.1 COORDINATION WestLand proposes to coordinate with the consultants selected by the OVWU for other design services at the Water Plant No. 4 site. We propose to incorporate our plans and specifications into one document for all work to be provided at Water Plant No. 4. 1.2. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING WestLand proposes to provide professional structural engineering services required for the design of the project. Services will include miscellaneous structural design for pump and tank pads as required for the project. 1.3. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WestLand proposes to provide electrical design services relating to the installation and operations of the proposed well to be installed at the site. The plans and specifications for the project will include the design of pump starting and control equipment, connection into the existing Remote Telemetry Unit (RTU) at the site, static water level monitoring, liquid chlorination pumping equipment, air compressor equipment, flowmeter, and site lighting as required for station operations. Q:\Proposals\1247 e-zone well prop rev2.doc 2343 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 202 Tucson, AZ 85719 520.206.9585 Fax 520.206.9518 Mr. Robert Jacklitch September 26, 2001 Page 2 1.4. SITE CIVIL ENGINEERING WestLand proposes to provide site civil design for the project. The design will include equipping the new production well. The plans and specifications for the project will include site grading, site piping, well pump motor and bowl assembly design, and connection details required for the construction of the project. A technical memo will be written and provided with the plans and specifications for the project to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ) for review and approval. WestLand assumes that all site survey, native plant salvage, environmental permit studies, and geotechnical reports will be provided by others. WestLand proposes to provide the services listed in Task 1.0, Professional Design Services for a lump sum fee of$36,500. TASK 2.0-CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT Our scope of services for this task is based upon our experience in implementing projects for the Oro Valley Water Utility and meetings with Oro Valley Water Utility staff regarding expected levels of effort for project management. We have broken down the expected levels of staff effort for these services by task for appropriate personnel in the following table. STAFF WORK EFFORT MATRIX Project Project Project Manager Engineer Inspector Administration Task Identification How :ours Hours (Hours) Coordination and Meetings 10 10 1 Pre-Bid Meeting 2 2 2 1 Issue Addenda(If Required) 1 5 1 Bid Related Q&A 2 10 5 Bid Opening 1 2 1 Bid Tabulations 2 1 Council Communications 21 Issue Notice of Award 2 1 Pre-Construction Meeting 2 2 2 1 Issue Notice to Proceed 2 1 Review Submittals 15 10 Technical Resolutions 40 40 5 Pay Request Evaluations 20 20 4 Final Walk Through 5 5 'As Constructed'Drawings 5 10 10 Engineers Certificate of Completion 2 5 5 1 Final PCDEQ Submittal 1 2 5 1 Sub-Total 28 134 104 20 WestLand's expected levels of effort and staff classifications are shown above in our STAFF WORK EFFORT MATRIX. Due to the fact that it is difficult to quantify the level of effort required for all of the tasks listed above, we propose to provide the services listed for this task on a time and materials basis per Q:1Proposals11247 a-zone well prop reV2.doc Mr. Robert Jacklitch September 26, 2001 Page 3 the attached rate schedule (attached). Using the staff requirements shown above, our fee is estimated to be$21,350, therefore,we propose to provide these services on a time and materials basis with a budget of $24,000. This budget number includes reimbursable items such as reproductions and mileage. TASK 3.0-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Due to special nature of the improvements proposed, WestLand proposes an extensive effort to fully inspect the project for the water utility and to submit an Engineer's Certificate of Completion to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. We propose to provide civil, structural, and electrical inspection services for the entire project. Our inspectors will spend an average of 20 hours per week for the inspections throughout the project duration. Based upon the above-described services, WestLand proposes to inspect the project for a lump sum fee of $20,000. SUMMARY A summary of the tasks described above follows: TaskCost r..:.. Task 1. Professional Design Services $36,500 Task 2. Contract Administration and Project Management $24,000 Task 3. Construction Inspection $20,000 TOTAL $80,500 WestLand appreciates the opportunity to provide this proposal to the Oro Valley Water Utility and hopes to continue our working relationship on this and future projects. If you have any questions regarding our scope of services, or if additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, WestLand Resources, Inc. h_cri,v7e-th,„„fik Thomas A. Martinez, P.E. Project Manager TAM:d1 Attachment: Billing Rate Schedule cc: Mark F. Taylor, P.E.,WestLand Resources, Inc. Q:\Proposals\1247 a-zone well prop rev2.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Alan Forrest, Water Utility Director • RESOLUTION NO. (R) 013 3 ; A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO sUBJECT. VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PROVIDING FOR DELIVERY OF CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT INCENTIVE RECHARGE WATER November 17, 1999 the Mayor& Council approved an intergovernmental agreement between the SUMMARY: On Y p . r Conservation District (CAWCD) and the Town of Oro Valley providing for the delivery of Central Arizona Wate Incentive Recharge Water. Since that time, the CAWCD has entered into a stipulation with Central Arizona Projectg g disputes United States to g resolve certain lon -standin diutes regarding CAWCD's repayment obligation for the and other CAWCD's authority to sell excess CAP water. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) matters, including stipulation confirmed that CAWCD has the exclusive right to sell excess CAP water, but imposed certain requirements on excess water contracts. Therefore, to be deemed approved by the United States; all incentive recharge water contracts must comply with the terms of the stipulation regarding excess water. recharge water contracts, such as the one held by the Town of Oro Valley do not comply with the Current incentive CAP repayment stipulation and must be replaced. Consequently, the CAWCD is in the process of converting all of their incentive recharge contracts to the new form and would like to complete the process as soon as possible. The eq CAWCD has requested that the Town execute and return the new contract by October 31, 2001, in order to g continue to receive incentive recharge water. "Incentive Recharge Water" is defined as specially priced Excess Water made available by it ble CAWCD to M&I subcontractors on an annual basis for recharge purposes only. Goundwater savings are considered a form of recharge. The Town of Oro Valley has an M&I allocation of 2,294 acre-feet of CAP water per year. As are all owners of a CAP allocation, the Town is obligated to pay a capital charge to the CAWCD, currently set at $43.00 per acre-foot Of allocation per year. The CAWCD has approved an incentive water delivery charge of $45.00 per acre-foot for calendar yearComparatively,d 2001. Com arativel , the standard M&I price for delivered CAP water is $58.00 per acre-foot. of takingadvantage of incentive priced, through participation in the groundwater savings program, is The purpose g the Term accrual of LongStorage Credits. Accrual of storage credits, now, will in the long term, save the Town g money and will assist the Town in remaining in compliance with the Assured Water Supply rules. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. (R) 01 - 9 3 B. Central Arizona Project Incentive Recharge Contract C. CAWCD letter dated August 13, 2001- S. Brenneman FISCAL IMPACT: Purchase of CAP water under the incentive program and putting the water in storage Savings) now will cost $45.00 per acre foot plus the capital cost of $43 an acre foot (total $88). In (Groundwater usingthis incentive water on agriculture farmland, as contemplated in the contract with Kai Farms, the addition, by gr i s payment of $5.00 acre-foot, the Town's cost to $83. The FY 01-02 Budget included Town rece ve p ym perreducing funding for these expenses: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution (R) 01-93 SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve the adoption of Resolution No. (R) 01 -93 , approving and authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Central Arizona Water Conservation District and Town of Oro Valley providing for delivery of Central Arizona Project Incentive Recharge Water. Or I move not to approve Resolution No. (R) 01 -93. Or I move to WA--cea ----- /*-- Water Utility Di -ctor / / Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R)01 - 9 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA APPROVING AN INTERGOVENMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PROVIDING FOR DELIVERY OF CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT INCENTIVE RECHARGE WATER WHEREAS, The Town Oro Valley has determined that the operation of water utility systems as h rized bystate statute are in the public interest and improve and promote the public welfare auto of the citizens of the Town of Oro Valley; and REAS the Town of Oro Valley has the authority to enter into contracts and WHEREAS, it's . . intergovernmental agreements to provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and g g WHEREAS, approval of this contract/intergovernmental agreement with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for delivery of Central Arizona Project water for recharge purposes is found to be in the Town's best interests; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORO VALLEY MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS: That the agreement (including all exhibits and communications mentioned or implied therein) between the Central Arizona Water Conservation District and the Town of Oro Valley providinfor the delivery and terms of Central Arizona Project Incentive Recharge Water is hereby approved,roved, subject to such minor modifications as are found necessary by Town staff. That copies of all documents shall be kept on file at the office of the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona this 17 th day of October , 2001. Mayor Paul H. Loomis ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathy Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney SPU EY qR/ 0 0 •q-- 'L 0 7 ito,,,,,,,,,, -',.r 1 ilos ‘. 0 - , v,,,, * AWS:$ K.-: C-i3 1 w t9 .r 4 (...„ .� 'M L: 4. +N. ` 4„ (( 4-' A•c; #.6 11): t/NDED ATTACHMENT A Resolution ,IPA-LEY A,Q/ O -y ( 4q--, ' 1 . ..,,,, 7.,--- to, is 4, f s'ir. 44"'sit.jam k{ c 4'' .:.. t"t ,SES -. r. °UNDEo�g ATTACHMENT B CAWCD Contract 1 Incentive Recharge Contract (2001) 2 3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PROVIDING FOR THE DELIVERY OF EXCESS 5 CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER 6 g 7 This Agreement is made as of the day of ,2001,in pursuance generally of Act of June 17, 1902(32 Stat.388 ,and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto,including s the ) 9 but not limited to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928(45 Stat. 1057,as amended,the 10 ReclamationJ August Project Act of Au ust 4,1939(53 Stat. 1187),as amended,the Reclamation Reform Act of October 12, 1982(96 Stat. 1263),and particularly the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 11 (82 12 1968 Stat.885),as amended(the"Basin Project Act"),between the CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER 13 CONSERVATION DISTRICT("CAWCD"),and the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY(the"Contractor"), 14 with its principal place of business in Oro Valley, Arizona. 15 RECITALS 16 A. The Basin Project Act provides, among other things,that for the purposes of irrigation 17 furnishingii ation and municipal and industrial("M&I")water supplies to water deficient areas of Arizona g p 18 and western New Mexico through direct diversion or exchange of water,control of floods,conservation p 19 and development of fish and wildlife resources,enhancement of recreation opportunities,and for other 20 purposes, the Secretaryshall construct, operate, and maintain the Central Arizona Project ("CAP"). 21 B. The United States and CAWCD have entered into Contract No. 14-06-W-245, 22 Amendment No. 1, dated December 1, 1988 (the "Repayment Contract"), which is incorporated by 23 reference, providing for the delivery of water and repayment of costs of the CAP. 24 C. The United States and CAWCD have entered into the Stipulation Regarding a Stay g 25 of Litigation,Resolution of Issues During the Stay and for Ultimate Judgment upon the Satisfaction of 26 Conditions, filed with the United States District Court on May 3, 2000, in Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.United States,No.CIV 95-625-TUC-WDB(EHC),No.CIV 95-1720-PHX- EHC(Consolidated Action)( pthe"Stipulation"),which modifies the Repayment Contract in certain respects. 2 D. Paragraph 5(d)(2)of the Stipulation grants CAWCD the exclusive right to sell or 3 use Excess Water. 4 E. The Contractor is in need of a water supply and desires to contract with CAWCD 5 for Incentive Recharge e Water,which is specifically priced Excess Water made available for recharge 6 purposes only. 7 AGREEMENT 8 Repayment Contract and Stipulation Controlling 9 1. The expressly approves ex ressl a roves and agrees to all the terms presently set out int e 10 Repayment Contract and Stipulation,or as such terms may be hereafter amended,and agrees to be bound 11 by the actions to be taken and the determinations to be made under those agreements,except as otherwise 12 n. In the event of an inconsistency between this Agreement and the Repayment Contract, provided herel y 13 he Repayment Contract,as modified by the Stipulation,shall be controlling. Definitions the provisions oft 14 included in the Repayment Contract and Stipulation are applicable to this Agreement. The first letters of p 15 terms so defined are capitalized herein. 16 Delivery of Water by CAWCD 17 2. Project so far as Pro'ect Water supplies and the delivery capability of the Project will permit,and 18 subject to the pro provisions of the Repayment Contract and Stipulation,CAWCD will deliver Incentive 19 Recharge Water to the Contractor in an amount, and at a water service charge, to be determined in 20 accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The determination of whether Incentive Recharge Water is 21 available for delivery in anyYear,and if so,the amount of such Incentive Recharge Water that is available 22 for delivery under this Agreementin Year,is a determination within the exclusive discretion of CAWCD; any 23 Provided,however, That deliveryof Incentive Recharge Water under this Agreement shall be subject to the 24 of all water deliveries scheduled pursuant to a long-term contract or subcontract for Project prior satisfaction 25 Water service, as that term is used in the Stipulation. 26 -2- Term g 3. The initial term of this Agreement expires on December 31 of the year in which it is 2 executed. This Agreement will be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms unless either party 3 notifies the other byOctober 1 of anyyear that it does not wish to renew the Agreement for the following 4 year or unless sooner terminated in accordance with Article 6 or Article 11. 5 Conditions Relating to Delivery and Use 6 4. The delivery and use of water under this Agreement is conditioned on the following,and the 7 Contractor hereby agrees that: 8 (a) All uses of Project Water and Return Flow shall be consistent with Arizona water 9 law unless such law is inconsistent with the Congressional directives applicable to the Central Arizona 10 Project. 11 (b) JProject Water made available pursuant to this Agreement shall be used within 12 Contractor's service area orp lace of use for direct or indirect recharge purposes only. The Contractor's 13 service area orp lace of use is described in Exhibit A,which is incorporated by this reference,and may be 14 amended by the Contractor from time to time. 15 (c) The system or systems through which Project Water is conveyed after delivery to 16 the Contractor shall consist of pipelines,canals,distribution systems,or other conduits which will prevent 17 excessive conveyance losses. 18 (d) JProject Water furnished pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered through 19 Project Works for use directly or by exchange as permitted by law. 20 (e) Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement may not be 21 resold or transferred,but the Contractor may enter into an arrangement with a groundwater savings facility 22 allowed under state law to store Project Water. 23 (f) The Contractor shall not pump,or within its legal authority,permit others to pump 24 groundwater from within the exterior boundaries of the Contractor's service area for use outside of said 25 service area unless suchp umping is permitted under Title 45,Chapter 2,Arizona Revised Statutes,as it may 26 -3- be amended from time to time,and CAWCD and the Contractor shall agree,or shall have previously agreed,that a surplus of groundwater exists and drainage is or was required;Provided,however,That such 2 pumping may be approved by CAWCD,and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,if such pumping 3 is in accord with the Basin Project Act and upon submittal by the Contractor of a written certification from 4 the Arizona Department of Water Resources or its successor agency that the pumping and transportation 5 of groundwater is in accord with Title 45,Chapter 2,Arizona Revised Statutes,as it may be amended from 6 time to time. 7 (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,Project Water shall not be 8 delivered to the Contractor unless and until the Contractor has obtained final environmental clearance from 9 CAWCD for the system or systems through which Project Water is to be conveyed after delivery to the 10 Contractor at the Contractor's Project delivery point. 11 (h) The Contractor may direct that Incentive Recharge Water made available pursuant 12 to this Agreement be delivered to a groundwater savings facility for indirect recharge pursuant to a separate 13 agreement between the Contractor and the operator of the groundwater savings facility;Provided,however, 14 that: 15 (i) Incentive Recharge Water shall be used by an identified groundwater user on 16 a gallon-for-gallon substitute basis directly in lieu of groundwater as provided in A.R.S.¶45-812.01. 17 (ii) The Contractor and the operator of the groundwater savings facility must 18 demonstrate to CAWCD's satisfaction that they have the appropriate permits issued by the Arizona 19 Department of Water Resources. 20 (iii) Where the operator ofthe groundwater savings facility is an agricultural entity 21 participating in CAWCD's target pricing program,only Project Water over and above the amount of 22 Project Water taken by the agricultural entity in the immediately preceding year,not including Incentive 23 Recharge Water, may qualify as Incentive Recharge Water. 24 (iv) The Contractor shall provide CAWCD a copy of its agreement with the 25 operator of the groundwater savings facility for Incentive Recharge Water. 26 -4- (i) Only Project Water for which the Contractor receives long-term storage credits i from the Arizona Department of Water Resources may qualify as Incentive Recharge Water. 2 (j) Upon the expiration of this Agreement,CAWCD will determine whether any 3 Project Water delivered pursuant to this Agreement did not qualify as Incentive Recharge Water fort e 4 reasons specified in sections 4(g)(iii)or 4(h)of this Agreement. For any such Project Water not qualifying 5 as Incentive Recharge Water,CAWCD will bill the Contractor for the difference between the water service 6 charge for Incentive Recharge Water and the standard M&I water service charge. 7 Procedure for Ordering Water 8 5. (a) On or before the date of execution of this Agreement,or as soon thereafter as is 9 practicable,CAWCD will notify the Contractor of the amount of Incentive Recharge Water available for 10 delivery during the first Year under this Agreement(the initial Year of water delivery). The Contractor shall, 11 within a reasonable period of time as determined by CAWCD,submit a written schedule to CAWCD 12 showing the quantity of Incentive Recharge Water desired by the Contractor during each month of the initial 13 Year of water delivery. CAWCD will review the requested schedule and determine whether Incentive 14 Recharge Water is available for delivery in the initial Year of water delivery,and,if so,the amount of 15 Incentive Recharge Water available for delivery under this Agreement during such Year. Within thirty(30) 16 days of CAWCD's receipt ofthe Contractor's requested schedule,CAWCD shall determine and furnish 17 to the Contractor the water delivery schedule for the initial Year of water delivery which shall show the 18 amount of Incentive Recharge Water projected to be delivered to the Contractor during each month of such 19 Year,contingent upon the Contractor remaining eligible to receive water under all terms contained herein. 20 (b) The amounts,times,and rates of delivery of Incentive Recharge Water to the 21 Contractor during each Year subsequent to the initial Year of water delivery shall be in accordance with a 22 water delivery schedule for that Year. Such schedule shall be determined in the following manner: 23 (i) On or before July 1 of each Year beginning with July 1 of the initial Year of 24 water delivery,CAWCD shall issue a notice of availability of Incentive Recharge Water to the Contractor. 25 26 (ii) On or before October 1 of each Year beginning with October 1 of the initial 1 Year of Ovate r delivery,the Contractor shall submit in writing to CAWCD a water delivery schedule 2 indicating the amounts of Incentive Recharge Water desired by the Contractor during each month of the 3 following Year. 4 (iii) p Upon receipt of the schedule,CAWCD shall review it together with all other 5 water delivery schedules,and determine whether Incentive Recharge Water is available for delivery in the 6 following Year, and if so,the amount of Incentive Recharge Water available for delivery under this 7 Agreement in the following Year. 8 (iv) On or before November 15 of each Year beginning with November 15 of 9 the initial Year of water delivery,CAWCD shall determine and furnish to the Contractor the water delivery 10 schedule for the followingYear which shall show the amount of Incentive Recharge Water to be delivered 11 to the Contractor duringeach month of that Year,contingent upon the Contractor remaining eligible to 12 receive water under all terms contained herein. 13 (c) The monthlywater delivery schedules may be amended upon the Contractor's 14 written request to CAWCD. Proposed amendments shall be submitted by the Contractor to CAWCD no q p 15 later than 15 days s before the desired change is to become effective,and shall be subject to review and 16 modification in like manner as the schedule. CAWCD shall notify the Contractor of its action on the 17 Contractor's requested schedule modification within 10 days of CAWCD's receipt of such request. 18 (d) The Contractor shall hold CAWCD,its officers,agents,and employees,harmless 19 on account ofg damage damage or claim of dama e of any nature whatsoever arising out of or connected with the 20 actions of CAWCD regarding water delivery schedules furnished by or to the Contractor. 21 Contractor's Project Delivery Point, Measurement 22 and Responsibility for Distribution of Water (a)23 6. Incentive Recharge Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this agreement delivered to the Contractor at such point(s)on the Water Supply System as are agreed upon in 24 shall be 25 writing by CAWCD and the Contractor. All such point(s) shall hereinafter be referred to as the 26 "Contractor's Project delivery point." -6- (b) Unless CAWCD and the Contractor agree by contract to the contrary, the 1 Contractor shall c onstruct and install,at its sole cost and expense,all connection facilities required to convey 2 water furnished to the Contractor pursuantAgreement to this A reement to the Contractor's service area or place of 3 use,as the case may be. The Contractor shall furnish,for written approval by CAWCD,drawings and 4 specifications showing all connection facilities to be constructed or installed within the Water SupplyY stem 5 such approval before commencing construction or installation of such facilities. right-of_way,and shall obtain pp 6 All facilities constructed, operated installed, or maintained on the Water Supply System right-of-way by or 7 for the Contractor shall be subject to such further agreements and to such restrictions and regulations as to � 8 f installation operation,and maintenance as may be prescribed by CAWCD. type,location,method o 9 (c) The Contractor shall construct,operate,and maintain its connection facilities and 10 good works in a and workmanlike manner and in full compliance with the laws of the State of 11 Arizona and with all laws,regulations,and orders of the United States affecting such operations. The failure g 12 of the Contractor operate,due notice to construct,o erate,and maintain its connection facilities and appurtenant 13 works a good and workmanlikeby in manner or to abide any of the terms and conditions of any applicable 14 laws,regulations,or orders,shall cause this Agreement to be subject to immediate termination at the option 15 of CAWCD. The Contractor shall reimburse CAWCD within thirty(30)days of Contractor's receipt of 16 a statement for the costs of repairing damage to Project facilities or Project rights-of-way caused by an y g 17 or arising out of the Contractor's activities under this Agreement. 18 (d) pUpon termination of this Agreement,the Contractor shall promptly remove,at its 19 sole cost and expense, all connection facilities constructed or installed on the Water Supply System 20 right-of-way and restore said right-of-way and all Project facilities affected to their condition immediately ghwa Y 21 prior to the construction or installation of such connection facilities. If the Contractor fails to remove said 22 connection facilities and restore said right-of-way and Project facilities within thirty(30)days after receiving Y 23 any written notice from CAWCD to do so,CAWCD mayremove said connection facilities and restore said 24 right-of-way and Project ect facilities at the Contractor's cost and expense,and,within thirty(30)days after 25 receiving written demand from CAWCD to do so,the Contractor shall pay CAWCD,as specified in such 26 -7- written demand,for all costs and expensesby incurred CAWCD in removing said connection facilities and restoring said right-of-way and Project facilities. 2 (e) If the Contractor's Project delivery point is a Project turnout or Project turnouts 3 constructed by the United States,and if the Contractor intends to convey water furnished tote Contractor 4 through connection facilities owned or operated by others,the use by the pursuant to this agreement t g 5 Contractor of such connection facilities shall be the subject of written agreement(s)between the Contractor 6 and the owner(s)or operator(s)of such connection facilities,and all such agreements shall include such 7 requiredby terms and conditions as maybe CAWCD and shall be subject to the prior,written approval 8 of CAWCD before becoming binding upon the parties thereto. 9 (� Unless the Contractor's Project delivery point is a Project turnout or Project 10ppSystem constructed by the United States,all water delivered from the Water Supply S stem shall be 11 measured with equipment furnished and installed bythe Contractor and operated and maintained by the 12 Contractor at the Contractor's sole cost and expense. The results of such measurements shall be reported 13 to CAWCD in such manner and at such time(s) as CAWCD may prescribe. Upon the request of 14 CAWCD,the accuracy of such measurements shall be investigated by the Contractor,and any errors which 15 are determined to have occurred therein shall be adjusted;Provided,however,That in the event the parties 16 cannot agree onq adjustment,the required adjustment, CAWCD's determination shall be conclusive. 17 (g) If the Contractor's Project delivery point is a Project turnout or Project turnouts 18 constructed by the United States,all water delivered from the Water Supply System shall be measured with 19 equipment furnished and installed bythe United States and operated and maintained by CAWCD. Upon 20 the request of the Contractor,or CAWCD,the accuracy of such measurements shall be investigated by 21 CAWCD and the Contractor,and any errors which are mutually determined to have occurred therein shall 22 be adjusted; •Provided,however,That in the event the parties cannot agree on the required adjustment, 23 CAWCD's determination shall be conclusive. 24 (h) Neither the United States nor CAWCD shall be responsible for the control, 25 carriage,handling,use,disposal,or distribution of water beyond the Contractor's Project delivery point. 26 -8- The Contractor shall hold the United States and CAWCD harmless on account of damage or claim of 1rsonal damage of any nature whatsoever for which there is legal responsibility,including property damage,pe 2 injury,or death arising out of or connected with the control,carriage,handling,use,disposal,or distribution 3 of water beyond the Contractor's Project delivery point. 4 Interruptions and Reductions 5 g 7. In addition to the right of the United States under Subarticle 8.3(a)(iv)of the Repayment 6 Contract to temporarilydiscontinue or reduce the amount of water to be delivered, CAWCD may 7 discontinue or reduce the quantity uantit of water to be furnished to the Contractor as herein provided fort e 8 purposes of investigation,inspection,construction,testing,maintenance,repair,or replacement of any of 9 the Project facilities or any part thereof CAWCD may also discontinue or reduce the quantity of water to 10 be furnished to the Contractor if there is insufficient Project Water or Project delivery capacity to deliver 11 the Contractor's order,water the water orders of other contractors of Incentive Recharge Water and Excess 12 water service, and all water deliveries scheduled pursuant to a contract with the United States or a 13 subcontract with the United States and CAWCD providing for Project Water service for a period of 50 14 years or more. So far as feasible, CAWCD shall attempt to coordinate any such discontinuance or 15 with the Contractor and to give the Contractor due notice in advance of such discontinuance or reduction 16 reduction. In case ofemergency,no notice need be given. The United States,its officers,agents,and 17 AWCD its officers,agents,and employees,shall not be liable for damages when,for any employees,and C 18 reason whatsoever, interruption,discontinuance,or reduction in delivery of water occurs. If any such any 19 discontinuance or temporary reduction results in deliveries to the Contractor of less water than what has p ary 20 been paid for in advance,the Contractor shall be entitled to be reimbursed for the appropriate proportion 21 advance payments prior to the date of the Contractor's next payment of water service charges or of such p y 22 the Contractor may be given credit toward the next payment of water service charges if the Contractor 23 should so desire. 24 No Long-Term Commitment to the Delivery of Project Water 25 8. Nothing Agreement in this A reement shall be construed as an allocation of Project Water to the 26 -9- Contractor,nor shall this Agreement entitle the Contractor to any Project Water other than as provided herein. 2 Quality of Water 3 9. CAWCD does not warrant the quality of any Project Water furnished under this Agreement 4 and is under no obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or better the quality 5 of any Project Water. The Contractor waives its right to make a claim against the United States,CAWCD, 6 or any other Project t subcontractor or contractor on account of the quality of Project Water or any changes 7 in water qualitycaused bythe commingling of Project Water with other water. 8 Water Service Charges 9 The Contractor shall pay in advance water service charges established annually by 10. (a) 10 CAWCD. On or before the date of execution of this Agreement,or as soon thereafter as is practicable, 11 CAWCD shall furnish the Contractor with the Contractor's water service charges for the initial Year of 12 ) water delivery(the"initial Year"). Within a reasonable time of receipt of said charges,but prior tot e 13 delivery of water,the Contractor shall advance to CAWCD,in monthly installments payable on or before 14 the first day of each month of the initial Year,as determined by CAWCD,the water service charges due 15 g for Incentive Recharge Water scheduled for delivery in the initial Year. For each subsequent Year, 16 CAWCD will establish water service charges,and CAWCD will notify the Contractor of the amount of 17 or before November 15 preceding each said subsequent Year. The Contractor shall make such charges on 18 payments of such charges in monthly installments due on or before the first day of each month of said 19 subsequent Year,as determined byCAWCD,for Incentive Recharge Water scheduled for delivery in said 20 subsequent Year. The Contractor shall pay in advance all water service charges established by CAWCD 21 for Incentive Recharge e Water scheduled for delivery under this Agreement;Provided,however,That the 22 Contractor shall be relieved of the pumping energy portion of the water service charges associated with any 23 Incentive Recharge Water scheduled for delivery that is not delivered to the Contractor. 24 payment y The a ment of all water service charges when due under this Agreement is a 25 condition precedent to delivery of Incentive Recharge Water. 26 -10- (c) The obligation of the Contractor to pay CAWCD as provided in this Agreement is a general obligation of the Contractor notwithstanding the manner in which the obligation may be 2 distributed among the Contractor's water users and notwithstanding the default of individual water users in 3 their obligations to the Contractor. 4 Termination of Contract 5 11. If the Contractor remains in arrears in the payment of any charges due CAWCD for a 6 mayterminate this Agreement,which termination shall be effective period of 60 days or more,CAWCD �' 7 30 days after mailing written notice' e of termination to the Contractor. The Contractor shall remain obligated 8 paidAgreemente bunder this during the time period until and including the to pay all charges required to 9 date of termination. The Contractor'sobligationpay to any amounts due but unpaid as of the date of 10 termination shall survive termination of this Agreement. CAWCD's right to terminate this Agreement as 11 provided in this Article 11 shall be in addition to the other rights of CAWCD under this Agreement and to 12 all other rights provided by law. 13 Charges for Delinquent Payments 14 The Contractor shall be subject to interest,administrative and penalty charges on 12. (a) e for each a ent installments ora ents. The Contractor shall pay an interest charg da y thep ym 1 s delinquentp � ,the Contractor shall paywent deli days n is delinquent beyond the due date. When a payment becomes 60 q . • additional costs ofbilling and processing the delinquent payment. When 16 an administrative charge to cover g • • charge of 6 percent is delinquent 90 days or more,the Contractor shall pay an additional penalty c arg a payment q Y 17 per year for each day the payment is delinquent beyond the due date. Further,the Contractor shall pay any q Y fees incurred for debt collection services associated with a delinquent payment. 18 (b) The interest charge rate shall be the greater of the rate prescribed quarterly in the the Department of the Treasury for application to overdue payments,or the interest rate 19 Federal Register by p Act of 1939(Public Law onth Section 6 of the Reclamation Project • of 0.5 percent per m prescribedby date and remain fixed for the duration 20 76-260). The interest charge rate shall be determined as of the due of the delinquent period. 21 (c) When a partial payment on a delinquent account is received,the amount received • and third to applied first to the penaltyand administrative charges,second,to the accruedinterest, 22 shall be the overdue payment. 23 Rules, Regulations and Determinations 24 Thepartiesagree that the delivery of water or the use of Federal facilities pursuant 13. (a) supplemented, and the rules and Agreement is subject to Reclamation law, as amended and supple , 2 s to this g J regulations promulgated by romul ated the Secretary of the Interior under Reclamation law. 26 -11- (b) The Contracting Officer shall have the right to make determinations necessary to ent administer this Agreement that are consistent with the expressed and implied provisions of this Agreement, 1 � the laws o f the United States and the State of Arizona,and the rules and regulations promulgated by the 2 Secretary of the Interior. Such determinations shall be made in consultation with CAWCD and the Contractor. 3 Compliance with Environmental Laws 4 14. The Contractor, carrying in out this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable gu 5 environmental laws and regulations of the United States and the State of Arizona and shall obtain all required permits or licenses from the appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities. 6 Equal Opportunity 7 15. During the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees as follows: 8 (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for 9 employment because of race,color,religion,sex,or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action to applicantsare ensure that employed,and that employees are treated during employment,without their race,color reli ion,sex,or national origin. Such action shall include,but not be limited to 1 o regard to g advertisin •layoff the following: employment,upgrading,demotion,or transfer;recruitment or recruitment • . . g, y termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including 11 or apprenticepagrees post. The Contractor to in conspicuous places,available to employees and applicants notices to beprovided bythe Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this 12 for employment, nondiscrimination clause. 13 (b) The Contractor will,in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by 14 or on behalf of the Contractor,state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 15 (c) The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with ithas a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding,a notice,to be provided 16 whichg g.�' the ContractingOfficer, advising said labor union or workers' representative of the Contractor's by 65 as amended,and shall 1 7 commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24,19 ., post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. p 18 (d) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of 19 September 24, 1965,as amended,and of the rules,regulations,and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. 20 (e) The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by said amended 21 Executive Order and by the rules,regulations,and orders of the Secretary of Labor,or pursuant thereto, permit will access to its books,records,and accounts by the Contracting Officer and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,regulations,and orders. 22 p � g 23 In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses �� ofagreementan this or with of such rules, regulations, or orders, this agreement may be canceled, Y terminated,or suspended,in whole or in part,and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further p 24 Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in said amended Executive Order,and 25 such imposed other sanctions maybe im osed and remedies invoked as provided in said amended Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. 26 -12- (g) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs(a)through(g)in every unless exempted byrules,regulations,or orders of the Secretary of Labor 1 subcontract or purchase order p will be binding pursuant to Section 204 of said amended Executive Order,so that such provisions g 2 upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract maybe directed bythe Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, or purchase order as Provided,however,That in the event the Contractor becomes 3 including sanctions for noncompliance; of such direction the involved in,or is threatened with,litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result, into such litigation to protect the interests of the United 4 Contractor may request the United States to enterg States. 5 Compliance With Civil Rights Laws and Regulations 6 The Contractor shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 16. (a) p Y as Age n 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975(Public Law 93-112, amended),the � U.S.C.2000d),Section Discriminationrights Act of 1975(42 U.S.C.6101,et seq.)and any other applicable civil g hts laws as well as 8 with their respective implementing regulations and guidelines imposed by the U.S.Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation. 9 These statutes require thatperson in the United States shall,on the grounds of (b) qre no 'ed the benefits of, origin,handicap,or age,be excluded from participation in,be dens i o race,color,national , • g ro or activityreceivingfinancial assistance from or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program Byexecutingthis agreement,the Contractor agrees to immediately take any 11 the Bureau of Reclamation. • � e United States to inspect necessary to implement this obligation,including permitting officials ofthe pe measures n ary p 12 premises, programs, and documents. Contractormakes this agreement in consideration of and for the purpose of 13 (c) The g financial all Federalgrants, loans, contracts, property discounts or other Federal obtaining any and 14 assistance extended after the date hereof to the Contractor by the Bureau of Reclamation, including after such date on account of arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were installment payments assistance will be before such date. The Contractor recognizes and agrees that such Federal 15 approved extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this article,and that the United States 16 reserves the right to seek judicial enforcement thereof. 17 Books, Records, and Reports 18 17. The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and records pertaining and conditions of this Agreement,including: the Contractor's financial to administration of the termsg ro'ect land and water supplydata,project operation,maintenance and replacement logs,and Project 19 transactions, p J land-leasingand right-of-way use agreements;the water users'land-use(crop census),land ownership, right y �' other matters that CAWCD may require. Reports thereon shall be furnished to 20 water-use data; and applicable in such form and on such date or dates as CAWCD may require. Subject to Federal to this Agreement shall have the right during office hours to examine and 21 laws and regulations,each party � �' this Agreement. copies of each other party's books and records relating to matters covered by g make p Y 22 Notices 23 notice,demand,or request authorized or required by this Agreement shall be deemed 18. Any q or delivered to Mr. Chuck have been given,on behalf of CAWCD,when mailed,postage prepaid, • 24 to Arizona 85737, Town Manager,Town of Oro Valley, 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley, Sweet, of the Contractor when mailed,postage prepaid, or delivered to the General Manager, 25 and on behalf Central Arizona Water Conservation District,23636 North 7th Street,Phoenix,Arizona 85024. The changed designation ofthe addressee or the address maybe char ed by notice given in the same manner as provided -13- in this Article for other notices. Assignment Limited--Successors and Assigns Obligated 2 19. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the 3arties hereto,but no assignment or transfer of this Agreement or any right or interest therein shall be valid p until approved in writing by CAWCD. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement No. 5 effective the day and year first above-written. 6 CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER 7 CONSERVATION DISTRICT 8 Attest: By: 9 Secretary President 10 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 1 Attest: By: 12 13 Title: Title: 14 Approved as to form: 15 16 17 wpdocs\Incentive\Oro Valley 221.01 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -14- �PLLEY AR/ O 'O • f #,• 3., „ UNDED ATTACHMENT C CAWCD Letter -(C CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT P.O.Box 43020•Phoenix,Arizona 85080-3020.23636 North Seventh Street(85024) (623)869-2333 • www.cap-az.com August 13, 2001 Mr. Chuck Sweet Town Manager Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Subject: New Central Arizona Project Incentive Recharge Water Contract Dear Mr. Sweet: The Central Arizona Water Conservation District has entered into a stipulation with the United States to resolve certain long-standing disputes regarding CAWCD's repayment obligation for the Central Arizona Project and other matters, including CAWCD's authority to sell excess CAP water. The stipulation confirmed that CAWCD has the exclusive right to sell excess CAP water-that is, water that is in excess of the amounts scheduled under long-term CAP water service contracts-but imposed certain requirements on excess water contracts. For example, the stipulation provided that the term of excess water contracts may not exceed one year, although the contracts may contain a provision for automatic renewal. Incentive recharge water is a type of excess CAP water. Therefore,to be deemed approved by the United States, all incentive recharge water contracts must comply with the terms of the stipulation regarding excess water. Current incentive recharge water contracts, such as the one held by the Town of Oro Valley do not comply with the CAP repayment stipulation and must be replaced. CAWCD's Board of Directors has approved a replacement form of excess water, from which we have developed a new incentive recharge water contract. We are in the process of converting all of our existing incentive recharge water contracts to the new form and would like to complete that process as soon as possible. Enclosed are two duplicate originals of a new incentive recharge water contract for the Town of Oro Valley. Please have both originals executed,then return them to me, along with a certified copy of an appropriate resolution of the Town of Oro Valley approving the agreement and authorizing its execution. Do not date the agreement. CAWCD will fill in the date when the agreement is executed on behalf of CAWCD. If we do not receive new executed contracts by October 30, 2001, we will assume that Town of Oro Valley no longer desires to receive incentive recharge CAP water. Mr. Chuck Sweet August 13, 2001 Page 2 Thep rice for Incentive Recharge Water service for 2001 remains $45.00 per acre-foot. You may contact me at 623-869-2368 if you have any questions about the enclosed agreement or the process outlined in this letter. Sincerely, )d/f/ i4;(-ia) Sheila Brennemann Paralegal to wpdocs\incentive\ltr\sweet 221.01 Enclosures cc: w/out encls.: Larry Dozier, CAWCD Jodi Gould, CAWCD Tina Brown, CAWCD TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Robert Conant, Planner II and Bayer Vella, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 01-94 , OV7-00-02, DECLARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11 AND ALL REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 11 WITHIN THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR) OFF- STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING BY DELETING SAID CHAPTER IN ITS ENTIRETY AND INSERTING A NEW CHAPTER 27 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 27.6 OFF-STREET PARKING, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 9 CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS, AND AMENDING ARTICLE 16-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES WITHIN THE OVZCR AS A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARY: The Planningand ZoningCommission at its February 2001 meeting initiated an amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised for Off—Street Parking and Off-Street Loading. The attached resolution is to establish the -bj ect amendments as a matter of public record. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of a Resolution declaring the proposed amendments a public record. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution (R) 01-94 , making that document known as OV7-00-02, proposed revisions to Chapter Chapter 27, Section 27.6 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 9 Conditional Use Regulations; and Chapter p 11; p 16 Design Guidelines of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, a public record. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. (R)-01- 94 %rip '' A.)11-1-1 Planning and Zon g Administrator 74712,1 .(L' munity Develf ment Director r t,/ Town Manager- F:\OV\OV7\2000\7-00-02\TC PUBLIC RECORD PARKING.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA, DECLARING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 11; CHAPTER 27, SECTION 27.6 OFF-STREET PARKING, CHAPTER 9 CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS; AND CHAPTER 16 DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED,AS A PUBLIC RECORD. BE IT RESOLVED,BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL,that certain document entitled OV7-00-02, proposed amendments to Chapter 11 and all references to Chapter 11 within the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised(OVZCR) Off-Street Parking and Off-Street Loading by deleting said chapter in its entirety and inserting a new Chapter 27 General Development Regulations Section 27.6 Off-Street Parking, amending Chapter 2 Definitions, Chapter 9 Conditional Use Regulations, and amending Article 16-1 Design Guidelines within the OVZCR as a public record,three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 7thday of October 2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis,Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Judy Imhoff, Planner I and Bayer Vella, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 01-95, OV7-01-05, DECLARING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 14-2 ET SEQ., LANDSCAPE,IRRIGATION AND BUFFER YARD PLANS AND ALL REFERENCES THERETO, CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS,AND ARTICLE 16-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AS A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARY: The attached resolution is to make the subject amendments a matter of public record. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends Council approval of this resolution, which will make said amendments a public ,cord. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No. (R)01- 9 5 , making that document known as OV7-01-05, revisions to Chapter 14, Article 14-2 et seq., Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer yard Plans and all references thereto, Chapter 2 definitions, and Article 16-1 Design Guidelines of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, a public record. fik Pla '- d Zoning Administrator Co su munity Develop ,ent Director Town Manager ATTACHMENT: solution No. (R)01-9 5 \\OV PZD\PZl\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-05\2001 Update Notice of Public Record.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R)O1-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA,DECLARING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 14-2 ET SEQ., LANDSCAPE, IRRIGATION AND BUFFER YARD PLANS AND ALL REFERENCES THERETO, CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS, AND ARTICLE 16-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARE A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: That certain document known as "OV7-O1-05, revisions to Chapter 14, Article 14-2 et seq., Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer yard plans and all references thereto, Chapter 2 definitions, and Article 16-1 Design Guidelines of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised", is hereby declared to be a public record and three copies are to remain on file in the office of the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 17th day of October , 2001. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan D. Dudley, Town Attorney \\OV PZD\PZI\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-05\2001 Update Notice of Public Record.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Sangeeta Jain, Planner II and Bayer Vella, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 01- 96, OV7-01-06, DECLARING PROPOSED ADDITION OF CHAPTER 17 OUTDOOR LIGHTING TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING REVISED (OVZCR) AND AMENDING ALL REFERENCES TO OUTDOOR LIGHTING IN CHAPTERS 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 AND 13, ADDING DEFINITIONS IN CHAPTER 2, AMENDING ARTICLE 16-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE OVZCR, AND AMENDING THE TOWN CODE BY DELETEING IN ITS ENTIRETY ARTICLE 6-7 OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE AS A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARY: On August 7, 2001, the Planning & Zoning Commission initiated amendments to the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) to comprehensively address Outdoor Lighting. The Planning and Zoning Commission held it's first of the two study sessions on September 25, 2001 to review the suggested changes to the Outdoor Lighting Code. Members of the Development Review Board (DRB) and Town Council were also invited to the first study session and the site tour. Town of Oro Valley's OVZCR does not include adequate standards and requirements on Outdoor Lighting. In addition, the outdoor lighting is addressed in two different documents — the Town Code and the OVZCR. Pima County, City of Tucson, and Marana jointly worked on their Outdoor Lighting Code (ODLC) over the last couple of years. The Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted the ODLC in September of 2000. Since the adoption, the ODLC has been reviewed and revised. Staff has utilized the current adopted and revised Pima County's Outdoor Lighting Code (ODLC) as a basis for the development of the Town of Oro Valley's ODLC. The aim was to develop a level of consistency with regard to lighting requirements throughout the region. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt a Resolution declaring Chapter 17 Outdoor Lighting, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised a public record. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No. (R) 01-96 , making that document known as OV7-01-06, proposed addition of Chapter 17 Outdoor Lighting and amendments to Chapters 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and Article 16-1 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Article 6-7 of the Town Code a public record. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. (R)01- 9 6 Pla • . t d Zoni fa Administrator C•- �u);ty Develo --t Director 4,,7,X A 4,4(4"e_ \\OV_PZD\PZ 1\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-06\Reports\TC Resolution.doc Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 17 OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 AND ARTICLE 16 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AND ARTICLE 6-7 OF THE TOWN CODE IS A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL, that certain document entitled OV07-01-06 Addition of Chapter 17 Outdoor Lighting to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), amending all references to outdoor lighting in Chapters 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of the OVZCR, and amending Article 6-7 of the Oro Valley Town Code, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona thisllth day of October 2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-06\Reports\TC Resolution.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Bayer Vella, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (R) 01- 9 7 , OV7-01-09, DECLARING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED THAT INCLUDE CHAPTER 8 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 9 CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS, ARTICLE 3-2 USE PERMITS, CHAPTER 4 SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, ARTICLE 5-2 EFFECT OF DISTRICTS, ARTICLE 10-0 TANGERINE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARTICLE 10-4 ORACLE ROAD SCENIC CORRIDOR DISTRICT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6-2 R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ARTICLE 16-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES,AS A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARY: The primary focus of the amendment is to restructure regulations for commercial uses within the Town of Oro Valley. The attached resolution is to establish the subject amendments as a matter of public record. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt a Resolution declaring the aforementioned revisions to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised a public record. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No. (R) 01- , making that document known as OV7-01-09, proposed revisions to Chapters 2, 4, 8, 9 and Articles 3-2, 4-5, 5-2, 6-2, 10-0, 10-4 and 16-1 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, a public record. ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution No. (R)01- 9 7 )6 ) )0,t____,„....„ .Y Planning and Zoni- Administrator )31a,t - C ity Developme , ;erector T. / 1 i ,/,: • / ':. # .. \\OV PZD\PZ 1\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-09\TC Resolution.doc r t RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01- 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTERS 2, 4, 8, 9 AND ARTICLES 3-2, 4-5, 5-2, 6-2, 10-0, 10-4 AND 16-1 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL, that certain document entitled Resolution(r) 01- 97 , OV7-01-09, declaring Declaring proposed revisions to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised that include Chapter 8 Commercial District Regulations, Chapter 9 Conditional Use Regulations, Chapter 2 Definitions, Article 3-2 Use Permits, Chapter 4 Subdivisions and Development Plans, Article 5-2 Effect of Districts, Article 10-0 Tangerine Corridor Overlay District, Article 10-4 Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District Regulations, Article 6-2 R1-144 Single Family Residential District and Article 16-1 Design Guidelines as a public record, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 17th day of Ocotber , 2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV7\2001\07-01-09\TC Resolution.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17,2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF TERMS FOR THE GOVERNMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE SUMMARY: On April 19, 2001 the Government Review Task Force was given a second extension of six months. The second six month extension will expire on October 31, 2001. The Task Force has completed the majority of their Scope of Work (as outlined below), and are in the process of working on the remaining two issues: • Appointments to Boards/Commissions • Advisory Board & Commission Rules review To date, members of the GRTF have held 26 meetings and have made recommendations to the Town Council on the following issues: • Vice Mayor Selection Process (Completed). • 5 to 7 member Council (Completed). • District System (Completed). Town Council Policies & Procedures (Completed). Remaining issues currently under study: • Appointments to Boards/Commissions • Advisory Board & Commission Rules review SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to extend the terms of the Government Review Task Force until December 31, 2001 to allow them time to complete the two remaining issues: Appointments to Boards/Commissions and Advisory Board & Commission Rules review. rr1 / 4 De.. ;tit Head f Town Manager TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Pagel of 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 10/17/01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)01- 98 DECLARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01 - 23 REGARDING SMOKING REGULATION IN ORO VALLEY, TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD. SUMMARY: The attached resolution declares that certain document known as proposed Ordinance No. (0) 01 -23 , regarding smoking regulation in Oro Valley, to be a public record. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (R)01- 98 SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to ADOPT Resolution No. (R)01- 98 , declaring that certain document known as proposed Ordinance No. (0) 01 - 23, regarding smoking regulation in Oro Valley, to be a public record. n--7 ./ Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Chuck Sweet, T. rE ` a ager C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Resolution Cover.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01- 98 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED "SECTION 10-1-19, SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL," OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document regulating smoking in public places and in places of employment, entitled "Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control," of the Oro Valley Town Code," three copies of which is on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copy is ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 17th day of October , 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney 10-1-19 Public Record Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/sib 10.9.01 • SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ITEM 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 .,UPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 10/17/2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: SMOKING REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC AREAS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SUMMARY: The Pima County No Smoking Ordinance ("PCO") provided by Pima County this date is attached. Discussion on the Pima County No Smoking Ordinance ("PCO") will begin with the basic differences between PCO and the Oro Valley Proposed No-Smoking Ordinance ("OVO"), and end with their comparative similarities. Differences: The OVO contains definitions of numerous terms that that the PCO does not, and the OVO goes into a more in depth of description as to which facilities are included and excluded as regulated. Moreover, although the PCO purports to regulate smoking only within restaurants, 8.50.020 of the PCO prohibits "smoking within any enclosed structure or vehicle except as permitted." The PCO also references the penalties that apply to its No Smoking regulation while the OVO lists the penalties internally. With regard to the "Hardship Phase-In," and "Hardship Smoking Exception," the Board of Supervisors passed he PCO with those sections contained therein. Similar options are available to this Council as Amendment 'B." However, the drafters of PCO included an "application process and hearing" section. Consequently, in the event that the Town Council decides to incorporate Amendment "B," the Council may also wish to adopt a similar provision regarding process. With regard to enforcement, the OVO specifically provides that the Oro Valley Police Department will enforce it, while the PCO implies police enforcement by prescribing penalties as "Class 3 misdemeanors. Moreover, the OVO also contains a Public Education element designed to assist those individuals and businesses affected by this proposed regulation, and the PCO does not. Similarities: Both the PCO and the OVO outline the procedures that shall be followed in order to create a separately ventilated smoking area, the posting of appropriate signs, and in the event that this Council decides, Amendment "B" contains similar Hardship Phase-In and Hardship Smoking Exemption language as contained in the PCO. } F:\Council\Regular\101701 CC Re No Smoking Matter Supp.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 10/17/2001 RECOMMENDATION: Please see regular Council Communication on this issue dated 10/17/01. ATTACHMENTS: Pima County No Smoking Ordinance. tro , , — Dan L. Dudley Town Attorney Chuck Sweet Town Manager F:\CouncilViegularV 01701 CC ReNo Smoking Matter Supp.doc 10/11/ '001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 01 Post-it"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Fot pages ► 7From 4 VA I Dept. PhonE ft W.:21...i4 77Fax Fax 717: .10 ROPQSED ORDINANCE NQ 2001- 0 CT 1 .1 2Crui AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF Paa BY. COUNTY,ARIZONA,AMENDING TELE PIMA COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 8.50,SMOKING; PROHIBITING SMOKING 1N RESTAURANTS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the Bard of Supervisors, pursuant to A.R.S. §§11-251 and 11-251.05,may . make and enforce all local,police and sanitary regulations not in conflict with general law; and WHEREAS, the Pima County Board of Health pursuant to A.R.S. §36-184 has determined that the literature and scientific evidence supports the conclusion that exposure to and inhaling of environmental tobacco smoke, also known as secondhand smoke or passive smoke, presents significant and measurable health risks to the population of Pima County; and WHEREAS, the Pima Health Board of Health pursuant to A.R.S.§36-184 has recommended that Pima County implement strategies to control environmental tobacco smoke in order to protect the public from the associated health risks; and WHEREAS,the Tucson City Council on April 12, 1999, did pass regulations prohibiting smoking in restaurants similar to those set forth herein, NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY TUE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA: Section 1. That Pima County Code Title 8, Health and Safety,Chapter 8.50, Smoking, Sections 8.50.010, 8.50.020, and 0.50.030 are hereby amended as follows: Chapter 8.50 SMOKING Sections: 8.50.010 Definitions. 850.020 Smoking prohibited. 8.50.030 Exemptions. $.50.111 31 Exemt$i'or Smc�ing in Bestauran 8.2.032 Hardship hase, too Crete a De.51u,ated^Srn cine xea &50.0_33, Eardsh. Smoking_E .ceptia n 0.03A.p,plic2timyrosms and_ earing -1- 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 02 8.50.040 . Control of Property. 8.50.050 Applicability. 8.50.060 Penalties. 8.50.010 Definitions. 1 "l e ignatedSmc�, z Area"ins an,area withiaa restaurant were s oklna . allov_i_d_puratito Sec ' _ Q.0 3 i enta Tob eco S ce" ans snide fro e b o tobacco psodu tea d s Q ce e(42, ed a srtpkcr. 3 "Re ur 'me a s fa r to ary . • _e of s- foodre ed co 13 e' er o e r 's f ca at' *hag az�nua� ate.�ales tax froj.the e food non-ak.ohalvera�e exc, eds f 'cep 50 of h:.e ata1 annual Stat sales j for ea.!),c ecutive twe e 1 lmon tla psriod, ., " e # . read m alI or s a e a restairant evice t tip flourspace of those areas wv Leh aha 1. ed e usivearat� f f ar every e o ono 0o Y, g..s r Izoth beveraggi sed e nus' v for, he stauge ofigodjieverages, md_valksiscclu 'vele o e s a.et• and restmoms. 5±. "Smoke-free"means air that does not contain any visible emissions from smoking. "Smoking"or"smoke"means the act of burninganytobacco product, vee in � � c� filler or plant of any kind in a cigarette, cigar,pipe or in any other device. 8.50.020 Smoking prohibited. No person shall smoke azily e losedatructug_or ve ic1ec t e itte thiLChapter. 8.50.030 Exemptions. A. The following places or circumstances are exempt from theprovisions of this chapter: * * * * * * * * * * 4. Restaurants fu2Lbig. ane em ionhgaesamtgclpasutot e to o thi chaffer; -2- 10111/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 03 8.50.031 iezi,ptions for Strinlibg jaRestanwts A_ Allaumpic-cip_cfree, wever estaur, ntsaI w smoking er t foil maditlon$: I. Ian ar de • a a o g area-�,- ich meets la the encs athiuectiou:_or e i c �ia aha e fi' ur ant Qn� su .to est on o. 3. AA esu aVi • e. ted..�mokj�g a m 1. FbysicaJ1y s arateefiro ani atter areaof resta urant d en t1v ,ventiled sQthat a ,is nnte i r d n o ves ., o� . Q,_t dr'1ft jI'1t0 nv ar,east qu d to he . , keL c- I , e ant tom, ve e cent %) the el sauare fgjf the eati g areal t; V Qct �that stomers c rec 'ye a the ��vtded bar .es . I t with out in! . wa , • .•h thc_desigaated2noktg_gto_Qzb& mos tQ enLrQmne>ta arc o Cle- iv f1. as a •esj•_f:.ted , o • . • areabvt�.e ,�� , ,• e�. e warn' saten' ces the esi d oking w 'c hseaci(§) IMMELSUMNOLAmA,. .ilhmnto sec . drse, se, an. 1 .11 d' -ase stoker as 1 . on $1 oke w " .- is• s �I •.- blas, 1=025maathkiLaskmind id at j=liy2 inchesbyji i es ' Aste_5i=cimpLug_____,6 area may' clu a are i � . _ mm Edi 1 ad to d ouSside of e re taut, ' • AUtftfier (j5) fe t frc the mole-_free arm quLl u tic e and exit& aril Szo_ ro�a the autdoar de ' a ed s ok; Q area can tent • 0 are f thv restaurant_ Askimtpci sok' ar a marmot i GIt� Egul trvlob y; t areas; e tr.•rns .•d tie •at+wav wetwee ,e - •ootos anddin' a ea• or -3- 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 04 • 4_ s he a rn• ors c sto ril on e.ate. Theen.t. ea_i_vizs is a ori e to e re�t�remes �Qr�sisteut Frith,the P' a�ou� uiIda.n�C • to afire c I- ce 'th t ' s ection, $.5.(1.03/ Harstship ! .e �i tQ,Create a aeitmted a . �. �ho oan e �� ja t v a r h.ar � -' rio e - o a ase—�n t�a1Iqu�a d b ,vow the.date c 'b to ake die ne ess mod' c ns create •e asat-d - - .I� � � „o. ' .a w, c i ee the e. -me o ec� ,_g.5 Q3 tf c m eting th e di cati - e ate re 'bed wou cre an due . in c�a d�l�p _ se Qf t 'a sectio v undu a ciao • � .� ard�h�n eaz�s that the 1 ca2it oe Ot ave cz � d or c ent a • itv t bo wd� Zr! dS. • •ec- s. su i•eie I t to *de . e re y autant tcurente a desi edo ea NAT �ch o lie "t Se 'on $.� 03 �'h o he �. . t .l en o sh , th as oma pan e wQuld�rea due f, anci h shi ee otter a e zii s tete de • at d oke a$ la otexc d e v �'d h • area,.. 1 be k t'tte eat de ,t dball c • • � �ta� the ollojg- e im to m rias i� �' ease co ct sl e Q o{•� f 211 1 . -.Y_.�-�-�,��w O . e bf e e t t a des ated_ ajn&gfigh meets t e rc u� mes Se do .5a 1 ,� F• cia e e � - rn hared b Ijc ed certl_ ed hlic acpmtnt 'Q tui �e �l o 'ate •ar tQthe w •on in c a h ds • .. � � ar �.�hase �urr�u�to�how an uudue n ciaY ards„ p; 3 � e d� � the I r c ' lyithalatcuireatat.aSection S_ Q_0 1 i a di - d, saternent that ' a ase_'n i ar ted t a 'c h is al o I s c C si a1I they od" ca ' �eCuagy to et t e r if tS Cti �.� d3 d 1n cCO. c� • t e time d aS chdiliE_, - • -sta_ o• er., as 6.. fo a h.. ds,'. . -se: • to c eat- a d-si .s ate. • etv oft e e thi rd' c T -4- 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 05 p ationf,Qr a bardshi�phase-in tp create desi ate mok n area met made ithin this t, me �erioc .the restauraw ust be stoke-fret F. e entire recta t shall emaj, smoke- ee anti the mQd•ricato s for thg de .t-s m ,a . ea . e coil .leted. Restaurants constructs o ed,or model a# effect'ye date oft 1s r cenue •ate v�,co1 ,t5eoti $.�O- .and.Ehal.lt be a dsh' ph e in. 8.5103HarAsi_pliimaking Exception The owner o mn ext estau t ay, r dor a iludshi s o exc do S .kik to a Qlaughot th_g_restaoornpl�.ce cites tmd finaupial ha hi �. Ecr p oses of th„se�on oqlv,a ` endue firiancLhardship"jQr theinitial hthshipso1cingexceptionans aIeas-t a percent redu ion, stat ales tax roots from e sale of food and no - ca eveza es foZtwo ( �con cute, e month ,wherein tbera ha$ QneratednQ e`free as cornizaredne tao 2 c Qns ecuti vemon d rm e e prior o c learns w__it is chanter.bor resSauraula i c ve_pot sen open or ani entire rear p Qr to the datofzplicaticafoard ■n xc t7o an " due n ial hart 'for einiti '' o. e - • •n in- ,t 1--- a I `cen . c-. 15° -dudion in to des tom„rec ei is orn the sale eood and on-- co beer e or t r }consecutye rao the herei the eSura�nt h,as orated smok - - _ ,S Ca die ,t�ietwo �� Con$e�uti utiotij,s icii1vrior to those t__o_( . oaths of spoke- ee o tics F es o 's eC o onl an dui n c�a�hardshzn" Qr__s b e jaArdship.s exce 'x115 -an.s at east a .f to is. se ent 5% -educion ifzate tamecei the sale 91 fnn-aco1beverafgr two (21 als_Qug.cutiv m nt whereinere urazt htitdiooperating oke, ee a coin ed tqshe wee two(2)c nsecutive_ opt e ' elate r edi year Uri whicllthe Imatautale a lhad, sin 'n exce do Suc a wiry hall c s ' a face evidence and jthatkprmgaign of and e ciads - C. the initial appl^ea • n fob ,s o tin dards centio mut be made i one inndrd tw tv �- 120)dam fro the ect v_e dat of 's Orddinance, Sullseciu= Iscatxons fQr a smong hard$ i exce hal h`ade a indirat Y i ecti a fo a a h shy excemiclaimgmadeihe tie e -od fo.6set I sec OI�R_the��S'ral,],rant uSt be Sino e� . An initial hardship_$rno g exc ptio annlicatin ha be sea rnitted t the ea spa mg t and, micor din tjie fo Ion I de scrip■onQf all efforts_rnace or whjch rtusalklyssalld ern de o to theossa succe v oke- ee e V ent;_a -5- 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 06 ExQct copies off'Mate Sajcs tax statemer s submitted b ;e restagrant t sQ tie Mate of 'zona whic an sere to co_r pare stair„ ale es mooed a, Don- c ho t b vera es mora two(2, con Live, nth e 'o d o f oke ee. o era 'on the e 0 2 consec ve month period in the year inmedtately prig to sir e-free-__-operatio, , 3. EEv' ence hic deer ,nstrate_Lthat the ed drin t. e sa e tax betw-- • the ye:- in w 'c .e - e..$•tio - ou t and tom •son as or�curred undezsimilar cimeumstances and j s n t due toaxtran us factors._ Ey1(�enc�17iu S`that t e - ss ed ' bstantialtuhe same m • iCIUgJQJjmitetO uating_durhnge sarn er o our$,leinz. . .- . ,e s.,.e ._ day bein. a.-nor�the sa 1i bustos daft, such • ''-�I mens lectiound cot. E. & Jgh Shi bexi 1 teda,ah ims excezitw 2 � e be c earl ar.� sti. o le _off ib1e cd a "fit T• e tabjis nen erm r is joslto came cancer. hedi a lun disces i ersw o� - s e }�lettersou ugh• e bac rgLoAlad at._Igast 82/2 inby 1 ' des in.jze. • e tine tau ant all ranain opokezfree u Tess un • a h dS - e • ee. •i o _ afa ,:a � •.'. • ; .;$,_ the - auTgantmustbe '••o -free but ni. at'. for : su. -•uent ., dg kin cmdess tan �tt6��days and o e a and ed tw 0 days aftethgLaxpiL4t.QL aii_:_ migrigiesaxmti.ona Lu u t ds srn c 'on a ica 'ons s a 1 be b ttedto the (-21 . s e p-,i,.- t -e_d • 1 c•.s taro e fa .- T• Ldes o e de h' ab.v coil bede to - op •ate a to t cees 1I as a, _okeeteee ' o ent: and, tete S e tax,,„state ent preaed byjjkosed c fie u ie a c 11 n u c a g.stataaeta z ceir�_ for ood and n -alc hol two 2 o• e utive • o . . •d o y o t--fie- o.e c:ti. in e adt...e e the 'ca ' tl ' and e et�v 2 c nsec . �s rn sari tive n od jnthg ear'i ekte �or� ere ere to • .. urate operated mer surd h1 srn a _eycetiaTI, • RezammtIssIngtted or ed eT • fctg..cffgve date o fs �d�ailCe niti , i�ledlate��..�m�I��-dee c r Co i G��i - ec on 50 031 and sha of .e e."41.e..e • a •. 46 . �.p• t ex -.t"• - -6- 10x11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 07 .501,34l' ati vmee and hgAdng A. Ap_ 1i'atio s for cithe�,a hard ph se-in to c, ate a dtsignatelsmoltig ar aar�p s io g e c t n shabe m e to the alth de ursuant to procedures doyelo�ed by the dei at ,enhector. The county shallld a a atly 'n befo e_heal' g o c r to inviewthe pre on fou hardship 2hase-i to creat ,a deateroscina area ria and oking enet�tior�and tLconsid r the mcomigiti malfgpicia a con dei tints with Chi r(3O) o th health deoa neat' cei t an a li 'on x 1_1_4_51j12„1" ha c-in to eat de ' ated raoki gr.area 4a hi aki eYc ti0 the a � � n- e neer shJl issue a nling withaeven �7�,daysa er the healing alszy_Qatis de 'sio o the Qppacaut and t.2.-the health dei artm t within sev ) dam_, er t e is fie_ Section 3. The Pima County Code, Chapter 8.50, Smoking, Sections 8.50.040, 830.050 and 8.50.060 are amended to read as follows: 8.50.040 Control of property. A. Unless an area is exempt from the provisions of this chapter pursuant to Sections p 8.50.030, 1MM...or 8_21031 the owner or person in lawful control of property shall conspicuously post"No Smoking"signs at all entrances to said property. B. "No Smoking"signs shall depict letters of not less than one inch P in height or the international"No Smoking"symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning ng cigarette enclosed in a red circle of not less than six inches in diameter and with a red bar across it. C. Any owner or person in lawful control of property that would otherwise be exempt from the provisions of this chapter pursuant to Section 8,50.03 0 may1 placard . property as `filo Smoking." D. The owner or person in lawful control of propertyshall keep 311 nonexempt areas - of of sardthe property smoke-free. If a nonexempt area cannot be kept smoke-free p p due to smoking in an exempt area,the owner or person in lawful control of=kits_exempt p area shall placard it the tys_milt area as "No Smoking." 8.50.050 Applicability. A. The provisions of this chapter - p shall apply to the unincorporated areas of Pima County. B. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all propertyowned or controlled Pp. by Pima County. C. The provisions of this chapter may apply to the incorporated areas of Pima County -7- 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 08 • pursuant to the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-251.05,subsection D. D. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to anyplace where smoking pP is allowed pursnant to federal or state law. E. Tubing this e t excuaes noncoviice with an'., e'r Pim Comity Cade., =e or era ,lav o,r rule or re anon adopted Dormant reto. 8.50.060 Penalties. ,.v,• t •ll ../• •l; • I • .1 • 7• 1 • •• se • •'111 URh .. • MI/ •• i r 11111 ►. •.•-• :14 . V . f ••WSP. , $A. Any person who smokes in an area placarded with a"No Smoking"sign is guilty of a • • . r1. .• s 'sd- li eaTnon 13. • ' s. .e .on W I.+ o t . .�.. '- ..-rates or othemise cools a rest/grant whQ c mi: ?; Seo llowbngof a Mass 3 m eme : quire_by a.1 � t0 . ._ :a s ,.+ r�'I'tv •�► 't�3 "No S�1•,'�•'' � , as Secs-5Q.0; 2,, aiingIo_pip,cardad sn.okinarea u ver ' g sips as reoui-ed by Secti,gn 8.51.031 a( )(5); �javg_s_Qmpj-Lwitilte tetof ander ng,&hard ase.7 c Bate de ' ate smote area o dship smoking etc 'om 4. Allowinga nBrson to smoke in.. estaurntea the t designated acLkiu .g Allaaiwi___L.10,9rnoi, a dezignate ,smolg area to sut di1 tjnto,t, e s okc-free areas ttheiesta nt. Ea_ic da ofa 'oia ' ndcri in Aoft sec ' n all on 'cute a seRarate offe se aid is p shah a as veil_ . 1~geryi Iat�Qns decrze _n parag s and Qgf thi ct o o•u e, ma ,s'rate. o�tvst e of th peacee Ktrogy_24p.end_the irr ositiq.of aictininagm fixe oat Iest one-hundred do�la�rs , 100 4dnes rx�ay be_gssemd in excess afonezhuricked do Tars f$1Oo.QDjto,the naaxizx�um prescrgibed fQr a Clads 3 deme„ nor_ SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is declared invalid,that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applicalion, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. 10/11/2001 09:24 5206220448 CLERK OF BOARD PAGE 09 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect 31 days from the date of its adoption or November 1,2001,whichever date is later. SECTION 6- All restaurants shall be smoke-free within 120 days of the effective dateof this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA CO ARIZONA,TIES ' DAY OF , 2(K}1. Ratil C rij alva, Chairman Pima County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Lori Godoshian? Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 .!/ ;.d : :I, S. Friar Deputy County Attorney • , • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 JOUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 10/17/2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: SMOKING REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC AREAS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SUMMARY: Other political subdivisions and/or governmental entities within Arizona have adopted smoking regulations. The Cities of Flagstaff, Tucson and Gilbert have already adopted "No-Smoking" regulations and Pima County is in the late stages of adopting similar regulation. Within Arizona, Flagstaff has been identified as the first charter city and Gilbert as the first non-charter town to adopt smoking regulation. Oro Valley has the power to regulate smoking within its boundaries through ARS §§ 9-240 (21) & 9- 240 (22). Moreover, "safeguarding the general health, safety, and welfare of the community has long been considered a proper goal for municipal government. "State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 53, 6 P.3d 752, 757 (Ariz. Div. 1, 2000). The primary proposed smoking regulation is a compilation of the Tucson and Gilbert ordinances and Pima County's proposed smoking regulations, but is more like the Gilbert Ordinance than the others. The -oposed ordinance addresses in a more global way the broader public health, safety, and welfare issues associated with secondhand smoke (See Attached Reports). Unlike the City of Tucson and Pima County, the proposed ordinance prohibits smoking in virtually all public places. "Public Place" includes any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" within its protection. In keeping with this Council's discussion at the Study Session on this matter and, in order to provide flexibility to the Town Council in making its decision regarding smoking regulation, the following outline breaks down the ordinance itself and the possible amendments thereto. Proposed Ordinance: As stated above, the ordinance as set forth restricts smoking in all Public Places and provides no exceptions. Proposed Amendment A: Proposed Amendment A, if adopted, will exclude Bars from those areas outlined within Section 10-1-19(D) as regulated Public Places. Proposed Amendment B: Proposed Amendment B, if adopted, will allow for..a "Hardship Phase-In" and or a "Hardship Smoking Exemption" for those areas outlined within Section 10-1-19(D) as regulated Public Places. The language contained within Proposed Amendment B mimics the hardship language used in Pima County's proposed smoking regulation. \\OV_LEG\SYS\Council\Regular\101701 CC Re No SmokingMatter.doc + f TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 k;OUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 10/1712001 Proposed Amendment C: Proposed Amendment C, if adopted, will replace the primary ordinance language in its entirety outlined as follows: L Smoking regulation will be limited to restaurants and bars only. 2. Within thirty days of the effective date of the ordinance, owners and or managers of restaurants and bars located within Oro Valley will be required to declare their facility as smoke free, allowing a separately ventilated smoking area, or permit smoking in its entirety. Pima County, Flagstaff, Gilbert and Tucson instituted hardship exclusions in the event a business does in fact experience a decline in revenue based on the smoking ban. It is my understanding, Pima County is contemplating a "Hardship Phase-In" period for those entities that cannot afford to comply with the ordinance in the time allotted and a "Hardship Smoking Exemption" based on lost revenue. The attached studies outline the minimal effect of this form of No-Smoking regulation on business operations and revenue. If the Council desires a phase in, appropriate amendments to accomplish this are provided for your review. Also attached for your review are studies concerning the regulation of smoking and its effect on business revenues. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Town Council adopt the attached Ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that to adopt Ordinance (0) 01- 23 amending the Oro Valley Town Code regulating smoking in public areas. ATTACHMENTS: Studies regarding No-Smoking ordinances and the effects on retail sales. Ordinance No. (0) 01- 23 (With amendments) Resolution No. (R) 01- 23 Dan L. Dudley Town Attorney J Chuck S -et Town Manager \\OV_LEG\SYS\Council\Regular\101701 CC Re No SmokingMatter.doc ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01 -23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA, RELATING TO SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL; ADDING ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE SECTION 10-1-19 BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES THEREOF; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER. WHEREAS, on September 27, 1989, the Town Council did approve Ordinance Number (0) 89-21, which adopted that certain document entitled, "Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 10, Offenses," as the tenth chapter of the official Town Code; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Surgeon General has recognized that cigarette smoking is a cause of cancer and other serious diseases and he claims that nationwide use of available antismoking programs could cut in half the rates of teen and adult smoking within 10 years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARS § 36-184, the Pima County Board of Health has determined that literature and scientific evidence supports the conclusion that exposure to and inhaling of environmental tobacco smoke, also known as secondhand smoke or passive smoking, presents significant and measurable health risks; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARS § 9-240,the Town has authority to provide for the health of their residents; and WHEREAS, a study done by Dr. John P. Sciacca and Dr. Michael I. Ratliff of Northern Arizona University concluded that there are little or no effects on the local economy resulting from the passage of a no smoking ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town has deemed it necessary to add Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control, to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents; and WHEREAS, penalties are provided for violating any provision of this Section which regulates smoking, and the Oro Valley Police Department has the exclusive authority to enforce the provisions contained herein to promote public convenience or general prosperity as well as public health and safety; and 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 WHEREAS, adding Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control, is in the best interest and for the health of the residents of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and the Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows: SECTION 1. That "Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control," of the Oro Valley Town Code, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, which document was made a public record by Resolution No. (R) 01 - 98 of the Town of Oro Valley, is hereby referred to, adopted, and made part hereof as if fully set out in this Ordinance, the provisions thereof to become effective on the Ltlay of , 2001. SECTION 2. Pursuant to ARS § 9-803, any penalty clause contained in a code or public record, adopted by reference, shall be set forth in full in the adopting ordinance as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to regulation under this Section to fail to comply with any of its provisions. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this Section. Any person who violates any provision of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by: 1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. 2) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this Section within one (1)year. 3) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500)for each additional violation of this Section within one (1)year. SECTION 3. Pursuant to ARS § 41-1346, the Town shall maintain efficient record management for local public records and it has been determined that this Ordinance is a public record with three copies of said Ordinance to remain on file in the office of the Town Clerk. SECTION 4. All Oro Valley Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions and parts of Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or'portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 PASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor and Town Council, the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this llthday of October , 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTEST: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jnalsib 10.17.01 . - Section 10-1-19 Smoking Pollution Control 10-1-19 Smoking Pollution Control A. Findings and Purpose 1. The Town Council does hereby find that numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and 2. Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand smoke include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, decreased respiratory function, bronchoconstriction, and bronchospasm. Accordingly, the Council finds and declares that the purposes of this ordinance are to (1) protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment, and to (2) guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke. B. Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Section shall be construed as defined in this Section: 1. "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. Although a restaurant may contain a bar, the term "bar" shall not include the restaurant dining area. 2. "Business" means any sole proprietorship, partnership,joint venture, corporation, or other business entity formed for profit-making purposes, including retail establishments where goods or services are sold as well as professional corporations and other entities where legal, medical, dental, engineering, architectural, or other professional services are delivered. 3. "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in the consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit, and any person who volunteers his or her services for a non-profit entity. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 4. "Employer" means any person, partnership, corporation, including a municipal corporation, or non-profit entity who employs the services of one of more individual persons. 5. "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor and ceiling which is enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passageways) which extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, "office landscaping," or similar structures. 6. "Place of Employment" means any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including but not limited to work areas, employee lounges and restrooms, conference and classrooms, employee cafeterias, and hallways. A private residence is not a "place of employment" unless it is used as a child care or health care facility. 7. "Public Place" means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public permitted, including but not limited to banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place." 8. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, sandwich stand, private [or] public school cafeteria, and any other eating establishment which gives or offers for sale food to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens in which food is prepared on the premises for serving elsewhere, including catering facilities, except that the term "restaurant" shall not include a cocktail lounge or tavern if said cocktail lounge or tavern is a "bar" as defined in 10-1-19 (B)(1). 9. "Retail Tobacco Store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental. 10. "Service Line" means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons are waiting for or receiving service of any kind, whether or not such service involves the exchange of money. "Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, weed or other plant in any manner or in any form. 11. "Sports Arena" means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys, and other similar places where members of the general public assemble either to engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness sports events. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jnalsib 10.17.01 C. Application to Town-Owned Facilities All enclosed facilities owned by the Town shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. D. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the Town, including but not limited to the following places, and with the following exceptions: 1. Any means of public transit under the authority of the Town, and ticket, boarding and waiting areas of public transit depots. 2. Service lines. 3. Retail Stores. 4. All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in all businesses and non-profit entities patronized by the public. 5. Restaurants. 6. Bars> 7. Public areas of aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums when open to the public. 8. Any facility which is primarily used for exhibiting any motion picture, stage, drama, lecture, musical recital, or other similar performance, except when smoking is part of a stage production. 9. Sports arenas and convention halls. 10. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings, under the control of any board, council, commission, committee, including joint committees, or agencies of the Town during such time as a public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the Town. 11. Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in apartment buildings, condominiums, retirement facilities, nursing homes, and other multiple-unit residential facilities. 12. Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in multiple-unit commercial facilities. 13. Polling places. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 • th 14. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment or facility may declare that entire establishment or facility as a nonsmoking establishment. E. Permitted Smoking All of the areas mentioned within Section 10-1-19(D) above shall be smoke-free. However, the aforementioned areas may allow smoking under the following conditions: 1. Smoking is permitted in an area designated as a smoking area which meets all the requirements of this Section, a designated smoking area must be: a. Physically separated from the non-smoking area; b. Independently ventilated so that air is not vented into or does not drift into any areas required to be smoke-free; c. No greater in size than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total square footage of the seating area of the public area; d. Physically located so that entry into the area is accomplished without forcing the public to walk through the designated smoking area or be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke; e. Clearly marked as a designated smoking area by the posting of legible warning sign(s) at all entrances to the designated smoking area which read(s) "NOTICE: SMOKING AREA. Smoking is known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung diseases in smokers as well as non- smokers." The sign(s) shall be black letters on a white background and at least 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches in size. 2. A designated smoking area may include areas immediately adjacent to and outside of the area, if: a. The area is at least fifteen(15) feet from the smoke- free area and public entrances and exits; and, b. Smoke from the outdoor-designated smoking area cannot enter the smoke- free area. 3. A designated smoking area may not include: a. An entry lobby; b. Waiting areas; 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 • 1 c. Restrooms and the pathway between the restrooms and dining area; or, d. Areas where minors customarily congregate. F. (Reserved) G. (Reserved) H. Regulation of Smoking in Places of Employment It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide a smoke-free workplace for all employees, but employers are not required to incur any expense to make structural or other physical modifications. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Section, each employer having an enclosed place of employment located within the city shall adopt, implement, make known, and maintain a written smoking policy which shall contain the following requirements: 1. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of employment without exception. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices, elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs, restrooms, vehicles, and all other enclosed facilities. 2. The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within three (3) weeks of its adoption. 3. All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon request to any existing or prospective employee. I. Unregulated Smoking Areas Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Section: 1. Private residences, except when used as child care or health care facilities. 2. Retail tobacco stores, hotel and motel conference or meeting rooms, and public and private assembly rooms while these places are being used for private functions. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment described in this Section may declare that entire establishment as a nonsmoking establishment. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 J. Posting of Signs "No Smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly, sufficiently, and conspicuously posted in every building or other place where smoking is regulated by this article, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of such building or other place. Every restaurant shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign clearly stating that smoking is prohibited. K. Enforcement Enforcement of this Section shall be implemented by the Oro Valley Police Department. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this Section may initiate enforcement with the Police Department. The Fire Department or the Police Department shall require, while an establishment is undergoing otherwise mandated inspections, a "self-certification" from the owner, manager, operator, or other person having control of such establishment that all requirements of this Section have been complied with. Any owner, manager, operator, or employee of any establishment regulated by this Section may inform persons violating this Section of the appropriate provisions thereof. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, a private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this Section. L. Violations and Penalties It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to regulation under this Section to fail to comply with any of its provision. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this Section. Any person who violates any provision of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by: 1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. 2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this Section within one (1) year. 3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation of this Section within one (1) year. M. Non-retaliation No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any right to a smoke-free environment afforded by this Section. N. Public Education 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 10.17.01 tp The Police en Department shall engage in a continuing program to explain and clarify the p g purposes and requirements of the Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance to citizens affected by it, and to guide owners, operators, and managers in their compliance with it. Such program may include publication of a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions of this ordinance. O. Other Applicable Laws This Section shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jnalsib 10.17.01 AMENDMENT "A" AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01- (Smoking Pollution Control). Amend proposed Ordinance No. , (Smoking Pollution Control) as follows: 1. Page 5, Section 10-1-19(D)(6), by striking subsection 6 in its entirety. 2. Page 7, Section 10-1-19(I), by inserting a new "subsection 4 Bar." AMENDMENT "B" • • • • AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01- (Smoking Pollution Control). Amend proposed Ordinance No. , (Smoking Pollution Control) as follows: 1. Page 7, Section 10-1-19(F), by inserting the following: "Hardship Phase-In to Create a Designated Smoking Area 1. The owner of any area outlined in Section 10-1-19(D) above may apply for a hardship phase-in to allow a period beyond the date prescribed to make the necessary modifications to create a designated smoking area which meets the requirements of this section if completing those modifications by the date prescribed would create an undue financial hardship. 2. For purposes of this section only, an "undue financial hardship" means that the applicant does not have current financial basis or ability to borrow and repay the funds necessary to comply immediately with this Section. In such an instance, the owner shall bear the burden of proving to the Town that compliance will create an undue financial hardship. 3. Any Hardship Phase-In period shall not exceed one year from the effective date of this ordinance. 4. A Hardship Phase-In to create a designated smoking area application shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department and shall contain the following: a. An official estimate from a contractor or contractors licensed in the State of Arizona, of all costs of required modifications to comply with this section. b. Financial statements prepared by a licensed and certified public accountant outlining the previous twelve month period prior to the Phase-In application date outlining the undue financial hardship. c. A timetable for compliance with all subsections of this Section within the one year period outlined under Section 10-1-19(F)(3) above. d. A sworn statement by the applicant that if a Phase-In is granted, that the applicant shall in good faith comply with the timetable setout under Section 10-1-19 (F)(4)(c)will be complied with, and all modifications shall take place within the one year period. 5. An owner must apply for a Hardship Phase-In to create a designated smoking area within ninety (90) days of this ordinance becoming effective. In the event that such an application is not received within the ninety (90) days prescribed, said area outlined in Section 10-1-19(D) shall be smoke free until it complies fully with the provisions of this Section. AMENDMENT "C" .. v r r w v .v ••• v v v a r v r r v ..v • v v • . • v r.. -T- t-iE 41 C1ENCE OF HEALTH PROMO 'T' iO - Health Policy Prohibiting Restaurants : Effects on Restaurant S P. Sciacca, Michael 1. Rade' Abstract INTTRODUCTION Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of prohibiting smoking in The health risks associated with restaurants on total restaurant sales in Flagstaff ririzo•na, exposure to environmental tobacco Design. flagstaff restaurant and retail sales data were collected for periods approxi- smoke (ETS) are well documcncecl.1;2 mutely 3.3 years prior to enactment of a no-smoking-in-restaurants ordinance and 1.5 Laws that prohibit smoking in restau- �ars a ler enactment ofthe ordinance. - y f Data were compared with six comparison areas tilt rants and other businesses reduce lizing four methods of analyses. the exposure of nonsmokers to ETS. Setting, The city of Flagstaff Arizona, was the community in this study that prohibited They also provide an additional In- smoking in restaurants. --. centive and a supportive environ- Subjects. Flagstaff restaurant and retail sales were compared to sales in two similar merit for smokers to quit. Despite Arizona cities, three counties, and the entire state of Arizona. these benefits. efforts to enact intention, ii city ordinance that prohibited smoking in alt Flagstaff, Arizona, res- smoke-free ordinances have often taurants. -" been met with opposition. For exam- Measures. Taxable restaurant sales were collected from Flagstaff and all cornpatison ars plc, concerns continue to be ex- ea.s. 1Ulail sates data we're also collected to determine if changes occurred in the ratio of pressed that prohibiting smoking in restaurant to retail sales. restaurants may have a negative eco- Results. All analyses resulted in the same conclusions:prohibiting smoking in restau• nomic effect on restaurant sales. rants did not affect restaurant sales. Such objections have contributed to Conclusions. Study findings indicate that prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff, Arizona, the defeat of proposed smoke-free restaurants has had no effect on restaurant sales. (Am J Health Promo( 2998;12131:176- ordinances. For example, In 1993. 184_) the city of Scclona,Arizona,was con- Key Words:Smoking, Legislation, Secondhand Smoke, Restaurants sidering a ban on smoking in its res- . taurants and bars. One of the presen- tations to the Sedona city council in• chided a videotape of California busi- ncss owners testifying to a loss of revenue as a result of a smoking ban in their cities.y A Sedona restaurant owner was quoted as saying to the • city council. ''A smoking ban would be a major setback to my business- I would have less tax revenue and 1 would he forced to lay off employees. This is not a goad thing fur Sc- dopa- After listening to concerns John P Sciacca, A1P1-, PhD, CHES, Professor of Health Education and Promotion, and about the proposed smoking ordi- Michael 1. Ratliff PhD, Professor of Mathematics, are at Northern Arizona University,Flag mince, the city council voted to delay staff, Arizona. :t vote on the smoking ban and -fur- ther study the issue." To date, the Sriid reprint requs-'s to Dr.John Sciacca, Department of MTV, College of Health Pr'ol'ce lops.Ilex city of Sedona has not prohibited I(Jt1 . Northern Arizett:t University,Flagstaff,AZ 86011. smoking in restaurants or bars. 'his rrinturript um.>titin+tutod for puUlierutiutt June 11. 1 P06:.rn'ewii!tem reque3lerl()cooler 23, 1996:the rmum- �e,lpt was acerptv,t for ptrhtirnrlo,u feeur 17, 1997. Even when orCl111:111CC8 have been enacted, they have sometimes been .1 ni f Health homy!wi /991 1:11 I:1fh-1.Y{. CopytiKht C 1 995 11 Attic-dean Journal of Health1'1rontoti,m, MP. overturned due to claims that such o"i'-1171/95/55.00- a legislation has caused an adverse cf- 1 76 American Journal of Health Promotion Y V V. i i v a i v r.. • ••v - -.• - . - .. 1,1\1 I,L_,ice. i i i 1 1',,-) i aJ -Ns' V -,v J...r Sample Sales data were collected for the Table 1 Arizona cities of Flagstaff, Yuma. and population of Flagstaff and Six Arizona Comparison Areas Prescott: the counties of Yavapai. Co- ______ --- ccmino. and Yuma;and the state of Population Arizon-A. The two comparison cities 1990 1993 Growth (Yuma and Prescott) were selected Population Population 1990-1993(%) , based on their similarity to Flagstaff City Flagstaff of Fla staff 45,857 49,620 8.2% with regard to the following criteria: City Of Yuma ' 54,923 57,730 5.1% (1) the city collects total restaurant 6.8% and retail sales data on A monthly ha - Coconino of Prescott 26.592 28,405 �- Coconino County 05,591 104.700 8.4% 515; (2) the city is in a similar nonmet- Yuma County 106,895 116.450 8.9% ropolitan area or comparable size to Yavapsi County 107.714 118.400 9.9,q Flagstaff (i.e., 1990 population of he- State of Arizona 3.665,228 3.958.875 S.0'� nveetp 25.000 and 55.000); (3) the Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security,1903;Phoenix,Arizona. city is situated in a comparably sized County and is the largest city in its county; (4) tourism is one of the ma- . act on local businesses. For example, called the city hall to say they jor industries in the city and its cvr- f ' in 1987, the city of Beverly Hills, Cal- wouldn't be stopping in Flagstaff any- responding county; (5) the cities ifornia. banned smoking in restau- mores Furthermore, a number of experienced a relatively similar pope , rants. The ban was repealed, howev- Flagstaff restaurant representatives lation increase from 1990 to 1993. . r after a widely publicized (yet un- claimed they were losing hundreds of Retail and restaurant sales data e . substantiated) "report" claimed that dollars each dray because of the "no were also collected for the three restaurants had experienced a 50% smoking in restaurants ordinance." counties (�cavapai,Yuma, and Coconi- dropp - in business after the ordinance For example, the inanaf cr of a Flag- no) in which the three study cities went into effect-°•� staff restaurant asserted that, since are located, as well as the entire state wet .. 1nJ une 1993, Flagstaff became the the ordinance went into effect. "My of Arizona to provide additional •st city in Arizona to prohibit snook- business is down $100 to $300 a comparisons with Flagstaff (the only. 'ng in restaurants. Opposition to the morning. The manager of another city that prohibited smoking in res- ,roP osed ban on smoking in Flag- Flagstaff restaurant asserted that a taurants). The county of Coconino staff restaurants continued after cn• large number of his patrons were (in which the city of Flagstaff is local- actment tment of the ordinance. During Europeans who like to smoke and ed). the county of Yavapai (in which the first several months after the or- that the smoking bait could hurt the the city of Prescott is located), and dinancc became law, a number of entire Flagstaff community.The man- the county of Yuma (in which the stories suggesting that the ban had a ager stated, 'This could be a great city of Yuma is located) each have gg g - negative ative effect on the local economy loss for Flagstaff. Tour groups won't tourism as a major industry,were of appeared in Arizona newspapers. For return, guests will never come to comparable population, and experi- PP " xam,le, a story in the Atizona )14b- Flagstaff again."6 Concerns about the enced a similar rate of population in- lie. lith' t uotes a visitor as saying, "When economic effects of the ordinance crease.Table 1 presents population I eat and drink coffee, I want my cis- continued to be expressed after en- information concerning Flagstaff and arettes . . . We've been staying at actment of the. ordinance.The pur- all comparison areas. Note that all •as, therefore, to seven areas experienced a similar campgrounds during summers for pose of this studyk. the past 7 years in Flagstaff. But I'm assess the impact of prohibiting population increase (i.e., a 3-year to- not g g goin to stay or spend any more brooking in restaurants on total res- Lai population increase of between money in that town." Flagstaff A Fla staff resi- tattrMant sales in Flagstaff,Arizona. 5% and /0%). dent is quoted in the same article as saying. "1 used to eat breakfast every METHODS Measures downtownmorning . Now, I just tell Totals of monthly taxable restate- m}' friends from out of town who Design rant sales were collected from the Ar smoke to just keep driving to [the Sales data were collected for the izona State Department of Revenuectrl on Williams because they're tet- 5-year period beginning January 1, and from the cit} sales tax offices in c 3 ter accepted over there." 1990, through December 31, 1994, Flagstaff, Yuma,and Prescott. Retail Letters appeared>eared in Fla staff's ma• approximately 3.5'5 years prior to en- sales dam (nonrestaurant retail sales) jor newspaper from an irate 'truck- actrnent of the etc.-smirking-in-restau- were also collected from flagstaff er." statingthat he and other truck- rants ordinance to approximately 1.5 and all comparison areas to detei- er s would bypass Flagstaff for meals, years after the ordinance had been • mine the ratio of restaurant sales to ntl from svisitors who s !tated they in effect for Flagstaff (the interven- total retail sales and to help control were eco g nvincin others who smoke tion city) and six no-intervention for the possible confounding factors e tot to visit Flagstaff.?Two truckers comparison areas. of tourism and population changes. January/February 1g98,vol. 12,No.3 177 • 1 Restaurant• sales data col- Method I: Comparison of Restaurant do of restaurant sales to Flagstaff toRestauranta��d retail official figures when Sales Before and After Enactment of the restaurant sales In each comparison , lc,t.tc(1 were the b , in earlyNo-smoking Ordinance. Part 1. A corn- area (Coconino County, Prescott, V"a- ttic data were compiled as 1995. parison of restaurant sales for the 12 �•ap' County,Yuma,YUMA County. months preceding enactment of the and the state of Arizona) was corn- Intervrntlun no-smoking ordinance and the 12 puted.A comparison was then made A city ordinance was enacted in months following enactment was of this ratio for the 12 months pre- June re- •jun a 1993 that prohibitedS smokin .-.�,'��►. made for Flagstaff and each of the ceding enactment of the no-smoking in all flagstaff i'Cstat ,rants. ''Restau- six nog-intervention comparison areas. ordinance and the 12 months after rata- was defined as Restaurant sales were plotted for enactment.The associated ratio was each area for each month under plotted for Flagstaff and each corn- . any place devoted primarily to food ser- consideration. For the 12 months pri- parison area, for each month under vice where liquor e li uor service is incidental, or to and after enactment of the or, consideration_The slopes of the least such as a coffee shop, cafeteria,sand- dinance, the slopes of the least squares regression lines were comptit- wich stand with enclosed seating,soda squares regression lines for the data ed for the 12 months prior to and fountain or ice cream shop, private or were computed and plotted.These the 12 months after enactment of public school cafeteria, and any other two regression lines were used as in- the ordinance.The slopes of the eating establishment. organization,club, , ciicators of the sales trends prior to trend ratio lines were tested for boarding house,or guest house, which gives or offers food for sale to the pub- and after enactment of the ordi- equality using these cavo r'egrCssivn lie, trustee to test the slopes of the trend lines as indicators of the ratio of gt�esrs,patrons, or employees, except sates trends prior to and after enact- that the term `restaurant' shall not in- lines for equality. merit of the ordinance.. dude a cocktail lounge if said cocktail Part 2. This analysis was similar to analysis was similar to lounge is a 'bar' as defined herein. 'tar' Part 1, except that the monthly res* Part 2. This an y shall mean an area devoted primarily to taurant sales figures used wcrc Parc 1, except that the monthly ratio alcoholic beverage service to which food monthly averages covering the total figures used were monthly averages service is only incidental.Although a res- 60-month period.January 1990 covering the total 60-month study pe- taurant may contain a bar,the term 'bar' through December 1994. For exam- riod. For example, the montlil•' lig- shall not include the restaurant dining pie, the monthly figure for January, urc for January, pre-ordinance, was area. pre-ordinance,was the average of the the average of the ratios for January Effective December 2, 1994 (with- restaurant sales for January 1990, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 (four Jan- in the last month of the study peri- 1991, 1992. and 1993 (four Januarys uarys prior to enactment of the orcis- i }, od the definition of"restaurant" prior to enactment of the ordi- trance). These average ratio sales fig- was further clarified as follows: `Res- 'lance).These average sales figures tires were then plotted over time. taurant" means were plotted over time.The July The slopes of the least squares re- pose-ordinance monthly average, for gression lines were computed for the sales of xam le.was the average of the res- 12 monthly averages prior to and af- atl establishment with grossp � fond exceeding gross sales of alcohol, taurant sales for July 1993 and July ter cnacunent of the ordinance. The such as a coffee shop, cafeteria, sand- 1994 (two Julys after the ordinance slopes of the trend lines were tested wish stand with enclosed seating, soda was enacted). The slopes of the least for equality using these two rep es- fountain or ice cream shop,private or squares regression lines were cornput- sion lines as indicators of the ratio of public school cafeteria, and any other q ed for the 12 monthly averages prior sales trends prior to and after enact- eating establishment, organization, club, boarding house,or guest house, to and after enactment of the ordi- merit of the ordinance. • . food for sale to nance. These two regression lines If enactment of thc no-smoking which gives - tiblic, patrons, or employ- were used as indicators of the sales ordinance had a negative impact on the p guests. Cts, except chat the term `restaurant' trends prior to and after enactment restaurant sales in Flagstaff, a de- shall not include a cocktail lounge if of the ordinance to test the slopes of crease would be expected in the ra- said cocktail lounge is contained with- thc trend lines for equality. do of restaurant sales in Flagstaff to in the establishment but physically sep- if enactment of the no-smoking restaurant salts in the comparison ;sr- arated from the remaining area by ordinance had a negative impact on cas• flour to ceiling wails and a door with a restaurant sales in Flagstaff, a larger sepaiate entrance or smoke-free lobby to the remaining area. 'Bar' shall decrease in restaurant sales in Flag- Method 3: Comparison of Ratios of Flag- mean •ag-mraii an establishment with gross sales staff(during the post-ordinance en- staff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail • :sctment period) than in restaurant Sales Before and After Enactment of the of alcohol equaling or exceeding gross sale of fond. sales In any of the comparison areas Nv sinoking Ordinance. Part 1. The r;i- would be expected. tics of restaurant sales in Flagstaff t<) s�onrestaurant retail sales in Flagstaff Analyses � was computed. and a comparison was To determine the effect of prohib- _ Method 2: Comparison of Ratios of Fag 1� months in► on restaurant sales, staff Restaurant Sales to Comparison Al, made of this ratio for the icing smoking •tl sed in the followingcats Before and rafter' Enactment of the preceding enactment of the no-srno:- data were analyzed No,smoking Ordinance. Part 1.The ra- ink; ordinance anti the 12 Months at .- 178 � 178 American Journal of Health Promotion I'll I, 1 11...1 11... 1 11 1 1`.1.-0 • monthly averages covering the 1"abi 60-rnonth perit)d-i tntiary 1990 e 2 through December• 1994. For exam- Restaurant Sales Trends from Pre-to Post-ordinance Enactment plc. the monthly figure for January. ---- - pre-ordinance.pre-ordinance. wa• the average o f earl al• Part 2t mote l/hotel sales for January 1990, Data Set(df .. 56) t p t p 1991, 1992. and 1993. These average sales figures were plotted over time. .FIagstef f restaurant sales 0.159014 0.875252 0.269003 0.790683 The slopes of the least squares re- Coconino restaurant salos 0.154814 0.878520 -0.176095 0.861990 gression lines well' computed for the Prescott restaurant sales 0.591823 0.560600 0.714732 0.753035 Yavapai restaurant sates 0.150104 0.882166 -0.419689 0.679186 12 months prior to and after enact- Yuma restaurant safes -0.156566 0.877167 0.273019 0.787630 mem of the ordinance. These two re•- County of Yuma restaurant sates -0.873669 0.392668 0.551975 0.587081 gression lines were used as indicators State of Arizona restaurant safer -0.478307 0.637616 0.080708 0.936477 of the motel/ltotcl sales trends prior. 'Twelve months before the ordinance and 12 months atter the ordinance. to and after enactment o the ore i- I Monthly avorages of an 60 months,January 1990 through December 1994. Hailer to test the u-end lines for equality. if the no-smoking ordinance had a ter enactment. For each month un- F.prohibiting smoking in resutu- negative impact on tourism. one der consideration. the associated ra- rants had a negative effect on restate- would expect to see a decrease in do was plotted. The slopes of the rant sales, one would expect the ratio Flagstaff motel/hotel sales trends a1 least squares regression lines were of restaurant sales to recall sales to to enactment of the ordinance. , computed for the 12 months prior to change; presumably, resuturant sales and the 12 months after enactment would decrease whereas retail sales RESULTS • of the ordinance. The slopes of the for items such as clothing and gro- trend ratio lines were tested for ceries would stay about the same. The following results were ob- . cqualiry using these two regression l•towevcr, if tourism declined after tarried. lines as indicators of the ratio of res- enactment of the ordinance (e.g., as tatirant sales to retail sales trends pri- a result of the ordinance), it is possi- Method.1: Comparison of Restaurant o and after enactment of the or- ble that the ratio of Flagstaff restate- Sales Bcfort•and After Enactment of the .,,nancc. if prohibiting smoking in rant sales to Flagstaff retail sales Noamoking Ordinance.None of the trans had a negative effect on would not change because both retail tests of the slopes of the regression • dram sales, one would expect and restaurant sales would decline. lines prior to and after enactment of .he ratio to change: presumably, rcs- To consider tourism, total hotel and the ordinance were significant. That .attrant sales would decrease while rc- motel sales trends prior io and after is to say, sales trends for restaurant :ail sales (e.g., for items such as enactment of the.ordinance were sales in Flagstaff, Coconino Count.), clothing and groceries) would stay also examined (see Method 4). Prescott,Yavapai County, Yuma, about the same. Yuma Count', and the state of A,rizo- ; Part 2. This analysis was similar to Method 4: Comparison of Motet/Motel na did not differ significantly from ?art 1. except that the monthly ratio Saks Before and After Enactment of the pre- to post-ordinance enactment. Ta- figures used were monthly averages No-smuhirilg Ordinance. Part 1. Flagstaff ble 2 presents the t values and corre- -overing the 60-month period Janu- motel and hotel sales for the 12 sponding/. values for the tests in- .try 1990 through December 1994. months preceding and the 12 volved. Figures 1 through 4 are For example, the monthly figure for months after enactment. of the no- graphs of the data showing the two January, pre-ordinance, was the aver- smoking ordinance were compared. trend lines for restaurant sales for . .age of the ratios for January 1990, The associated motel/hotel sales the cities of Flagstaff and Yuma. . '991, 1992. and 1993 (four Januarys were plotted for each month under ,mor to enactment of the ordi- consideration. The slopes of the least Method 2: Comparison of Ratios of Flag- ,lance). These monthly average ratio squares regression lines were comput- staff Restaurant Sates to Comparison Ar- ..e]cs figures were then plotted over cd for the 32 months prior to and eas Before and After Enactment of the . ime, The slopes of the least squares the 12 months after enactment of Nodtnoking Or-di:muee. The slopes of '.egression lutes were computed for the ordinance. Using these two re- the pre-and post-ordinance ratios of he 12 monthly averages prior to and gression lines as indicators of the Flagstaff restaurant sales to restaurant .fter enactment of the ordinance. motel/hotel sales trends prior to and sales in comparison areas showed no Using the regression lines as indica- after enactment of the ordinance, significant differences. That is to say, ors of the ratio of restaurant sales to the slopes of the trend lines were the ratio trend before enactment of emit sales trends prior to and after tested for equality. the ordinance and the ratio trend af- "'trnei1t of the ordinance, the Part•2. This analysis was similar to ter enactment did not significantly ,,es of these two trend ratio lines Part 1, except that the monthly mo- differ in any of the 12 comparisons. etre tested for equality. tel/hotel Wales figures used were Figure 5 is a graph of the ratio data JanuarylFebruary 1998.Vol. 12, No. 3 179 examined the ratio of Flagstaff res- Figure 1 taurant sales to Flagstaff nonrestau- rant retail s;ilcs. A plot of this ratio Restaurant Sales for the City of Flagstaff as a time series is given in Figure 6. The trends for the 12 months prior 10000 - to and after enactment of the ordi- 15 r AIL Hance were. compared. No significant differences were found between pA 1kthese two trend lines for the 12 1 Nr Ipp,„ ! iv months prior to and after enactment (Part 1) or for the monthly averages Si 8000 (Part 2) for the period January 1990 1 through December 199.1 (see Table 4) Method 4: Comparison of Mole:/Noel o _ , Sales Beandfore After Enactment ofthe , , �re � Enactment No4mok:ng Ordinance. Monthly hotel/ of ordinance motel sales trends were tested for the 12-month Pro-ordinance 12-month Post-ordinance 12 months prior to and after enact- Enactment rncnt of the ordinance to control for . fluctuations in tourism. No signifi- cant changes in trends were found showing the two trend lines for the enactment (Part 1), as well as the six (sce Table 4). Figure 7 is a graph of ratio of restaurant sales in Flagstaff sales ratios for the monthly averages the motel/hotel sales as a time series to restaurant sales in Yavapai County of all 60 months (Part 2). showing the 12 months prior to and prior to and after enactment of the the 12 months after enactment_ Fig- ordinance. Table 3 gives the results Method 3: Comparison of Ratios of Pat ure 8 provides the monthly average of the test (i.e., the t and p values) staff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail sales for the 60-month period Janti- for each of the six sales ratio trends Sales Before and After Enactment of the ary 1990 through December 1994. for the 12 months prior to and after No-smoking Ordinance. This method This provides further evidence that the no-smoking ordinance had no cf- ... � ... I ,.�•.........r Vii. feet on restaurant sales in Flagstaff. � . . J • ... .. _ .. . ., . ..1� Figure 2 DISCUSSION Monthly Restaurant Sales Averges for the City of Flagstaff" This study found no evidence that prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff res- • 10000 -- tauran is adversely affected restauran t sal e:s. The findings support those rc- 900o ported by Glantz and Smith," who o compared restaurant sales in 15 cities " s0004 1 where smoke-free ordinances were in g force with 15 similar communities clir T 1r �t�oo without smoke-free ordinances and T(4), , found that smoke-free ordinances did 6000 not adversely affect restaurant sales. These findings arc also consistent 0000 with other studies in California and ra 1�►-1Y . Texas. tu cc '(000 Furthermore, the findings of the present study arc consistent with ^�_ �+ �- 1___� rY�tDec-1,1811k 1 1 Feb' 1 those of the National Restaurant . - 0 ,„I.uq Sep Oa,Toy OK J8A Feb Mar Apr May AO J A att►Q Sw a �6C.1dtt 1u4b+Apr tris;,ham Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance Enactment socia[ion,r=; in which a majority of consumers indicated that they would monthly Averages:January 1990-December 1994 he more likely to patronize a restau- rant that banned smoking while fc:•-- -Nato that the slope of the trend line reflects higher restaurant sates in high tourism months(e.g., e1' indicated that they would be less 9likely to go to a restaurant that,duty, August,and September). _ . . . .. . . _ .... . , , .• banned smoUng. When New York 100 American Journal of Health Promotion J City's Smoke-Free Air Act went into Figure 3 effect in 1995. the vast majority of the city's restaurants became smoke Monthly Sales for the City of Yuma free. Corsun ct al." surveyed 389 pa- trons of New York City restaurants X00 - -------- -_ _ - - - --_ and found that 37.0% of the smokers(approximately one-third of the sawn- plc) reported that they were dining out less frequency and that 5.3% re- v., ammo 7 ported they were dining out more IS frequently. H owever, 16.5% of the in , nonsmokers (approximately two- ' it‘ 60000 r thirds of the sample) reported din- e, . , • ing out more frequently. and only If 1.9% reported dining out less ft-c- d (uentl)•. The authors suggested that Cl) , -141, 40000 r the Smoke-Free Air Act had a nega- tive impact on soIisf restaurants, a , positive effect on others, and relative- 20000 l)'no effect on the rest with regard • to sales.They concluded (p. 33) that on the whole, the population of• Neu- 0 1 1 1 1 L s _i i i 1 1 . -.lam I-1 .l 1 1_ j._ L_ York City resuurants has not been nega- EneCtrnent lively of Ordinance affected economically.The in- 124nonth Pro•ordinance 12•rnonth Post ordinance creased revenwe trorn smoke-sensitive pa- Enactment Irons halance5 the decline from violators ,•, •,. a-.i.^�:.�n•_'r-...� -•,,`."..>•,.••.''* "'".-"" and avoicters.It is likely that, as in other 4•A :I• cities where smokc-frac legislation has been enacted.sales tax receipts from res- taurants will ultimately prove that the Smoke-Free Air Act has no impact on to_ _ -- ..- .,� �;?.:.,�:�.:. .,• .,:..•... .' tal restaurant revenue in New York Cit.. Moreover,it may well be that over time, Figure 4 tts smokers become resigned to living Monthly Restaurant Sales Averges for the City of Yuma' within the act's parameters,restaurant revenues will grow as smokers' dining behavior rebounds to pre-act levels. The present study's findings, how- ever, arc not consistent with i>relimi- Boom nary analysis of the short-term im- pact of the Mesa,Arizo»a, smol;e- ' 70000 free ordinance on salts at selected N cbusinesscs.t'This analysis compared 11 Aililk n 600000 sales in the first 2 months,July and ..Allb' * August 1996, following the imple- 50000 mentation of a smoke-free ordinance, Ny "alArf cn 4414r°4° to sales data from July and August t 400p0 )99=i to determine the preliminary b impact of the ordinance on sales. t30000 The Investigators found that selected CC categories of restaurants (trot all res z0 , taurants were studied) showed an ad- r---1-4,-- i 1 s � � jested sales decrease of about 6% AA Aug Sep OIs Nov(Nie Jan Feb Mar 4,Mar Jun JVD 4q�+D ++ c.7 sl a� Y�►+^ Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance (actual decrease of about 4%) oYer the 2-month period. However, a Monthly Averages;January 1990-December 1994 2-mond) post-ordinance period may not be an adequate length of time to Note that the slope of the trend line reflects tower restaurant sales In low tourism months(e.g., make a jtz(.lgIzIc Ili Ssl)OUt the sales irn- July,August,and September). pact of a smoke-free ordinance.As •rf•• J -'•1.L•. -lt•J•-ti✓,1••.7•,-.,. .,.7f-rI/i.+r-.•-�-•�rr.ri�.rA►�..�A�I.M I.I I,.r-IMI.-�•�•.• the investigators note, the next phase January/Fobruafy 1998.vol. 12.No.3 l e i 1 of the annlysis should provide a clear- . Cl' indication of the ongoing impacts Figure 1 gur e b of the smoke-free ordinance. Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sates to Yavapal County Restaurant Sales The present stut'.y covered a signif- icant ignificant time period of 5 years. Rather than comparing sales in the first `? 1.2 months alter the ordinance with months of sales from the previous year. data were collected for a t , •..41.41111i 4 60-month period.'Total nonrestau- "A. rant retail sales data were collected o , 0.8lir - 1r in addition to restaurant sales data for the entire 60-month study period. If prohibiting smoking in restaurants 0b" had a negative effect on restaurant t 1 sales, one would expect that at least o•a Jul Aug soo Oen Nov Doc.Ian F0 use Ap kt�Y,Jun h+Au4 Sep Oct Nor Oa Jin Fop Mar Apr May 1w+ one of the analyses would show a sig- Enactment toificant difference. However, none of of the Ordinance the analyses conducted found that 12-month Pre•ordinane0 12-month Post-ordinance the ordinance had either a positive Enactment or a negative effect on restaurant . ... ..r.. L ..'.•,...t•..•:..:�r+'A't...f�•y_•.'t'•..+.("''.-''.1�i.ti:•J1.1.-�•M.�:••:H.�rIIy/le..._•_a sales. The present study examined sales • - :.: - - •' • tax data obtained from state and lo- Table 3 cal government offices. Since busi- nesses are legally required to report Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Restaurant Sales in Comparison Areas: accurate data. the investigators knew Pre- to Post-ordinance Enactment of no cutter way to collect more accu- __-- ----_ rate data. While it is true that such Part 2 fierror-free.t •data arc not error-ft ee, any errors Ratio of Flagstaff - - - - - Restaurant Sales(cif a 56)to: t P t P would be expected to occur in an 77 0.472401 0.641755 unbiased manner among Flagstaff Coconino County restaurOnt sales -0.039000 419892and nonintervention comparison ar- City of Prescott restaurant sales -0.787700 0.434415 -0.382824 0.705889 ens Yavapai County restaurant sales -0.094437 0.925701 0.910955 0.373168 This 3�tidy(1t(1 not examine sales City of Yuma restaurant sales 0.318143 0.753674 0.1 99378 0.843980 County of Yuma restaurant sales 0.804488 0.430575 0.106583 0.916182 by size or type of restaurant (e.g.. State of Arizona restaurant sales 0.189963 0.851253 0.491555 0.628385 fast food or full service). Instead- the ---- ._ _ u osC of this study was to deter. 'Twelve months before the ordinance and 12 months aper the ordinance. P � if prohibitingsmokingin all 1 Monthly averages of an 60 months,January 1990 through December 1994. mint .... , •-•" Flagstaff restaurants had an effect on total restaurant sales in Flagstaff. :kris . -.- zona. Further research that examines the effects of prohibiting smoking by Figure 6 restaurant type (e.g., fast food vs. full Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail Sales service) and size may clarify the • question of whether some resc.ur hits cxpericnlce positive effects while oth- o/2s ers experience no effect or negative effects from prohibiting smoking. ru- 0.2 cure research should also include a 8 A A A study of compliance with the arcii- �. �- smokers�•- ' .. . `� _ dance. forif sr ok 1 ing with the ordinance. restaurant 0.1 S sales changes cannot be attributed to having smoke-free restaurants. 0.1 Although the present stits• c;jri Enactment not include a definitive examination of Ordinance of compliance. evidence indicates 12-irprltl�Pro-ordinance I2-month Post•ordinance Enactment that cnnipli:ince with Flagstaffs ordi- . ....••••••••• .•...-•• -. . , nonce during this study period •.,:ts 182 American Journal of Health Promotion circ•are ren::fining smoke free.T1w city took the p,, itiurt that enforcenient Table 4 woll1sl f.:• rc-active rather than pro-active. Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Retail Sales; This 'menus thou the Police Department Pre-to Post-ordinance Enactment would only respond tt, citizen compl:►int• rather that% issuing citiitlona based on _ ----- tvh-at an officer witneAsed.Since the cite Part 1' Pan 2t loan ilea received any complaints follow- . Of 56) I P 1 p ing the first rear in which the ordimtnrr wa% in effect.I fed confident that there Ratio of Fusels:atf restaurant sales to 0.263054 0.780045 0.101814 0.520262 are relatively ic��violations occurring. flagstaff fetal,sales Hotel/Motel sales trends before and at- 0.226023 0.623477 •-0.068817 0.945819 Future resc:irch should also can- ter ordinance _ sifter the proportion of restaurants Twelve months before the ordinance and 12 months atter the ordinance. that were smoke free prior to enact- 't Monthly averages of alb 60 months,January 1990 hrou0h December 1994. 111er1t of theordin;ince. If the majori- ty already prohibited ssztokin , there These six hearings occurred within t1�c changes in sale as a result of an or- very good. Steve Shafer, City Hearing (finance that prohibits smoking arc- Officer for Flagstaff, states in a letter first 12 months after the ordinance bc- • GG that Caine effective.Th� results of the ire;�r- tunlikely. 2n Flagstaff the majority of of November 7, 3__6, ings were that four of the' establishmentsall rest.Itirants (62%) allowed stnok- the smoking ordinance went into effect were determined to he restaurants and ing in at least some areas prior to in ane. 1003.The ordinance contains a smoking was not allowed. One was deter- the prohibition of smoking in rest�iu- provision that allows citizens to file a mined to be a restaurant with a bar Land rants. ' � cc�mplaint with the city if they witness smokinwas allowed if the bar area was The National Restaurant Associa- smoking taking placc in a local r'estau- completely enclosed and the entrance to tions=' contends that "local govern- rant.After receipt of a complaint, the the restaurant was smoke free.The oth- menu should lea e individual food city notifies the restaurant owner of the er establishment was determined to be a service establichiricnt.s free to wnc•R bar and smokingwas allowed. complaint The restaurant owner then out arrangements in regard to smok- has t the option of attending a hearing ' There arc over 120 restaurant%in Flag- ing that suit their clientele and o er- gp • d stating his/her position on why staff and there have been no citizen 1t.iotZ." Sciacc:t and Ect:.reln.t� howc��- o oolong should he allowed at his/her complaints since the six hearingswere er, found that when Flagstaff rest�-ttt- -,ablisisynent,or abiding by the proti4- held.This would lead me to believe thatg fkiti.s of the ordinance. Based on corn- restaurants are complying with the ordi- rents were required to adopt and i nts received by the city.sixhearings hs nance and that the citizens of the city post a smoking policy but were given . were held because of smoking violations. are satisfied that the restaurants in this a choice of Ne herlier to allow or pro- hi1)it smoking. 82% chose to allots' • smoking in at least some areas of the • Figure 7 restaur5tt;t.Therefore, an ordinance that merely requires adoption and Monthly Hotel/Motel Sales for the City of Flagstaf! postinfi or a smoking policy but al- lows business owners/r11''anagcrs to 4000 -__ ___ .- — choose a smoking policy that suits their clientele appears unlikely to 7000 prevent exposure of restaurant pa- trons and employees to environmcn- , 8000 tal tobacco smoke:. ailik 47, Finaily. future research on the ef- ▪ sow feces ot•prohibiting smoking in res- - • 4000 IVirtaurants should also investigate food sales in bars.The present study did not assess the impact or prohibiting N 3000 .go go smoking in restaurants on food sales 2000CD • in bars. Since both smoking and lim- ited food service (see definition of low "bar" in method's section) were al- knvecl i>> Flagstnfr lmrs, it is possible i .L-.J I s t i �—,...- i�i 1 1 ' 1 . 1 A_ . di ,hit Aug be p 0,1 No.Da Jto Feb Mar Apr May 40 Ail Aug$sp Cci Pio oat ran see Mar Apr May JO that seine smokers began eating Enactment more often in facilities designated as of the Ordinance bars, The present sturdy found that 12-montri Pre-ordinance =2-month Post-ordinance prohibiting cooking in restaurants had no effect on total restaurant January/February 1998,Vol. 12. No,3 183 • • . • . • Acknow•lyditrncnLt The anilines,*iA,,,wf.4ge l')tclip Pig'pai 11.parolee tai. Figure 8 n•rh,r of rAe.4ri..i'.'t lrntlictrtrtfv frirarrh stood llr.ir,itrrr C,Nior.tf,\'nrj#vn iteste)nn University fta.strfrtr►nnutt of. Monthly Hotel/Motel Sales Averages for the City of Flagstaff itlirtttnit Ai she tame of,Ar.wok',PI Ito rtifi•+frt•trr ret. ',humane and rr,n,Itertint.thin iiudtr. Thi.e 5111rlic,evil it1ppi,111.1 1.n MP Birt,r,nr l'r vrnocnrr rand llraal.('nr- 7000 - _ _— trrultna.An:o'iH Lrfirartnknl of llrwht Services. Rereret�cC� e000 I. I'S department fief flr.;tith and Homan Scr- ices. Thr: I ie;11(h Cortactltirnrci Of Irtiultrrt- tary S,joking.W./hingtort,DC: US t.ovcrrl- liblil ��� rnt•nl Printing Office, 1986.OHHS i'ttlllil:.i. slim CDC 8:•ti;398, .13 t 2, National Rt•aci,clt Council.En+irrti oucc�t;tl w - 4000III T�;I).aCco St,u,kr:Nte;�,curing Exi,,,sttrts:alta ni �� Aite erg Health Effects.Washington.I)(::> t- lirtivrl;tl.�oater'tnv press. 19311. r_ 3000 I. Roberto S.City Council delays vote on!unok- ielti ban.S(!nInna Red Rock News.:111 Jilt• ,t, 11.193:8,+;1. - c�r 2000 •l. Sarnut:ls B.ca:,our.S.The politics of Itx,I to- • Ilac:c•o control.JAMA 1991:266:2110-7. 5. Trat�nur MP.Degas N11..Glantz SA. Flee plcplc,.e - I toh -co irtdustr+•strategy to prevent local to. 1pQ0 ,u►)acro control.J.-Vl.a t093:2i0:470-Mi. 13. Shaffer Ni.Where there's no smoke there's 0 t 1 1 1 i i -1 - 1 _-4 t t 1 , 1 1 .5• s—t 1 lire t,1 Flagttaff:cigarette ban hurts eateries. Jo Ai4 Sep Qct Nov Det Jin FIC Mar Apt Liay Jun Jul A4 Sep Oct No.Dec Jan fie Mu Apr t.lSy Jun owners tom i:tiil.T11t;Ar170na Republic. IN Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance ,Job 1993:1.3, 7. Letters to the Editor.Not coming back.Ari7o- Monthly Averages:January 1990-December 1994 s,a t);tilti Sun.-1 September 1993:6. ,_,��; .�.R - -�..:•�. _1,; N. limes C.Sm,soking ban revisited.Arizona Daily Sun. l S July 199:3:1,•4. U. Glantz SA.Smith CRA.Thr effect of orcli- nanccs requiring smoke-free restaurants on icac:tur:Mt oulrs.Am J Public He::ilih 199.1:34! sales; however, if it is true that some hibiting smoking in city restaurants anal-s. smokers shifted their dining from had no effect on restaurant sales. 10.Ta+'lop(:anatttting Group.The Sats Luis Obis- po ordinance:a stutly of the economic tin• restaurants to bars, then an increase p:icui on S,+n Luis Obispo cesium-wits and in overall meal sales in Flagstaff may __ bars.S:m Ls,ia Obispo.Csdifornta:Taylor Cart- .-- suiting C;rnu , 1903. have occurred. SO WHAT? Implications for I I. Staronev N. Ilerwt,ocd D.Scubhlebinc WC. The accumulating evidence associ- Health Promotion Practitioners The impact of tobacco control ortlitti,nees on restaurant rt:t•eslucs in California,Claremont. ,ting passive smoking with health And Researchers California:The Claremont Graduate School. risks indicates a need for stronger ef• This study seems to indicate The Claremont institute for Econommic.Policy • Sttrclies. 191. Forts to protect nonsmokers from ex- that prohibiting smoking in all 12. Centers for Disease Control.Assessment of posure to tobacco smoke.A highly Flagstaff restaurants has lead no cf- the impact of a 100 percent smoke-tree G occii- k 'Nils, prornicmg way of reducing an indi- feet on total restaurant rtarice net restaurant sales.�1'rsl t-:s c sales. Texas.199?-19!1.1.JA 1995:27-i:kli, ‘idual's exposure to secondhand These findings support the majori- ' Ll. National Restaurant-zsociation.Smoking rut smoke androvidin supportive1tcatattnnsx:A C..)nSurn,'r Attitude Survey. p $a su pnortty of other studies on the ceonom• Washington.DC:National Restaurant.zxe)t•ia• environment for not smoking is is impact of prohibiting smoking tion Research Department.February 1993. through the enactment of ordinancesIf these findings 1-1. Corson DI-Voting CA.Enr C`1-should NYC'., g in restaurants. $ Restattr:)nirurs Lighten �'p=Cornell Hotel chat prohibit smoking in public at~ arc true for communities through- and lteatattrint Administration Quarterly. eas. This study represents an obJec- out the tariffs! States. then other April je'''t;'25-`13. �t to assess the impact of � 15. Applied Economic-a.Economic-a.Economic impact of the [ivC attempt I cities can enact similar laws. which C:.tt•of tilt•Fa Smoke-tree Ordinance.Working prohibiting smoking in all restaurants restaurantpatrons and paper::Prelii,)irt:rry Salix Tax Analysis. Moa. Local gov- protectAli2utt;t:1`inAtst-e•Department,City of Mesa. on total restaurant sales. food service workers from tobacco 19s)1i. crnments contemplating the adop- without concerns that res- Ift• Sciacc:t,j.Ecl:tc•rn NI.'r.ffecc6 of acity ordi- smoke, i,;trlt'C re•t*,r+;ttittq Ku)oi:it its cestaur:trtts.iii Lion of smc)1:c•frce legislation should taurants will lose business. retail:tur•c•S.,J CoI111111 n Healrh 1993:18:17n- note 9t4:la:1inote that this study found that pro- c'''• 184 American Journal of Health Promotion Z Page 1 of 7 r Date: Fri 13 Jun 97 08:14:38 -0700 X-Sender: glantz@a cardio.ucsf.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 To: , geneb@DX.com From: Stan Glantz Subject: Evans Response X-Attachments: C.\ OWS\DESKTOP\DATATISASM-1\EVANSR---I.HTM;Here is a nicer HTML version of of our response to Evans. I suggest that you replace it with this. Response to March 1997 Critique of "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" Stanton A. Glantz Lisa R. A. Smith June 3, 1997 In July 1994, we published ublished a five page paper, "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" in the American Journal of Public Health (1994;84:1081-1085), the leadingpeer reviewed journal in public health. This paper analyzed sales tax data from the first 15 o that, contraryto claims of cities with laws requiring 100/o smoke-free restaurants and demonstrated the tobacco industry and its front groups, such laws did not affect restaurant revenues. On April 24, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance, an organization created by the public relations firm of Burson Marsteller for Philip Morris Tobacco Company, held a press conference in Washington, DC to release a four pound critique of this study, prepared by economic consultant Michael K. Evans, which claimed that it was seriously flawed and that a proper analysis of the data showed that these ordinances harmed the restaurant business. This critique was widely distribued to the press and on April 29, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance issued a press release announcing that it had written to Richard Atkinson, President of the University of California, demanding that disciplinary action be taken against Stanton Glantz. They have also written to the editor of the American Journal of Public Health complaining about the peer review process and written to health officials around the country attacking our paper. They have also created "Californians for Scientific Integrity" and started recruiting plaintiffs for legal action. Neither Michael Evans, nor the National Smokers' Alliance, nor Burston Marsteller, Californians for Scientific Integrity, nor Philip Morris have provided a copy of this critique to Dr. Glantz or Ms. Smith. We obtained a copy from one of the reporters that covered the story. We have thoroughly reviewed Evans'critique. Evans did identify a few minor errors in the effective dates of the ordinances. We have corrected these dates and rerun the statistics. While the numbers change slightly, the conclusion that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect business remains valid. He also claims to use the same analytical techniques (after correcting the data) as we did and reach different conclusions. A close reading of his critique, however, reveals that he has not based his conclusions on the full data set and that he has manipulated his statistical modeling in ways that we do not deem appropriate. We stand behind our paper. http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 2 of 7 Misclassification of Ordinances as 100% Smoke Free When They Were Not Evans states that all but one of the ordinances permitted smoking in bars or.,bars attached to restaurants and this means that the businesses are not 100% smoke free. It is important to emphasize paper was a studyof the effects of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances. At the time these that our ordinancespassed,were bar areas in restaurants and freestanding bars were excluded because of g vigorous lobbying bythe tobacco industry and its front groups. We recognized that bars are not g Y included in these ordinances and discussed this point in our original paper (see page 1085). As we noted there, this is not a significant limitation. Evans also noted that several of the ordinances permit smoking outdoors (including outdoor dining areas or take out food eaten outside the restaurant) or in rooms reserved for private functions. We do problem.see a as this At the time that these ordinances were being passed (and vigorously bytobacco interests on the grounds that business for all restaurants would drop by 30%) the opposed term "smoke free restaurant" allowed for these exceptions. Evans does not present any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that these exclusions account for our results or would seriously bias our findings. Evans also notes that a few cases (Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride) permit creation of separately ventilated smoking rooms. We have contacted the authorities in these cities and been informed that they are not aware of a significant number of restaurants who have gone to the expense of creating such special smoking rooms. Again, Evans fails to provide any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that this exemption has been exercised in a significant number of restaurants to affect the results. All the cities included in our study meet the definition of"smoke free restaurants" that was in common usage at the time (and continues to be used in may places), i.e., rio smoking permitted in the indoor dining areas. Effective Dates of Ordinances Evans identified several cities in which he states that our paper incorrectly identified the effective dates of the ordinances. He is correct. We had based our effective dates in these cases on when the ordinance passed or information obtained from the respective city clerks. On close reading of the ordinances, we agree ree that some of these ordinances delayed implementation of the 100% smoke free provisions and that we had not used the correct dates. (We used the effective date of the ordinance which sometimes was a few months earlier than the effective date of the 100% smoke free provision.) We have corrected our data set and re-run the statistical analysis (revised tables are attached); while the numbers changed slightly, the overall conclusion that these ordinances did not affect revenues did g not change. Objections to Comparison Cities P Evans notes that several of the comparison cities had some sort of smoking.restrictions. We paper recognized this fact in our ap er (page 1082) and noted that to qualify as a comparison city, there had than 60% of seats in the nonsmokingarea. Nothing in Evans' critique identifies any to be less comparison cities that fail to meet our stated criterion. Table 1 in our paper, however, mislabels Oroville and Lakewood as having no restrictions, whereas it should have said "some" and http • //vwvw.tobacco.org/Misc/evansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 3 of 7 Breckenridge Springs e and Steamboat S rings as having "some" restrictions when it should have said "none." These errors have no effect on the statistical analysis and do not affect our conclusions that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant sales. Objections to Using Sales Tax Data Evans objects to usingsales tax data. As we noted in our paper (on page 1084), sales tax data are the best source of objective information on the effects of smoking restrictions on restaurant revenues. It is (i.e.,etecomplit covers all restaurants) and it is collected by unbiased tax authorities who have no interest in whether smoke free restaurant ordinances affect restaurant sales, and it is a crime to report incorrect results. Evans also noted that government officials who collect sales tax data sometimes make errors. While this is true and indeed, we identified a few such errors and helped correct them), there is no evidence that these errors are systematic in any way that would bias the study. This complete data is preferable to samples of selected restaurants such as Evans suggests, which can be manipulated. Government tax officials also have no interest in the outcome of studies of the effects of smoke free ordinances on restaurant revenues. Evans' Reanalysis of the Data To a reader not familiar with statistics, it may appear that Evans did the same analysis we did, yet came upwith different conclusions, thereby drawing our results in to question. This is not correct; there are important differences in how Evans did his analysis. In particular:. • Evans did not use historical data for at least 5 years before the 100% smoke free ordinance went in to effect. This failure reduces his ability to identify underlying time trends and variability that have nothing to do with the ordinance. • Evans incorrectly states that data prior to 1991 are not available; the aggregate statistics necessary to do the study are still available for eleven of the cities in our study (Bellflower, Beverly Hills, El Cerrito, Roseville, Sacramento, and San Luis Obispo, Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride). Moreover, much of the data needed to do the analysis was included in our paper (in Figure 1). • Evans eliminated 3 cities (Aspen, Beverly Hills, and Ross); we used all the cities. • Evans dropped time trends or seasonable variables if they were not statistically significant; this step could lead to model misspecification and the accompanying biases. The fact that many of Evans' analyses exhibited significant serial correlations in the residuals strongly suggests that his model was misspecified. • Evans states that the adverse effects of smoke free restaurant laws will intensify over time, but presents no formal analysis of the data that supports this point. None of the many different statistical models he uses allow for an increasing (or reducing) impact of such ordinances over time. On page 14 he says that this point will be "argued in the conclusions" but in the conclusions (on page 15) he states this result as if it had been demonstrated earlier. http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 4 of 7 Other Research It is important to noteg paper that since our original a er was published, 5 additional analyses of the effects ordinances have been produced by legitimate scientific sources. All of these analyses of smoke free indicate that smoke free ordinances either do not affect restaurant revenues.or are associated with an increase in revenues. They are: tin Group. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic 1. Taylor Consulting rou p n Luis Obis o Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, CA: Taylor Consulting Group Impacts of Sa p (under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo). January, 1993. 2. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebin W. The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies; The Claremont Graduate School. January, 1994. 3. Hwang P, Toblas S Kohout S, Harris M, Satterwhite D, Simpson D, Winn L, Foehner J, Pedro L. p Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales --West Lake Hill, Texas, 1992-1994.WWR. 1995;44:370-372. policies on restaurant revenue in Bartosch W. Effect of local smoke-free restaurant 4. Pope G, Massachusetts. Waltham, MA: Center for Health Economics Research (conducted for Massachusetts Department of Public Health). April 22, 1997. 5. Sciacca J, Ratliff M. Prohibitingsmoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant sales. Am. J. Health Promo. 1997;(in press). Conclusion We stand behind our paper. Table 1. Smokefree and Comparison Cities (corrections are in italics) Geographical* Median No. o Inside Outside Household Percent Date Rural Type of Mont Population Urbanized Urbanized Smoking Income of Ordinance Non- in City (1989)* Area Area farm Restriction ( 1989)* Smokers in Effect Effec Aspen, CO 5,049 X 100% 37,467 23.5 8/85 131 , Vail, CO 3,659 X some 41,211 Auburn, CA 10,592 X 100% 37,212 24.1 4/91 27 Oroville, CA 11,960 X some 16,614 23.6 acco.or 'sc/evansres onse.html 7/16/01 http.//www.tob g� p Page 5 of 7 Beverly Hills, 31,971 X 100% 54,348 21.8 4/87-7/87 4 CA 86,905 X some 3 5,997 Santa Monica, CA Bellflower, 61,815 X 100% 3 2,711 21.8 3/91-6/92 16 CA 73,000 X some 44,700 Lakewood, CA El Cerrito 22,869 X 100% 3 9,53 8 22.9 11/91 20 CA 25,158 X some 25,479 San Pablo, CA Lodi, CA 51,874 X 100% 3 0,73 9 24.1 12/90 31 Merced, CA 5 6,216 X some 24,727 25.1 Martinez, CA 32,038 X 100% 45,964 22.0 3/92 16 Pleasant Hill, 31,585 X some 46,885 CA Palo Alto, 55,544 X 100% 55,333 19.7 9/92 7 CA 67,460 X some 42,431 Mountain -View, CA Paradise, CA 25,408 X 100% 22,954 23.6 8/91 23 Red Bluff, 12,363 X none 19,474 CA Roseville, CA 44,685 X 100% 39,975 24.1 10/91 21 Chico, CA 40,076 X some 19,005 23.6 Ross, CA 2,180 X 100% 84,414 21.6 1/90 42 Tiburon, CA 7,532 X some 75,864 Sacramento, 369,365 X 100% 28,183 25.2 5/92 14 CA 354,202 X some 24,923 25.1 Fresno, CA San Luis 41,958 X 100% 25,982 18.9 8/90 35 Obispo, CA 61,284 X some 29,492 Santa Maria, CA http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 6 of 7 Snowmass, 1 426 X 100% 39,107 23.5 5/89 51 , CO 1,285 X none 33,259 Breckenridge, CO Telluride, CO 1,292 X 100% 31,968 23.5 4/88 63 Steamboat 6,695 X none 29,363 Springs, CO * Census of Population and Housin 11 U.S. 1990 p Housing ll Use in California ( pre orted by county)12 for California and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillanc Studyfor Colorado (statewide) 199113 "Some" refers to no more than 60% seating areas for nonsmokers Number of months for which data were available for this study • Table 2. Effect of Smokefree Restaurant Ordinances on Total Restaurant Sales (corrections are in italics) Effect of Ordinance Model City Mean Change, P R2 P bL Fraction of Total Retail Sales, F (percent) Aspen 24.8 -2.0 1.1 .820 .650 .000 Auburn 7.5 1.0 0.5 .071 .329 .006 Bellflower 13.1 1.7 0.5 .002 .433 .001 Beverly Hills 12.8 0.5 1.4 .734 .029 .684 El Cerrito 12.7 -0.4 0.7 .637 .100 .255 Lodi 11.7 0.0 0.6 .955 .004 .945 Martinez 10.3 2.9 1.0 .008 .404 .007 Palo Alto 15.8 0.3 0.9 .760 .178 .022 Paradise 14.9 -1.4 0.8 .078 .181 .075 Roseville 7.1 -0.8 0.4 .043 .150 .121 Ross 43.5 -3.3 9.1 .715 .132 .243 Sacramento 13.9 0.9 0.6 .102 .102 .233 San Luis Obispo 12.7 0.2 0.6 .764 .082 .327 Snowmass 49.2 6.0 5.7 .301 .374 .006 http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/evansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page7of7 • Telluride 29.6 9.4 4.7 .055 .197 .120 All Combined 18.4 0.1 0.6 .874 .911 .000 Ratio of Sales with Comparison City, C Aspen 1.12 .09 .12 .459 .225 .003 Auburn .44 .04 .02 .094 .119 .192 Bellflower .50 .00 .02 .968 .002 .975 Beverly Hills .56 -.06 .05 .179 .236 .030 El Cerrito 1.28 -.00 .08 .998 .053 .495 Lodi .90 -.02 .03 .652 .272 .016 Martinez .41 .04 .03 .194 .329 .001 Palo Alto 1.69 .25 .06 .001 .325 .002 Paradise .71 -.07 .03 .049 .144 .132 Roseville .68 -.02 .03 .476 .095 .274 Ross .05 .02 .01 .196 .302 .028 Sacramento 1.10 -.05 .03 .091 .403 .001 San Luis Obispo 1.12 -.08 0.6 .177 .154 .113 Snowmass .95 -.29 .20 .193 .584 .000 Telluride .42 .08 .07 .282 .372 .006 All Combined .82 -.02 .02 .487 .881 .000 http://www.tobacco.orgiMiscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 1 of 5 Respone to March 1 q .k. tRR 110140•0:00-'...1,4r :,,,*4-. ' x - J I Merchandise Donate to the ANR Foundation Free Subscription -:.i::-:-:--:i.i-:-:i:,:i:::i:-44iiii-,aai:-:"1:-:-::i-:.:-:i-:':-:.:-:ii Join ANR I I � :.......... About Us I Links I Home aiiii.:.iiiii4::1.,E:.:7:wV::.::::EliiiIiiiiiiiii-ii::iii gi.ii.i:ii;:i:::::iii::::.]':-Mz Critique of "The,Effect Effect of Ordinances to March 1997 Cri Response q p : 0 = Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" Stanton A. Glantz f_: Lisa R. A. Smith :f•'4:.� .•mak::.•.:: J: -::��:.f. :: : -.'••=: ::: June 3, 1997 ii:iliMiN..#0."*.tkilni In July1994, we ublished a fve a e a er, The Effect of Ordinances _ 4 Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" in the American Journal ofPublic Health (1994;84:1081-1085), the leading peer reviewed iii.::::ligiii1:0:: -?2:: This paper analyzed sales tax data from the first 15 ;: journal inpublic health. y .��} p p =� 100% smoke-free restaurants and demonstrated that, ��� with laws requiring . cities q g J.K laws did and its front groups, such a contrary,iiiii to claims of the tobacco industry g p 5i.::"":::.IAH'..---i..iiAl:itdt. :T not affect restaurant revenues. r w theNational Smokers' Alliance, an organization created by On April 24, 1997, g 111115:..S:.:,iiiigiiing:::]g,::iiii p the public relations firm of Burson Marsteller for Phili Morris Tobacco . Company, held a press conference in Washington, DC to releaselease a four pound . . ...... .. ::::: ::: : critique of this study, prepared by economic consultant Michael K. Evans, which claimed that it was seriously flawed and that a proper analysis of the iiiiiiiif harmed the restaurant business. This data showed that these ordinances a National ress and on Ap1•15 ril 1997, the distribued to the critique was widelyd st p press ihat ress release it had written to • .11-:.-:,:::-:-::.:;-,;,:iiiiiiiifil::.-i:iii:,:iiiiii-iii ' Smokers' Alliance issued a announcing p _' University. ..... Richard Atkinson, President of the University of California, demanding that disciplinary action be taken against Stanton Glantz. They have also written to p �' g the editor of the American Journal of Public Health complaining about the peer review process and written tohealth officials aroundnd the countryat attacking �: � �'�• 4• `: our paper. They have also created "Californians lifo r ia ns for Scientific n if C Integrity"e g r1 t y and d m • .•...........•... ......... ...... started recruiting plaintiffs for legal action. r nor Burston Smoke s Evans, nor the NationalAlliance, Neither Michael Integrity, PhilipeiiiMiliaiWii.!::i-;i▪g::•:::: Californians for Scientificg y, nor Morris have in d a M Smith.t h. Weo obtained e z or s. 1 t Dr. Gan ���l . provided a copyof this critique e to D ▪... --- ---- - ••• copy from one of the reporters that covered the story. We have thoroughly reviewed Evans'critique. Evans did identify a few minor errors in the effective dates of the ordinances. We have corrected these dates and rerun the statistics. While the numbers change slightly, the conclusion that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect` usiness remains valid. He also claims to use the same analytical techniques`(after correcting the data) 4 as we did and reach different conclusions. A close reading of his critique, or://www.no-smoke. http g/evans response.html 7/13/01 Respone to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 2 of 5 however, reveals that he has not based his conclusions on the full data set and that he has manipulated his statistical modeling in ways that we do not deem appropriate. We stand behind our paper. Misclassification of Ordinances as 100% Smoke Free When They Were Not Evans states that all but one of the ordinances permitted smoking in bars or bars attached to restaurants and this means that the businesses are not 100% smoke free. It is important to emphasize that our paper was a study of the effects of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances. At the time these ordinances were passed, bar areas in restaurants and freestanding bars were excluded because of vigorous lobbying by the tobacco industry and its front groups. We recognized that bars are not included in these ordinances and discussed this point in our original paper (see page 1085). As we noted there, this is not a significant limitation. Evans also noted that several of the ordinances permit smoking outdoors (including outdoor dining areas or take out food eaten outside the restaurant) or in rooms reserved for private functions. We do not see this as a problem. At the time that these ordinances were being passed (and vigorously opposed by tobacco interests on the grounds that business for all restaurants would drop by 30%) the term "smoke free restaurant" allowed for these exceptions. Evans does not present any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that these exclusions account for our results or would seriously bias our findings. Evans also notes that a few cases (Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride) permit creation of separately ventilated smoking rooms. We have contacted the authorities in these cities and been informed that they are not aware of a significant number of restaurants who have gone to the expense of creating such special smoking rooms. Again, Evans fails to provide any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that this exemption has been exercised in a significant number of restaurants to affect the results. All the cities included in our study meet the definition of"smoke free restaurants"that was in common usage at the time (and continues to be used in many places), i.e., no smoking permitted in the indoor dining areas. Effective Dates of Ordinances Evans identified several cities in which he states that our paper incorrectly identified the effective dates of the ordinances. He is correct. We had based our effective dates in these cases on when the ordinance passed or information obtained from the ve res ecticityclerks. On close reading of the ordinances, p we agree that some of these ordinances delayed implementation of the 100% smoke free provisions and that we had not used the correct dates. (We used http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 rch 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 3 of 5 Respone to Ma q the effective date of the ordinance which sometimes was a few months earlier than the effective date of the 100% smoke free provision.) We have corrected our data set and re-run the statistical analysis (revised tables are attached); while the numbers changed slightly, the overall conclusion that these ordinances did not affect revenues did not change. Objections to Comparison Cities Evans notes that several of the comparison cities had some sort of smoking restrictions. We recognized this fact in our paper (page 1082) and noted that g to qualify as a comparison city, there had to be less than 60% of seats in the nonsmoking area. Nothing in Evans' critique identifies any comparison cities that fail to meet our stated criterion. Table 1 in our paper, however, mislabels Oroville and Lakewood as having no restrictions, whereas it should have said "some" and Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs as having "some" restrictions when it should have said "none." These errors have no effect on the statistical analysis and do not affect our conclusions that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant sales. Objections to Using Sales Tax Data Evans objects to using sales tax data. As we noted in our paper (on page 1084), sales tax data are the best source of objective information on the effects of smoking restrictions on restaurant revenues. It is complete (i.e., it covers all restaurants) and it is collected by unbiased tax authorities who have no interest in whether smoke free restaurant ordinances affect restaurant sales, and it is a crime to report incorrect results. Evans also noted thatg overnment officials who collect sales tax data sometimes make errors. While this is true (and, indeed, we identified a few such errors and helped correct them), there is no evidence that these errors are systematic in any way that would bias the study. Thi. complete data is preferable to samples of selected restaurants such as Evans suggests, which can be manipulated. Government tax officials also have no interest in the outcome of studies of the effects of smoke free ordinances on restaurant revenues. Evans' Reanalysis of the Data To a reader not familiar with statistics, it may appear that Evans did the same analysis we did, yet came up with different conclusions, thereby drawing our results in to question. This is not correct; there are important differences in how Evans did his analysis. In particular: i., http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 Res one to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 4 of 5 P • Evans did not use historical data for at least 5years before the 100% smoke free ordinance went in to effect. This failure reduces his ability to identify underlying time trends and variability that have nothing to do Yg with the ordinance. • Evans incorrectly states that data prior to 1991 are not available; the aggregate statistics necessary to do the study are still available for eleven of the cities in our study (Bellflower, Beverly Hills, El Cerrito, Roseville, Sacramento, and San Luis Obispo, Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride). Moreover, much of the data needed to do the analysis was included in our paper (in Figure 1). • Evans eliminated 3 cities (Aspen, Beverly Hills, and Ross); we used all the cities. • Evans dropped time trends or seasonable variables if they were not statistically significant; this step could lead to model misspecification and the accompanying biases. The fact that many of Evans' analyses exhibited significant serial correlations in the residuals strongly suggests that his model was misspecified. • Evans states that the adverse effects of smoke free restaurant laws will intensify over time, but presents no formal analysis of the data that supports this point. None of the many different statistical models he uses allow for an increasing (or reducing) impact of such ordinances over time. On page 14 he says that this point will be "argued in the conclusions" but in the conclusions (on page 15) he states this result as if it had been demonstrated earlier. Other Research It is important to note that since our original paper was published, 5 additional analyses of the effects of smoke free ordinances have been produced by legitimate scientific sources. All of these analyses indicate that smoke free ordinances either do not affect restaurant revenues or are associated with an increase in revenues. They are: 1. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic Impacts of San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, CA: Taylor Consulting Group (under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo). January, 1993. 2. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebin W. The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies; The Claremont Graduate School. January, 1994. http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 Respone to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 5 of 5 3. Hwang P, Toblas S, Kohout S, Harris M, Satterwhite D, Simpson D, Winn L, Foehner J, Pedro L. Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales -- West Lake Hill, Texas, 1992-1994. MMWR. 1995;44:370-372. 4. Pope G, Bartosch W. Effect of local smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant revenue in Massachusetts. Waltham, MA: Center for Health Economics Research (conducted for Massachusetts Department of Public Health). April 22, 1997. 5. Sciacca J, Ratliff M. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant sales. Am. J. Health Promo. 1997;(in press). Conclusion We stand behind our paper. Secondhand Smoke I Smokefree Advocacy I Airports Campaign I Tobacco's Dirty Tricks I Hot Documents I Ventilation I Preemption I Youth ©2001,Americans for Nonsmokers'Rights,American Nonsmokers'Rights Foundation Some images are©2001 wvwv.arttoday.com Designed and maintained by Diane Jones. • • no-smoke.or evans res onse.html 7/13/01 http.//v�Tww. g/ _ p Page 1 of 3 406. Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance on 2 Restaurant Sales -- West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994 Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), which is associated with adverse health effects among nonsmokers (1), is a health hazard of particular concern for patrons and employees in restaurants (2). To protect nonsmokers, many local governments have enacted ordinances requiring restaurants to be smoke-free. However, the potential economic impact of these laws on restaurants is an important concern for restaurant owners. On June 1, 1993, the city of West Lake Hills (a suburb of Austin), Texas (1995 population: 3000), implemented an ordinance requiring a 100% smoke-free environment in all commercial establishments to which the public has access, including all restaurants and restaurants with bar areas. This report summarizes an assessment of sales in restaurants during June 1993-December 1994 compared with January 1992-May 1993. Restaurants in West Lake Hills had a variety of menus and food-pricing scales. Restaurant sales data for West Lake Hills were obtained from the Texas State Comptroller's office. Aggregate monthly sales data* from January 1992 through December 1994 were obtained for the eight restaurants in West Lake Hills that had indoor dining areas and were in operation during all of 1992 and until the ordinance went into effect in June 1993 (one of these restaurants closed in April 1994 because its lease expired). These sales data included the 17-month period preceding implementation of the ordinance (January 1992-May 1993) and the 19-month period following implementation (June 1993-December �- 1994). Restaurants that opened during the assessment period were not included in the analysis because the purpose of the study was to assess the impact of the ordinance on a consistent panel of restaurants (five restaurants opened during September 1992-July 1994). Data were analyzed using a linear regression model (3) that examined the relation between total restaurant sales and the presence of a smoke-free ordinance and that incorporated seasonal variations in sales and temporal economic trends. For each factor examined (i.e., time [year and month], quarter of the year, and presence of the implemented ordinance), a corresponding regression coefficient was calculated to measure the effect of that factor on total restaurant sales. A positive regression coefficient suggests that the factor was associated with increased total restaurant sales, and a negative value suggests that the factor was associated with decreased total restaurant sales. To test for multicollinearity, variance inflation factors were computed for each independent variable in the model. The Durbin-Watson statistic was computed (4) to test for first-order autocorrelation (correlation of the residuals [error terms] for adjacent observations over time). Total monthly sales for the restaurants during 1992-1994 varied by season. Sales peaked during the second quarter of each year. In the initial regression model, the variance inflation factors for the ordinance variable and the year variable were above four, indicating multicollinear involvement between these variables. To address the multicollinearity, the time variable was removed: although reanalysis did not change the regression coefficient for the ordinance variable, the standard error was substantially decreased. The variance inflation factors for this final model indicated that multicollinearity was no longer present, and the Durbin-Watson statistic indicated that significant first-order autocorrelation was not present (Table 1). The regression coefficient for the second quarter of the year was positive, suggesting that restaurant http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MMWR.html 7/13/01 Page 2 of 3 greater in the second quarter of each year than in the first quarter (Table 1). The regression sales were for the ordinance variable was positive, suggesting that the total sales of the restaurants did coefficient not decrease after implementation of the ordinance. Reported b : P HMD, Bur of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control; S Tobias, S Kohout, M y Huang, Harris, D Satterwhite, Office of Smoking and Health; DM Simpson, MD, State Epidemiologist, Texas Dept of Health; L Winn, City of West Lake Hills; J Foehner, L Pedro, Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Editorial Note: The findings in this report are consistent with assessments using similar methods in other locations that g p have reported that the implementation of smoke-free ordinances has not been associated with adverse economic effects on restaurants (3,5,6). Previous reports of decreases in restaurant sales following the enactment of clean indoor air ordinances have been based on anecdotal information (7-10), on studies that used restaurant owners' self-reports of the impact on their business instead of validated sales data (7,8), and on studies that used tax data to measure restaurant sales but collected data for only one or two quarters following implementation of ordinances (9,10). In comparison, the assessment in West Lake Hills was based on sales data that were validated by tax revenue reported by the State Comptroller's office, included data forp eriods of time sufficient for statistical analysis, and employed multiple linear regression techniques to account for temporal trends and seasonal variations in sales. The findings in this assessment are subject to at least three limitations. First, because of limitations in data, an ordinary least squares regression model--which assumes no autocorrelation--was used in place of a more specific time series model; however, the Durbin-Watson statistic indicated that significant autocorrelation was not present. Second, the model only explained 33% of the variation in total restaurant sales; future studies may benefit from the inclusion of other variables that can affect restaurant sales. Third, because the assessment focused on a consistent panel of restaurants and excluded restaurants that opened during the assessment period, the findings;cannot be generalized to all restaurants in West Lake Hills. The economic impact of smoke-free ordinances is an important consideration for policymakers concerned about the ETS exposure of nonsmokers; assessment of the potential economic impact of these laws should be based on the most objective, scientific evidence available. The findings from the assessment in West Lake Hills has provided policymakers in that community with a scientific appraisal of the impact of public health measures to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke. In addition, the assessment in West Lake Hills provides a model for other local and state public agencies to consider when evaluating tobacco-control programs. • References 1. US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MMWR.html F 7/13/01 Page 3 of 3 Environmental Assessment, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs, 1992; publication no. EPA-600/6-90/006F. 2. Siegel M. Involuntarysmoking lunta in the restaurant workplace: a review of employee exposure and health effects. JAMA 1993;270:490-3. The effect of ordinances requiring 3. Glantz S A, Smith LR. q g smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1081-5. serial correlation in least 4. Durbin J, Watson GS. Testing forsquares regression. Biometrika 1951;37:409-28. 5. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebine WC. The impact of tobacco control ordinances on restaurant revenues in California. Claremont, California: The Claremont Graduate School, The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 1994. 6. Taylor Group.ConsultingG . The San Luis Obispo ordinance: a study of the economic impacts on San p Luis Obispo o restaurants and bars. San Luis Obispo, California: Taylor Consulting Group, 1993. Gambee P. Economic impacts of smoking ban in Bellflower, California: analysis of survey data, 7. p February-Ma 1991. Bellflower, California: California Business and Restaurant Alliance, 1991. y, B. Company.Charltonon Research Com Pacific Dining Car Restaurant and Southern California Business Association, December 11, 1993-January 15, 1994. San Francisco, California: Charlton Research Company, 1994. 9. LaventholY & Horwath, Certified Public Accountants. Preliminary analysis of the impact of the os Angeles ban on smoking in restaurants. Los Angeles, California: Laventhol & Horwath, proposed L gg Certified Public Accountants, 1990. • 10. Masotti LH, Creticos PA. The effects of a ban on smoking in public places in San Luis Obispo, California. Evanston, Illinois: Creticos & Associates, Inc, 1992. * To protect confidentiality, individual restaurant sales data are not released by the Comptroller's office . *********************** • 0199c 6 Gene Borio, Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645). WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org).Original Tobacco BBS material maybe reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit *********************** g Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage /Resources Page /Health Page/Documents Page / Culture Page/ Activism Page *********************** END OF DOCUMENT http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MIVIWR.html 7/13/01 Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smo.. Page 1 of 2 Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smokefree Legislation January 29, 2001 Dear Senators: I am writing to urge you to advance Legislative Bills 227 and 423, and to briefly share with you San Luis Obispo's success as the world's smoke-free leader. 1n 1990, San Luis Obispo, California became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings including bars and restaurants. Since that time, municipalities around the world have followed suit, using San Luis Obispo as a model. I'm sure you are aware that cities and counties from Amherst, MA to Shasta County, CA have adopted smoking bans in public workplaces, bars and restaurants. The trend has also taken hold outside the United States in communities from Canada to Ireland. I must admit that, at the time the ordinance was presented, we were extremely wary of it. We feared that the ban on smoking would cost the community revenue,jobs, tax dollars, tourists and tourist- generated income. We ended up coming out in support of the ordinance, seeing it as a leap of faith that wouldn't hurt business. Suffice it to say, our initial fears were unfounded and today, I'm pleased to report that the effects have been extremely positive. According to reports issued by the California State Board of Equalization, the number of eating and drinking establishments in the city have grown, taxable transacations from eating and drinking establishments have eclipsed statewide levels, the number of tourists to the city has grown exponentially, and the ever-important transient occupancy tax collected by the city is at a record high. In fact, we believe that tourists seek out San Luis Obispo as a vacation destination because of our clean air and pristine environment and appreciate our concern for the health of our visitors and residents. An interesting side note: restaurants just outside of our city limits, ended up voluntarily enforcing the ordinance (before it became state law) to compete with city-wide restaurants who were reaping the benefits of the smoking ban. I sincerely hope that our decade of unprecedented positive growth will convince you that a move to make Nebraska restaurants smoke-free is a true "win-win." Thank you for your consideration. Very Cordially, David E. Garth President/CEO San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro St. http:Uwww.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html 7/16/01 Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smo.. Page 2 of 2 Let�„P�,r to San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 This document's URL is: http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html *********************** Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage/Resources Page/Health Page/Documents Page/Culture Page/ Activism Page *********************** END OF DOCUMENT http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html 7/16/01 Barin !sE F ( oalition t Cl Jc '• (nk 'rio-'h41 a A I HUu1 ) October 15,2001 car., �� LQ;(\i - 6', \L- - Paul H.Loomis,Mayor 11000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,AZ 85737 Mayor Loomis: Attached is a copy of the most recent study on second-hand smoke conducted in Pima County. The University of Arizona conducted the study in cooperation with the Amer ican Cancer Society and Tobacco-Free Ways this summer. The intent of the study was to determine the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of voters in Pima County with regard to secondhand smoke and secondhand smoke policies. The study was also undertaken in part to es.tab. at baseline m 'e of social norms and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and support for policies that protect the public from its harmful health effects. This data was presented to the Pima County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing on October 9, which culminated in the board's passage of a Pima County Restaurant Smoking ordinance. Some of the findings of this study include: ➢ The large majority of Pima County voters take personal measures to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke > A tobacco free lifestyle is the social norm in Pima County, and rules prohibiting smoking are commonplace,even among smokers. > There is considerable support among Pima County voters for public policies to completely ban smoking in some public places. > The political advantage will go to the candidate who supports clean indoor air laws. We hope you find this new research helpful in your upcoming decision on an ordinance protecting Oro Valley citizens from second-hand smoke. The Town of Oro Valley can demonstrate their community leadership by passing a strong ordinance that matches or exceeds the recent Pima County ordinance. Sincerely, Lynne Smith Clearing the Air Coalition Steering Committee Attachment: Survey Report Pima County Residents For Clean indoor Air 1636 North Swan Road, Suite 151, Tucson, Arizona 85712 Tel: (520) 321-7989, ext. 216 Fax: (520) 318-6280 E-Mail: clearingtheair@cancer.org 40 ALIO 11 OPY r d 50cl 201) I eeco- 51#11°"le6 Merrill Eisenberg, Ph.D. Tobacco Policy Research Team College of Public Health The University of Arizona August 15, 2001 Sponsored by the American Cancer Society with funding from Tobacco-Free Ways, a program of the Arizona Tobacco Education and Prevention Program, Arizona Department of Health Services • I. Background ental tobacco smoke (ETS) contains a mixture of hazardous chemicals suc as Entiironm hydrogen cyanide, sulfur dioxide, benzopyrene, formaldehyde, 4-aminobiphenyl, cadmium, carbon monoxide and nicotine. More than 50 compounds in tobacco smoke arerecognized it is not surprising that ETS is a recognized cause of a wide carcinogens. . varietyhealth problems, lung and nasal sinus cancer, heart disease morbidity of p including and mortality, eye and nasal irritation in adults, and acute respiratory tract infections, symptoms, middle ear infection, and asthma in children. In addition, chronic respiratory s causal] associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and low birthweight.' ETS i y For many years the health effects of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke were not recognized and the tobacco industry freely promoted smoking, portraying it as a desirable and normative activity. In recent years, the scientific evidence about smoking secondhand smoke has led topublicly sponsored efforts to decrease the prevalence of and P passed. smokinggArizona a tobacco tax in 1995, a portion of which goes to tobacco education, prevention, and cessation services. The prevalence of adult smoking in Arizona declined from 23.8%to 18.8% between 1996 and 1999" Publicolicies that address exposure to secondhand smoke have been enacted in many policies Arizona communities. These ordinances reflect a growing public concern for the protection of citizens from the hazards of secondhand smoke. They vary in the degree of P3 rotection they offer and in the setting to which they apply. Many restrict smoking in publicplace to optional smoking areas. This type of restriction does not provide P protection and is likened to designating an "optional peeing section of the pool." A recent study of local level policy makers in Arizona found that 73% of city council members and county supervisors view guaranteeing clean indoor air in public places as " responsibilitygovernment and 60.0% view it as a county responsibility''. being a of city government, While most localP olicy makers recognize their role in creating tobacco control policy, approximately one third did not believe that their constituents support tobacco control y policies. This study was undertaken to determine the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of voters in Pima County with regard to secondhand smoke and secondhand smoke policies. The study was undertaken in part to determine the degree of support for strong clean indoor airolic y Pima County voters, and in part to establish a baseline measure of social p } among norms and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and support for policies that protect the public from its harmful health effects. II. Methods The Tobacco Policy Research Group at the University of Arizona, College of Public Health conducted a telephone survey of 559 registered voters in Pima County to determine knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The survey was conducted between June 18, 2001 and July 16, 2001. A. Survey Instrument The survey instrumentdeveloped to address the following areas of inquiry: was p 1. Salience of environmental tobacco smoke as a health hazard 2. Rules about smoking in the home, car, and workplace 3. Exposure to ETS in various public places and in the workplace 4. Attitudes about allowing smoking in various public places 5. Support for public policies regarding ETS 6. Demographic information and smoking status The survey was designed to be brief, taking no more than 15 minutes to complete. The instrumentwas pre-tested re-tested and minimal revisions were made for readability and to add response categories for some questions. It was translated to Spanish by a additionalp �. th d translator, and back-translated to English by a second licensed translator. Bo licensed the EnglishSpanish and S anish versions of the survey were programmed using ACCESS, creating a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) system. B. Interviewers Five telephone interviewers were trained to conduct the survey; two of the interviewers p were Spanishspeaking. Telephone sp eaking. Tele hone numbers were assigned to each interviewer. When an English-speaking eakin interviewer contacted a Spanish-speaking household, the caller would p g for not speaking Spanish and terminate the call. The telephone number would apologizep � P then re-assignedSpanish-speaking ish- an (2.7°/obe to a S s eaking interviewer. Fifteen interviews of completed interviews) were conducted in Spanish C. Developing the Sample A list of 6,000 random telephone numbers was purchased from Scientific Telephone Samples (STS). They screened the list for disconnected numbers and businesses, removing these from the original list of 6,000 numbers. We therefore received 4,682 telephone numbers from STS. Of these an additional 1,062 were found to be inappropriate telephone numbers (businesses, fax machines, disconnected numbers), p leaving 3,620 appropriate telephone numbers. Up to five attempts, each at different times of the day, were made to each phone number. If no contact was made after five attempts the numbefwas deleted from the call list. TheP rotocol called for an equal number of interviews with males and females. The original quota was to interview 250 males and 250 females. Females are more likely to g answer the telephone, so callers first asked if there was a male registered voter available. If none were available, the female would be interviewed. Once the quota of females was reached, only men were interviewed. A total of 115 females registered voters were reachedbut considered to be ineligible because the female quota had been met. After rea �' � 500 interviews had been completed, fifty-nine additional interviews were conducted, again controlling for equal numbers of males and females. The total number of was 559, completed interviews279 with men and 279 with women. One additional interview was conducted with a person of unknown gender. D. Response Rate rate as a percentage of all connected calls to households was The unadjusted response 49.1%. Hang-ups before screening eening for registered voters are included in the total number of households reached, and were coded as "refused". An estimate of the number of hang- ups ang- ups that would have been unqualified for participation because no registered voter is based on the percentage of screened households that had no present was calculated,registered voters. Refusalsalways almost alwa s took place prior to establishing eligibility. Greened, 25.9% did not have a registered voter present. If Among households that were s non-voters in the hang-up households is the same, 147 of the 566 the percentage of g p participate households that refused to artici ate were households that did not have a registered subtracted from the number of eligible households reached, the voter. When these are response rate rises to 56.4%. Table 1 shows the unadjusted and adjusted disposition of all calls made. Table 1: Disposition of Calls Unadjusted Adjusted Completed interviews 559 559 Refusedto participate artici ate 566 419 Terminated mid-interview 14 14 Subtotal: Eligible households reached 1139 992 Excluded because quota met 168 168 Unqualified no registered voters) 240 387 Inappropriate telephone numbers 1062 1062 contact after 5 attempts Could not 2073 2073 Total Numbers Attempted ted 4682 4682 P Interviewers would either conduct the interview at the first contact, or make an appointment specified a convenient time s ecified by the interviewee. Three hundred twenty- one of the 559 calls (57.4%) were completed between noon and 5pm; 186 calls (33.3%) P were completed5pm between and Spm; and 52 calls (9.2%) were completed before noon. P Ill. Sample Description With a sample size ize of 559, the results of this survey are accurate at the .05 level, plus or minus not more than 4.2 percentage points. o� all callswereto Tucson telephone exchanges. It is not possible to Almost 90�o of made P households within Tucson city limits. Most of the others were to identify calls made to remaining 1% were ValleyMarana (2%) or Coronado (3%) exchanges. The Gree�1 to Vail, Ajo, Tubac, and Tohono O'odham exchanges. Half of the respondents were men and half were women. Age ranged from 18 years to 91 years, with an average of 52.8 and a median of 52. One quarter of the sample was between 18 andone quarter 40, was 41-52, one quarter was 53-68 and one quarter was work outside of their over age 68. More than half of the sample (55.2%) report that they o home. Survey respondents identify were asked to the ethnic groups they belong to; 88% - p, identified with one ethnic grow 8.2%with two, 1.1% with three, and .2% with four group, Fourteen individuals (2.5%) did not identify with any ethnic group. ethnic groups. av el al 1, 76.0% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, 9.7% were of mixed xed ethnicity, 1.5% were Asian, 1.3%0/ we re Native American 1.1% were Other, and .7%were African shows the ethnic composition of the American. Figure 1 sample. Whites who also P identified with another ethnic group, but not with Hispanic, c, (e.g. white, non-Hispanic) accounted for 79.1% of the sample. Figure 1 Ethnic Composition of the Sample `� D White 0 Mixed f;Zt 1 ®Hispanic -,,,,t,1 __.,, ea•rir � ::�:... 7:- ,�� x•-•-4 0 As i a n - �^•_i ®Native American e. S t.i. a '� YY ial7YiTL' 0 Other ._ r�- j � 4Y�,J `� -...,;',. .-=-7.--..-1,- ;:v = ./�A .--v--- -,,.,t.• fY� r -z.* ._1511 ®African n Ameri can J.;�J,L-�- :..:ice. `� .. y ''.(a"�r_ _-fi r of the respondents reported that they live in a Slightly less than one third (31.3%) survey 1 household with children r age 0-18. Overall, 12.2% of households had children age 0-4, g with children age 5-11, and 17.8% of households had children age 16�°�o had household 12-18. Among households with children, the average number of children was 2.1. The proportion of surveyrespondents who are smokers was 15.6%, reflecting the Arizona Adult Tobacco Survey"that found 15.4% of Pima County findings of the 1999 ke residents are current smokers. Of the current smokers, 11.5% reported that they smo smokedays.on some In addition, 15.1% of respondents report that a every day and 4.1% I • household member smokes. Among respondents who smoke every day, 39.1% live with another smoker. 1' live Among those who smoke on some days, 17.4% lib e with another smoker. Among those who do not smoke, 11.7% live with a smoker. Over all, there was at least one smoker present in 25.2% of the households surveyed. Almost half of the respondents (46.1%) reported that someone who is sensitive to secondhand smoke lives in their household. More than one out of five households (21.8%)that have a member who is sensitive to secondhand smoke also have at least one smoker. Overall, the sample was reasonably reflective of Pima County voters`'. Comparison p ramo a' hic information for voters is not available. Comparison is therefore made with demographic p thegeneral Pima Countypopulation as reflected in the 2000 Census. The survey sample was more likely to be older and to be white that the entire adult population, as would be J sample expected in a of registered voters. Hispanics are under-represented in the sample, p probably robabl because a larger percentage of the Hispanic population is younger and not eligible to vote, and because Hispanics are less likely to be registered to vote. Table 2 provides a comparison of the sample population with availableilable Pima County population data. Table 2: Comparison of Sample with Pima County Sample— Pima County— registered voters All Adults % Female 50.0% 51.0% % White, non-Hispanic 79.1% 61.5°'0 % Smokers 15.6% 15.4% % 18-24 . 1.5% .9% % 25-44 29.8% 28.4% % 45-64 21.9% 37.2% % 46+ 27.5% 14.2% IV. Findings A. Salience Salience is the degree to which respondents believe avoiding secondhand smoke is important for protecting health. ETS exposure is compared to other common preventive health behaviors. Respondents were asked On a scale of 1-5, where I means not important at all. and 5 means veil, important, how important do you think the following . things are for protecting health? Table 3 shows the percentage of respondents your indicating that the items are very important or important: Table 3: Salience of ETS Exposure Very Important important Total Avoiding g expos ure to secondhand smoke 58.0% 17.8% 75.8% Wearing and sunscreen 54.7% 23.6°A 78.3% Getting regular 1 r exercise 68.7% 22.5% 91.2% your seatbelt 86.4% Wearing y ou 7.4% 93.8% Eating a balanced nced diet 77.4% 17.1% 94.5% Table 3 shows that three quarters of the sample believe that avoiding exposure to secondhand smokeimportantprotecting is for health. However, avoiding ETS was the of all of the five preventive health measures listed. One quarter of the least salient respondents thought avoiding exposure to secondhand smoke was not important. Gender v � was a significant predictor of salience. While 85.6% of women agreed that it is important to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, only 66.2% of men did (p=.000). Ethnicity was also a significant predictor of salience— 74.3% of non-Hispanic whites believed it is important to avoid secondhand smoke, compared to 81.7% of all other ethnic identities (p .O6). While 82.1% of non-smokers believe avoiding ETS is important, only 41.2% of share that belief =.000). Two thirds of those who say that it is not important to smokers (P avoid y secondhand smoke also say it is also not important to eat a balanced diet, the most salient of thereventive measures listed. Individuals who do not believe eating a balanced diet is p important account for 5.4% of the total sample, but are 14.9% of those who do no believe avoiding ETS is important (p=.000). • B. Rules 1. ETS in the Workplace The city of Tucson has an ordinance (Article III, Sec 1-89(3))that requires employers to adopt, implement, and maintain a written policy regulating smoking by employees. Thesepolicies mustprohibit smoking in conference and meeting rooms, classrooms, auditoriums, rest rooms and hallways. The ordinance also requires two thirds of the seating capacity in cafeterias, lunchrooms and employee lounges to be smoke free. p y Nonsmoking employees ees em toobject to his or her employer about smoking in his or her may J workplace J k lace and a reasonable accommodation must be made. Workplace smoking is not • regulated by Pima County. More than half(55.2%) of the respondents report that they work outside the home. Mor Among these, 7.6% state that there are no rules about smoking in their workplace and +�, > g isallowed in some rooms and offices. The large majority 9.9% state that smoking (82.6%) repthat smoking is entirely prohibited in their workplace. 2. ETS in the Rome and Car they have for smoking inside their home and in their Respondents were asked about rules isy 80% (80.8%) of the respondents state that smoking not permitted car. Approximately prespondents who have cars prohibit smokingin their Inside their homes, and �9.9% of cars. Table 4 shows the types es of home and car smoking rules that were asked about, and ondents who re ported that they had adopted these rules. the percentage of resp P Table 4: Smoking Rules in Homes and Cars Home Car Smoking prohibited rohibited entirely 80.8% 79.9% peSmokingrmitted ermitted in some areas 5.6% N/A Certainpeople le may smoke 5.6% 7.7% p permitted Smokingermitted if windows are open N/A 6.3% No smoking restrictions 8.0% 6.5% Smoking rules are significantly more prevalent among non-smokers. Among smokers, 25.3% completely prohibit smokingin their car, while 89.3% of non-smokers do so (p—.000). Approximately one matelquarter of all households surveyed contained at least one 49 3% prohibitsmoking in the home entirely and an additional smoker and among these, - restrictions on smokingin the home. Non-smoking households 32.9% have partial three of the sample and among these, 91.5% prohibit represent approximately quarters - _ % have partial smoking restrictions (p .000). As expected, smol�.ing entirely and 3.9/ �. . did not think ETS was important were significantly more respondents who avoiding likely to have no rules about smoking in their homes (p=.000) or cars (p=.000). Having d was not a significant predictor of home or car smoking rules. children in the hou sehol 3. Restaurant Seating Preference Although smoking hasentirely been prohibited in Tucson restaurants since October, in the Tucson restaurants still allow smoking and many restaurants 1999, Pima County area that are not within citylimits offer smoking and non-smoking seating. Survey he prefer to be seated in restaurants. A large majority of respondents were asked where they respondents (86.2%) report tha y t the 7 prefer to sit in the non-smoking section, 6.501�o prefer 7.2% have nopreference. An additional .2% (one individual) the smoking section, and . significantly more likelyto prefer the smoking section of had no opinion. Smokers were s ` y °� restaurants, although less than half of them do so (48.4%). Among smokers, 28.1,0 prefer non-smoking and 23.4% have no preference. C. Exposure 1. Workplace regarding in the workplace are described above. Three hundred Public policies smoking p and eight (55.2%) res onof the dents reported that they work outside their homes. Of p had been exposed to ETS in the workplace in the past week—more than these, 40 (13%) p 1on five or more of the previous seven days. Less than 4% of persons who half of these N workplaces that prohibit smoking entirely report being exposed to ETS are employed in p compared with 53.3% of those who have partial restrictions in the in the workplace, p and 65.2% of those who have no workplace smoking rules (p000) . The workplace number ofexposure , days in the workplace was also significantly related to workplace y policy status(p .000). Table 5 shows the percentage of respondents exposed to ETS in the workplace previous duringthe week and the number of days they were exposed in the previous week, by the ETS policy status of their workplace. Table 5: Exposure to ETS in the Workplace, by Workplace Policy Status No rules Partial Policy Smoking prohibited % Exposed in previous week 65.2% 53.3% 3.6% p # Days exposed in past week 3.4 days 2.5 days .1 day -._ ...__. ..........m®rmorca�amoca•-•-�o:�rxraxaiso�ar Table 5 demonstrates thatp artial policies that restrict smoking in some areas, but not p others do reduce exposure to ETS minimally, and that complete smoking bans are much more effective. 2. Public Places Publicpolicies regulatingsmoking places have been enacted by the state of Arizona, Pima County and city of Tucson. In ARS 36.601.01 the State of Arizona prohibits smoking in elevators, indoor theaters, libraries, art museums, lecture or concert halls or busses that are used by or open to the public. Smoking is also prohibited in waiting rooms, rest rooms, lobbies or hallways of any health care institution, public waiting rooms of health associated laboratories or facilities, physicians, dentists, psychologists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, chiropractors, naturopaths, optometrists or opticians, except in designated smoking esi gnated areas. ARS 36-601.02 prohibits smoking in any building owned orby directlyleased the state, except for designated smoking areas. The State of Arizona alsoP rohibits smoking at off campus school events (ARS Section 36-798.03). Pima County prohibits smoking in all County buildings and enclosed places that are open to t public, exceptplaces for where smoking is permitted by federal or state law. Pima County exempts y also bowling alleys, pool halls, bars, restaurants, retail tobacco stores, hotel and motel rooms when rented to guests, hotel and motel conference and meeting g when being used forprivate functions, assembly rooms when being used for rooms private functions, private homes, private, non-commercial vehicles, commercial vehicles 0 occupied by o3 person,only one an office occupied by only one person, and smoking by . when is by a script as an integral part of the performance performers smoking required . 8.50). This ordinance applies to the unincorporated areas of the county. Tucson (ChapterPP prohibits smoking in structures controlled by the city and in enclosed places such as taxicabs, lobbies, hallways, restrooms, stairways, malls, stores, theaters, locker rooms, conference rooms and recreation rooms. Bars, bowling alleys, pool halls, restaurants, retail tobacco stores, private homes, hotel and motel rooms rented to guests, hotel and motel conference rooms public or meetingand or private assembly rooms when used for private functions, andprivate vehicles are exempt (Article III, Sec 11-89(2)). Smoking in performances is permitted when it is required by a script as an integral part of a performance. Tucson also prohibits smoking in restaurants (Chapter 11, Article I, Section 11-19). Survey respondents res ondents were asked if they had been exposed to ETS in a series of public places duringthe past 30 days. Table 6 summarizes the findings, showing the percent whoreported been to the place, and of these, the percent who were exposed to p having secondhand smoke there. Places where smoking is prohibited by law are marked with asterisks. Table 6: 30-Day Exposure to ETS in Public Places % Been There % Exposed Bars 28.9% 82.6% Bowling alleys 13.5% 62.7% Outside shopping smalls/shopping areas 85.9% 60.3% Bus stops 11.6% 60.0% Outdoorsporting s orting events and concerts 33.9% 55.0% Restaurants** 91.2% 40.8% Public Parks 60.1% 30.9% Indoor sporting events and concerts* 19.7% 25.7% PublicP ools 22.3% 21.8% Outdoor school events* 21.9% 21.3% * Prohibited by the State of Arizona except in designated areas ** Prohibited by the City of Tucson n 3. 7-Day Exposure .� ' ' specificquestions asked about exposure to ETS in the above public places, In audition to . were asked three questions about their exposure to ETS in the past survey respondents � seven days: In the 7 days, on how many days were you in a room other than at your past � Jplace rimar f primary work where somebody was smoking tobacco? •o • During the past 7 days, on how many days were you in a room or office at your primary place of work where someone was smoking tobacco? During• thepast ;, days on how many,days were you in a vehicle where someone J was smoking tobacco? Table 7 summarizes the responses to these items: Table 7: 7-Day Exposure to ETS Average# of days % Zero days % 7 days In a room not at work 1.12 days 66.4% 7.6% In a room at work .58 days 87.0% 4.2% Ina car .76 days 82.0% 6.8% Respondentsreportedbeing who exposed to ETS in a room not at work were asked to the place(s) where their exposure occurred. Table 8 shows the range of responses name p the number of people who had been exposed in each place. Private residences were and p p by, far the most frequently mentioned place, followed by restaurants. Table 8: 'Location of 7-Day Room Exposure, Excluding Primary Place of Employment Place Number mentioning Private residence 100 Restaurants** 50 Business/workplaces 12 Stores/Malls** 11 Casinos/bingo halls 8 Clubs (comedy,comedy, dance, resort, American Legion) 7 Schoolg rounds* 4 1n Place Number mentioning Bowling alley 4 Cars 4 Doctor's offices/hospitals* 3 Hotels 2 Airport 1 Movie theater** 1 Shooting range 1 Ball game 1 Funeral 1 Rest area 1 Las Vegas 1 Cruise ship 1 Convention 1 Everywhere 1 * Prohibited by the State of Arizona, except in designated areas ** Prohibited by the City of Tucson A rough measure of overall seven-day exposure to ETS was constructed by summing the number of days during the past week on which respondents were exposed in a room at work, in a room not at work, and in a car. The results ranged from zero to 21 exposure . day sTwenty-oneexposure days means that during the past seven days, the respondent was exposed to ETS in all three locations on every day of the week. The average number ofexposure days was 2.9. Slightly more than half of the respondents (50.8%) reported y exposures days, and 18.4% reported seven or more exposure days. The number of no p y . . x sure days is correlated with the salience score for avoiding secondhand smoke. That e po y is, the more strongly a respondent believes that avoiding secondhand smoke is important, the fewer exposures he or she reports in the past seven days (r=-.335, p=.01). Among those that rate the importance of avoiding secondhand smoke as a one or two on a scale of 1-5, where 1 means very important and 5 means not important at all, the average number of exposure days was 1.9, compared with 5.2 days for those who assign a lower level of importance to avoiding secondhand smoke. The data were examined to determine if having rules about smoking in the home or car of exposure to ETS. Respondents were significantly less likely was related to the degree p p report ETS exposure days if they lived in households that prohibited smoking entirely to p P Y or if they psmoking in their car. Partial restrictions on smoking in the home or 7 1 car did little to decrease exposure to ETS. Table 9shows the average number of exposure days by household and car rule status. Table 9: Exposure Days by Home and Car Rules Home Car No rules 7.0 days 8.4 days Smoking is restricted to some areas 7.5 days N/A Smoking is restricted except when certain people are present 6.5 days 9.4 days Allowed with the windows down N/A 5.7 days Smoking is prohibited inside 1.9 days 1.2 days D. Knowledge and Attitudes The survey interviewers asked respondents about their opinions about second smoke saying Now .l'ins going to ask you about your opinions about secondhand smoke. For each statement,please tell me tfyou strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. Although the response category "don't know" was not offered, the category was available for the interviewers to check. The seven items included: I. Inhaling someone else's smoke can cause serious health problems in non- smokers . Secondhand smoke does not pose a danger to pets like dogs or cats 3. The little hit of smoke you inhale in public places where smoking is allowed is not enough to hurt you 4. Secondhand smoke is more dangerous for children than it is for adults 5. Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death 6. Theg overnment should slop tying to regulate where smoking is permitted 7. Smokers have the right to smoke wherever then want Table lOshows the responses to these items. Table 10: Opinions About Secondhand Smoke StronglyAgree Disagree Strongly Don't � Agree Disagree Know Inhaling someone else's smoke can cause serious healthp roblems 52.6% 35.0% 6.5% 3.6% 2.3% in non-smokers. Secondhand smoke does not pose a danger to pets like dogs or cats. 1.4% 6.6% 47.5% 3 0.5% 14.0% 1� . .soar irmznr-._ re- ._ - r_ita:ci•arR.rrzv-_•aam x+r-ssn�=xc+�*+rns-iax - Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don't Agree Disagree Know The little bit of smoke you inhale l' places where smokingis 3.2% 22.6% 45.5% 26.9% 4.8% iilNub public allowed is not enough to hurt you. Secondhand smoke is more da naerous for children than it is 31.9% 46.3% 10.8% 3.6% 7.4% for adults. Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable 17.8%0 40.4% 16.6% 6.7% 18.6% e g death. The government should stop trying to regulate where smoking 8.5% 16.2% 39.2% 32.0% 4.1% is permitted. Smokers have the right to smoke want. 1.6% 3.2% 41.4% 5 .0°/0 .7% wherever then • • .. .. »m. Table 10shows that a large majority of respondents agree that secondhand smoke can cause serious healthp roblems (87.6%), casual exposure to smoke in public places is harmful (72.4%), it is a leading cause of preventable death (58.2%), children are more vulnerable to secondhand smoke than adults (78.2%), and that are also effected by secondhand smoke (78.0%), all of which are true. Only 4.8% believe that smokers have the right tp smoke wherever they want. However, 24.7% believe that the government should not regulate where smoking is permitted. The respondent's smoking status was found to be significant related to opinions about secondhand smoke. While smokers are a small proportion of the overall sample (1501°), they ig nificantl y more likely to discount the health effects of secondhand smoke. � are sv y group , is especially true for daily smokers vs. occasional smokers. While as a group, occasional smokers do not recognize many of the health effects of secondhand smoke, they are far more accepting of public smoking restrictions than are smokers. These Y results are summarized in Table 11. Differences among smoking status categories are significant at the .000 level for all items. Table 11: V"pin1ons about Se Concihan1 Smoke, b. Smoking Status US Daily Occasional Non- Smokers Smokers smokers Total A Gree tthat:. t. (n=64) (n=23) (n=47°) (n=557) Inhaling someone else's smoke can cause serious health problems in non- 61.9% 73.9% 91.7 % 87.6% smokers. Secondhand smoke does not pose a danger to pets like does or cats. 26.6% 8.7% 9.1% 8.0% The little bit of smoke you inhale in g where smokin is allowed 70.3% 43.5% 18.9% 25.8% public places is not enough to hurt you. Secondhand smoke is more dangerous for children than it is for adults. 81.0% 69.6% 99.2% 78.1% Secondhand smoke is one of the 20.4% 43.4% 64.0% 58.2% leading causes of preventable death. The government should stop trying to regulatewhere smoking is permitted. 65.7% 17.4% 19.4% 24.7% Smokers have the right to smoke wherever then want. 66.5% 3% 1.9% 4.8% �r_�s.z---�_i.xr✓-.a�..,_,_sa-+a.a.aauss,csa.u:nraaarao.v.�zonorsoaa-uraa.ca-usi:a.'rr c.r-«a�,•'- sy_ o Having a household member who is sensitive to secondhand smoke is also predictive of about secondhand smoke. Close of half of the households surveyed (46.1%) opinions contained person who has asthma or allergies or another health condition that makes a them particularly sensitive to secondhand smoke. Respondents residing in these households were more likelyto recognize the danger of secondhand smoke. Differences are significant (p<.O5) for household status categories except where noted with an asterisk. 1A w . Table j • Opinions About Secondhand Smoke, U,. Presence esence of a Person Sensitive to 1�1�1�e 1�• N Secondhand Smoke in the Household Household member is particularly sensitive to secondhand smoke Agree that: Yes No Total Inhaling som eone e l se's smoke can cause serious �' health problems in non-smokers. 93.8% 82.2% 87.3,o Secondhand smoke does not pose a danger to pets like, dogs or cats.* 5.5% 0.3% 8.0% The little bit of smoke you inhale in public places where smoking is allowed is not enough to hurt you. 16.7% 33.7% 25.8% Secondhand smoke is more dangerous for children than it isf or adults.* 77.4% 78.8% 78.2% Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death. 6.5% .3% 58.3% Theg overnment should stop trying to regulate 18.4% 30.1% 24.7% where smoking is permitted. Smokers have the right to smoke wherever then .8% 8.3% 4.8% want. Not statistically different Respondents were also asked if they believe smoking should be regulated in a series of P places.laces. A majority of the respondents believe smoking should be entirely prohibited at outdoor school events (83.5%), in indoor sporting events and concerts (63.9%), in restaurants (56.9%), and at public pools (55.8%). Support for regulating smoking is lowest for parks (17.1%), outside malls and shopping areas (17.8%) and bars (19.6 %). The results are summarized in Table 13. 7 C Table 13. Opinions about -Regulating Smoking ill Public Places: 1n regards tV ... J A/Jle please tell mei you think s itoking should be... -------------------------------- _�` .`�.�` ...allowed ...allowed ...entirely Don't throughout only in prohibited Know Smoking should be... special king smo g areas Restaurants urants 1.8% 40.9% 56.9% .4% t�e.s to Bars 25.2% 46.5% 19.6% 8.6% Outdoor sportingevents/concerts 18.5% 55.5% 23.7% 2.3% v Indoor sorting events/concerts 2.3% 3 3.2/0 63.9% .5% 1 BowlingAlleys 8.1% 46.4% 41.2% 4.3% Public 45.9°0 33.3°/0 17.100 3.60/0 Outdoor school events 3.9% 11.5% 83.5% 1.1% Bus stops 38.5% 23.0% 32.2%0 6.3°% Public pools 9.3% 31.6% 55.8% 3.2% Outside Malls/shoPp it"ig areas 3 9.3% 40.4% 17.8% 2.5% _._••••........ .••.. .•.• .......•..... ..••. .•• ...... ... • •,........,_. .. .. ....... .a• ... p.n+'•.atn,yt ..... .......• ... Smokers were significantly more likely to oppose complete bans and to support unrestricted smoking in all of these areas. Table 13 shows the percentage of daily smokers, occasional smokers and non-smokers who agree that smoking should be prohibited in the areas specified. The total percentages do not equal those shown in Table 14 because cases for which smoking status was not known were deleted from the analysis. Table 14: Opinions about Regulating Smoking in Public Places, by Smoker Status Opinions Daily Occasional Non- Total Smokers Smokers smokers (n=557) Agree that smoking should be (n=64) (n=23) (n=470) prohibited in... Restaurants 15.6% 30.4% 64.0% 57.0% Bars 1.1.7% 8.8.7% 74.9% 21.5% Outside events 4.8% 14.3% 27.4% 24.3% ti0/ G') '')0/ 0/ ^ ')OJ inside events 28.6 'o Ji....,./0 67.6/O 6`t.L/0 Bowling alleys 4.8% 31.8% 48%4 42.9% . 14 Daily Non- Total Occasional Smokers Smokers smokers (n=557) Agree that smoking should be (n=64) ( i=`3) (n47O) prohibited in... . � � parks 1.6% 9.1% 20.5% 17.8% Public�L�3 ks Outside SC,%'1001 events ejrts 67.2% 82.6% 86.9% 84.4% Bus stops 4.8% 26.1% 39.0% 3-^-r.4% Public Pools 33.3% 60.9% 60.8% 57.6% Outside malls/shopping malls/shoppingareas 1.6% 21.7% 20.4% 18.3% .. r ents who had a household member who is particularly sensitive to secondhand Respondents smoke likely to support more su� ort smoking restrictions in every location mentioned (see Table15). Differences between households with smoke-sensitive members and those without smoke-sensitive members are significant at the .05 level for every location except those marked with an asterisk. Table 15 Opinions about Regulating Smoking in Public Places, by Presence of Sensitive Household Member Household member is particularly sensitive to secondhand smoke Agree that smokingshould be prohibited in �'es No Total g _� (n=300)(n 257) Restaurants ants 65.9% 49.8% 57.2% Bars 27.9% 16.1% 21.5% Outside events 61.7% 21.4% 24.3% Inside de events 74.1% 56.0% 64.4% Bowling as 49.8% 37.3% 43.1% lle %3 . Public parks* 20.0% 15.8% 17.8% Outside school events 87.8$ 81.4% 84.4% 7 0;% 34. 2% Bus stops 38.8% 30.2 Public Pools 64.0% 51.2% 57.6% Outside malls/shopping malls/shoppingareas 23.4% 13.9% 18.3% 1-7 v. Support for Public policies Restricting Where Tobacco Can Be Smoked The stronger the restrictions the respondent endorsed, the more likely he or she was to believe th4 the restrictions estrictions should be required by law. a . This is demonstrated in Table 16. For example, among the ten survey respondents who believe there should be no p restrictions n c�m���� � in restaurants �n nor' believe r 4�-� rc� i� be law � on �mokin` 40.0/ Velie v e lhel e should a law stating that there are no restrictions on smoking in restaurants, while 61.6% of the 219 respondents who believe smoking should be allowed onlyiii designated areas in restaurants, believe there should be a law, and 93.4 of the 305 respondents who believe smoking should be entirely prohibited, believe it should be required by law. Table 16: Opinions about Smoking Restrictions: % supporting a law, by type of 1 restrictions preferred No restrictions Partial Complete ban restrictions Restaurants 40.0% (n=10) 61.6% (n=219) 93.4% (n=305) Bars 29.6% (n=135) 72.5% (n=251) 98.1% (n=107) Outdoor events ents 3 5.6% (n=101) 73.8%,o (n=302) 90.5% (n126) Indoor events 46.2% (n=13) 71.3% (n=181) 88.5% (n=347) Bowling alleys 40.0% (n=45) 74.9% (n=251) 91.4% (n=221) Parks 40.6% (n=249) 79.9% (n=184) 93.6% (n=94) Outdoor school 36.4% (n=22) 71.0% (n=62) 91.5% (n457) Bus stops 41.2% (n=211) 72.6% (n=124) 93.2% (n=176) Only6.1°'o of the sample reported that they had written to or spoken with an elected p official regarding laws that restrict where tobacco can be smoked. Of these, 66.7%of o were expressing support for laws that restrict where tobacco can be smoked, and 33.3% were p g pp . expressing opposition. Less than 10% (9.8%) belong to an organization that takes a N pN in �4- restrictcan be formal position support of or opposition to laws that where tobacco smoked, and 91.1% of those organizations support laws that restrict where tobacco can be smoked. The categories of organizations mentioned are shown in Table 17. 0 Table 17: llrnnr,>rs�4�nr That Have a Position�n.� on 1 a iJle O ganiza tions Have 1 osition ETS Number of Category Examples mentions Health organizations Medical Association, Cancer Society, 17 Lung Association, Diabetes Association, Arizona State Nursing Association Churches LDS church, my church, Church of 10 Nazarene, Presbyterian Church Alilitai ;;r eterari organizations American Legion, Disabled American 5 J Veterans, Retired officers/doctors, Marine Corps League Sport/Exercise organizations Jewish Community Center, Little 4 League, YMCA, Soccer Organization Elderly organizations AARP, Arnphi Senior Citizens 4 Educational organizations Alumni groups, National Education 4 Association, District I Schools Environmental organizations Audubon Society, Sierra Club 3 Service organizations Down Syndrome support group, Urban 3 League J'Vomen's'organizations Ladies Circle, Officer's Wives Club 2 Fraternal organizations Elks Club, Alpha Delta Ka 2 Bars/Bar clubs Molly G's 2 Homeowners association Saddle Brook Home Owners Association 1 Yo u th Organizations Boy Scouts 1 Unknown Alano Club, LDA Respondents were asked if they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate p that supports laws that restrict where tobacco can be smoked. A clear majority (64.1%) stated that they would be more likely to vote for candidates that support ETS laws, 15.2% would be less likely to vote for these candidates, and 20.7% said it would make no difference. Among everyday smokers, 14.3% would vote for candidates who support �n ETS laws, and 27.0% say that a candidate's stand on ETS laws would make no difference in how they y would vote. Differences in political support for ETS laws varied significantly depending on smoking status (p=.000). Table 18 shows the voting preferences for daily smokers, occasional smokers, and non-smokers. Table � Would 1 1•/!Y 1��l s� more 1• � or less likely � vote for candidate �A 7�� ��7 �supports a u e 18: ��off to you be likely. less to . a candidate that laws that restrict where tobacco can be smoked? Daily Smokers Occasional Non-Smokers (n=63) Smokers (n=335) (n=23) More likely to vote for candidate that 14.3% 39.1% 72.0% supports ETS laws Less likely to vote for candidate that 58.7% 13.0% 9.5% supports ETS laws ETS position does not matter. 27.0% 47.8% 18.5% Among those who belong to an organization that has a formal position on ETS, respondents are likely to assume that organization's stand. Among those that belong to an organization that supports ETS policies, 82.9% would be more likely to vote for a candidate that supports such policies. Among those that belong to an organization that opposes ETS policies, 75% would be more likely to vote for a candidate that opposes ETS policies. Interestingly, none of the respondents belonging to organizations that opposed ETS policies said that a candidate's position on the issue would make no difference in how he or she would vote; 25% would be more likely to vote for candidates who support stronger ETS laws. Among those who belong to organizations that support stronger ETS p olicies, 14.6% say a candidate's stand on this issue would make no difference, and 2.4% would support candidates that oppose ETS laws. Women were significantly more likely to vote for a candidate who supports ETS laws than were men. Among women, 70.8% favor candidates who support ETS laws, v compared with 57.5% of men (p=.O2). No difference was found in voting preferences between respondents with Tucson area telephone exchanges and those with exchanges outside of the Tucson area. V. Discussion This survey demonstrated that there is widespread recognition among Pima County voters that secondhand smoke is dangerous. A large majority (87.6%) agree that it can cause serious health problems in non-smokers, 74.2% believe that the small amount of smoke you inhale in public places can be harmful, and 75.8% believe that avoiding secondhand smoke is important for protecting health. Even among smokers, who make "In �r»�� +��r awareness hazards 15% of the population, a.�al eness of the hazal ds of secondhand smoke is high. up only p N For - 62% of smokers believe secondhand smoke can cause health problems example, among non-smokers. However, only 41% of smokers believe avoiding secondhand smoke is importantprotecting for health, and 30% of smokers agree that secondhand . l� in public places can be harmful. Education about the harmful effects of smoke �.Ju secondhand smoke should be directed toward smokers. The largemajority ma'orit T of Pima County voters take personal measures to avoid exposure to � secondhand smoke. Slightly more than 80% completely prohibit smoking in their homesslightly less than 80% prohibit smoking in their car. Among households with andsl � � smokers, completely 49% completel y ban smoking inside the home, and 25% of smokers do not smokingin their cars. in addition, 86% of voters who work are employed in allow , „ 86% of voters places where smoking is prohibited entirely. This survey also showed that g non-smokinsection of restaurants; among smokers, 28% prefer to sit in the prefer the non-smoking area. These data suggest that a tobacco free lifestyle is the social norm in Pima County. Smokers are a small minority of the overall population, and rules prohibiting smoking are commonplace, even among smokers. However, exposure to secondhand smoke persists. Almost half(49%) of the voters in Pima County are exposed to secondhand smoke at least once a week. The most frequent location of 7-day exposure is in a private home, followed by in restaurants. Exposure to ETS is significantly decreased when rules about smoking in the home, car, and workplace completely ban smoking. Partial bans, that restrict smoking to certain areas, certaineo le, or certain conditions, only reduce exposure marginally. P P There is considerable support among Pima County voters for public policies to completely ban smoking in some public places. Overall support for banning smoking in restaurantsstrong is `57%). Fifteen percent of daily smokers and 30% of occasional u ort a restaurant smoking ban. Among non-smokers,s pp who represent 85% of the voters, 64% believe smoking should be entirely prohibited in restaurants. Among those e who support restaurant smoking bans, 93% believe the ban should not be voluntary PP but it should be supported by a law. The stronger the restrictions on smoking in public places that the respondent endorsed, the more likely he or she was to believe that the restrictions should be required by law. While there is strong support for public policies that prohibit smoking in restaurants Pima County voters, policy makers may be wary of supporting strong ETS laws among y willvotingstudy because theyfear they lose an important constituency. This shows that the politicaladvantage w ill go to the candidate who supports clean indoor air laws. Sixty four percent of the voters surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports indoor air laws and 21% said that a candidate's position on clean strong indoor air laws would not make a difference one way or the other in how they would vote. Amongsmokers, 41% said they would either be more likely to vote for a candidate w"ho SuS clean pp r+ indoor air laws or that a candidate's stand on this issue would not uNi�Ol L make a difference in how they would vote. Ti lne�� i 11eQ a itll effects of E T S are`vv 11I well documented in the Scientific I ILeratul e and are 1 ..,atiV e not in dispu te. An educational effort should be undertaken to reach Pima County,residents who have contrary opinions. This study shows that these individuals tend to be Thefeasibility of information and advice about secondhand smoke smokers. y including �;�r++interventions that routinely conducted by doctors, dentists, and others brief inter'entions are 1 outinely conducted during assessed. In the meantime, political support for a restaurant smoking ban in should be . Pima County high and policy makers will not suffer in the polls for taking a stand for 1 i111a Cour L T is b policy clean indoor air. Indeed, this study shows that they will benefit. Other locations that the majority of f voters believe should be smoke-free by law include public pools and indoor sporting events and concerts. There is also strong support for smoking bans at outdoor school events, but state law already prohibits smoking in this setting. 'National Cancer Institute.. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. The Rreport of the California Environmental Protection Agency Monotgraph no. 10. Bethesda,MD. US Department of Health and Human Services,National Institutes of Health,National Cancer Institute,NW Pub. No.99- 4645, 1999. 11 p0 rter,RS. 2000. 1999 Arizona Adult Tobacco Survey Report. Arizona Department of Health Services. Eisenberg. MR. 2000 Understanding Tobacco Policy Making From Local Policy Makers' Point of View: A Study of Elected Arizona Policy Makers at eh City and County Levels. Arizona Tobacco Information Network,Tobacco Education and Prevention Program,Arizona Department of Health Services,. IV Porter,RS. 2000. 1999 Arizona Adult Tobacco Survey Report. Arizona Department of Health Services. 2000 Census American FactFinder DP-1,Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. A demographic description of Pima County voters is not available. 015-01 9 : 40 ONHI ID=520 779 2557 P02/02 •s ''' \ I \ T* di'vvi __ kolto(s-1-1*m � t CI-IR STOPHER J. BAVASI ! . r' r, ��t,• i L , / ,-. ,i,/Al U',_( . \ . 13.0i Box 891 Flagstaff,Arizona 86002 I October 12, 2001 I The Honorable P ul H. oomis,Mayor 11000N.LaC a e Oro Valley, Ariz na 85 37 ' Dear Mayor Loomis: sked byEckrem, Project Manager of the Tobacco Education I have been a Marta' Program for the Health Department to, provide you with an ¶ oconino County experiences in institutinga Clean Indoor Air Ordinance in Flagstaff. .overview of our . Fla stpassed their first Clean Indoor Air Ordin ce in 1989. The . The City of g ordinance stablis stabls ' .: smoking areas in worksites,smok -free public places and the oppo rt;unit or restaur. its to choose what type o f policy they would institute. were o re uiar-' to post a notice of their policy at their entrances. It Restaurants y q given o .ortun ,the general,pu 'c would make it known that was the hope that;g P Y g they preferred smo ke-free d' 4 :. owever, experience and subsequent poll.ng P sm9ke-free showed that although the the pub 'c warn ' ' ,they look to their elected officials to dress suc matters. The process tii c e the ordinance t ok almost four years, going through City n toublivote. a public passed the am ent by a strong Council twice andpubliF a Flagstaff restaur is went smoke-free in 1993. Since the majority n g that revision, Fla staff has experienced no conornic hardships or loss enactment of p � / ..,,,, of tourism due to our smoking ban. l let me know. I can be If I can be of ssistance du g your deliberations, p e� Se reached at(92 ) 779-2721, Extensa n 1,15. • Best regards. . i , . , Sincerely, l I • hris opher . �avasi F rmer Mayor of flagstaff . I I 5-15-01 09 :40 ONHIR ID=520 779 2557 P01/02 ''':.': UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT i"iik,i.c*1/2.:7\��5OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION il '0'.1.44,35t .: i .. •7' 7 '4„ laChlt Christopher J. Bavasi TELECOPIER COVER LETTER Executive Director i ± Lrz DATE: ____jo/ /2L' i. - TO:________agt_gv2 \) 7:_r,,,,,,Z____11__-,_C:Le,-'2>-h,L, TELECOPIER NUMBER: 4 (SO2-t!) 77- �i'z'oz=(7( • 1 CONFICONFIli ATION NUMBR (S ) d ' -i_" 471 7 .7'6 TOTAL PAGES W/ CO%jEI LTR: .°7- ************ 7- CONFI ' ATION RECO D: •NT B ( :. .,L:.:0L--iL,3,.) • - i .4 ... g # ' ' (I) -/' . i ,,L_, 'Xi-e--7)-7,t, MSI I R OFIRMATION:(520)779-2721 EXT.JcLJ EdIA INSTRUCTTONS/NOTES: _ _. I OU DO NOT RECEIVE AUL PAGES, PLEASE CALL OUR .. . , OFICE. . . P.O. Box KK 201 E. Bich Flagstaff, Arizonr 86002 (520) 779-2721 Fax (520) 774-1977 I / /oh r Prcict4,41`nnak Inkmenectio- ,, ._ . irf,i) pcv' i-lar l' ? , v>../ ..,..1.af. 1 , Li :--b-e- . 6 --)Ct/,..i,<---*---,( /. &,/,-r,'"•6k ,-) , , 1 . . / *1./t' vi7 le -----------__________ Tough smoking laws One single act can have the N. greatest positive public health effect and least negative effect --- i on our state funds. ' ri-9.:' • • 1t 1: . Health care is in crisis and 1. ,40; ' , • ---- -- . ,;------ -7...-- -_--- - --.,:- ..:-'Itt:-,60,,, Our state.deficit may reach - REPUBLIC- -- ........11111.21..... $1.6 billion. Rural areas face k THE ARIZONA fewer health facilities and less Pni.nripri in 1890•A Gannett newspaper insurance coverage each year. deaths than many causes corn- California's health-based law More providers and insurers blire-drS:elgal smoke is has been in effect long enough face cost increases and re- --L noTrheiio.3 cause ordisease to verify its positive health duced service decisions,while an death with 1 in 8 ersons benefits for all, smokers and unemployment jumps as the w o le from to acco smoke a nonsmokers. And people eat recession grows. norisn — out more often, helping both The No. 1 cause of prevent- We can save scarce state business and tax revenues. able death and disease in the funds improve pilEffeb — Don Morris igtju' United States and Arizona is ell- -ust by Dassia stRI Scottsdale well documented.In spite of to- law protecting all from toxic, The writer is executive director bacco industry denials,tligica- 's lethaltc21?Ic_c_c_) snaol __a_ke ' of Arizonans Concerned About nolcgct_wy_ -s _iestion that w_s2—r—kajacemcunib 1 s Smoking,Inc. grLcin cmlw -IvCn.'m c such as California has done. , - CL ,- ' 1 i . Li (1.\-r)t.../ 0/\. (...2(i IAC\ 1 , il • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 1 . 3 rOUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: ry Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Sangeeta Jain, Planner II SUBJECT: CONTINUED P UBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. (R)01-84, OV11-01-01 RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11, BORDERED ON THE EAST, NORTH, AND WEST SIDES BY THE TOWN BOUNDARY AND BY STONE CANYON III, II, AND IV ON THE SOUTH, FROM CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF PARKS / OPEN SPACE AND RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #219050120, 21905010A, 21905011C, 21906013K, 21906013F, 2190601311, and 21906014A) BACKGROUND This item was continued from the September 19, 2001 meeting of the Town Council. Town Council voted to reconsider this item based on the following reasons: by pp Request made the applicant, Vistoso Partners, to reconsider the Town Council's action. q 0 Town Attorney's legal concerns relating to the condition precedent language of the originally proposed General Plan amendment, which by its terms made the plan effective after adoption of the PAD, which was improper under Arizona law. c) Item not being properly noticed for public hearing. PROJECT TIMELINE Following is the timeline of actions on this item: Events Date NH 11 GP Amendment Request from WLB March 14, 2001 Initiation by P&Z Commission April 3, 2001 P&Z Commission Study Session April 17, 2001 P&Z Commission First Meeting May 1, 2001 Sector Board Meeting May 10, 2001 P&Z Commission Second Meeting (APPROVED) June 5, 2001 Town Council Meeting(APPROVED) July 18, 2001 Town Council Meeting (VOTE TO RECONSIDER) August 1, 2001 Town Council Study Session September 4, 2001 Town Council Meeting (RECONSIDERATION CONTINUED) September 19, 2001 ITE DESCRIPTION The subject parcelapproximately is a roximatel 399 acres in size, bordered on the east, north, and west sides by the Town boundary and by Stone Canyon III II> and IV on the south (see the attached map). As shown on the attached TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIO N Page 2 of 6 map, the current General Plan designates ates most of this area as Parks and Open Space. The specific boundaries pp on the attached map are intended to be an approximation of the currently approved PAD zoning for the area. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST WLB Group, on behalf of Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., is requesting a General Plan amendment to change approximately 60 acres of the current land use designations of Parks / Open Space and Rural Low Density Residential to Low DensityResidential. Table 1 below summarizes the existing and proposed land uses in the NH 11 General Plan Amendment Area. Table 2 compares the number of housing units that could potentially be added asp er the current land use designations and what the applicant is proposing. TABLE 1: NH 11 ACREAGE SUMMARY Current GP Proposed GP Parks/Open Space 385 340 Low Density Residential 0 59 Rural Low Density Residential 14 0 Totals 399 399 TABLE 2: NH 11 DWELLING UNITS COMPARISON Current GP Proposed GP Parks/Open Space 0 0 Low Density Residential 0 83 Rural Low Density Residential 0-5 6 Totals 0-5 89 Notes: 1. DU/AC is dwelling units per acre. 2. Rural Low Density Residential is 0 to 0.3 du/ac. 3. Low Density Residential is 0.6-1.2 du/ac in this case. 4. Ranges are shown for dwelling units based on the high and low du/ac limits of the General Plan designations. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Staff has evaluated this proposal against the Focus 2020 General Plan and finds the following: Focus 2020 Land Use Map: Town of Oro Valley General Plan has designated all of this area(except small pockets on the south) as Parks and Open Space. This was done to reflect the zoning on the land and because of the environmentally sensitive nature of this area, as it has slopes 25 percent and greater and major rock outcrops. The low-density residential uses as proposed are not in conformance with the map; therefore an amendment is . required. The proposed uses are compatible with the existing Stone Canyon low-density residential 1'welopment to the South. Impact on Open Space: The proposal to amend the GP will have a significant impact on the existing open p space. However, the development has been concentrated in the middle of the project area, thereby, leaving two p open largepockets of space, and the proposal avoids development in steeper slopes, floodplains, riparian areas, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 6 and other sensitive areas (as shown in the attached map). The total impact on open space is between 60 acres (counting small contiguous openspaceareas) and 90 acres (counting only those open space areas connected to p larger open space areas by at least a 300' corridor of open space). g Another way of calculating impacton the openspace is using the total area within the proposed lots, which is p approximately 180 acres. Staff did not use this approach to calculate the open space impacts because: (1) as a amendment, the lotspresented herein are only conceptual; (2) the lots areas could be reduced General Plan significantly requirements;andstill meet the zoning and (3), the open space areas of the lots will likely be protected by conservation easements. Open Space Trade Areas: The first trade area is the northeast corner of the property (from the HoneyBee Wash ) to the northeast corner of the NH 11). The applicant has indicated that they wish to dedicate this area to the Town. The area amounts to about 50 acres,which connects with the second trade area. The second trade area is ITCproperty—approximately120 acres at the confluence of HoneyBee and Sausalito washes. If the ITC the . land was to be developed under the current County Zoning, they could potentially add about 20 dwelling units; it could be up developed at to 3 units per acre under the County Comprehensive Plan. This is shown in the p following table: TABLE 3. OPEN • AREA COMPARISON UNDER COUNTY ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN County Zoning County Comprehensive Plan Total Area of ITC Parcel 120 acres 120 acres '.iP arian Area 27 acres 27 acres 1v1in Area per DU 4.13 acres .33 acres Max DU Possible — 20 units CAP of 250 units Notes: 1. The areas are approximate from GIS data. 2. County, r In the the riparian areas be developed as long as a mitigation plan is approved. However, this parmay analysis assumes that the County will preserve the riparian area in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. on Impact DwellingUnits: The proposed number of dwelling units is about 85 more than the maximum p possible under the current land use designations. Urban Growth Boundary: As per the General Plan, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) follows the southern project edge of the 'ect area. The General Plan states that the UGB ".......is a line that indicates any land north of p the line should not receive any increase in density or land use intensity over what currently exists. The purpose ofthe UGB was to ensure rural character preservation of the land within the area. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the Town Council and other jurisdictions consider and honor the existing resident's wishes to maintain the rural character of the area......... An urban growth boundary should designate the existing or planned limits of urban infrastructure and services, such as sewer and water. Currently, the infrastructure ends at the southern boundary of this proposed amendment area and will have to be extended north for development of the land. The infrastructure to the south of sufficient size to serve the development. However, a reservoir site will be required for water service and a condition to this effect is included in Exhibit 'A'. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY -.COUNCIL COMMUNIC ATION _ Page 4 of 6 lb AMENDMENTS TO AND UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2020, "the grantingofageneral plan amendment will be based on the following [four] As stated in Focus findings of fact". Finding of Fact #1: That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular point in time. Applicant States: that the development as presented will allow for the development of a low-density p high-end resort oriented community, which expresses the Town's desire to project a residential/resort character. Staff Analysis: The benefits for changing the land use designation to the Town will be derived from the y attached considerations in Exhibit 'A', which balance the loss of open space and help to mitigate the impacts of development. Without these considerations, the amendment benefits the applicant, but it still p p provides the following benefits to the Town: • Residential development that provides a relatively high tax base relative to the public services (Police, Parks, etc.) that are required and a relatively large, one-time fiscal impact from construction sales tax and fees; • enhancement of the Towns image and character as a destination, resort community; • development that will help to attract high-end, specialty retail investment; and • retention of highly sensitive areas surrounding the subdivision. Finding of Fact #2: That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan. Applicant States: This amendment conforms to all the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Also, with the available technology, it is easier to build within sensitive areas of slopes greater than 25p ercent without destroying the surrounding areas. This amendment will provide a jobs / housing balance within the Town. Staff Analysis: Staff has evaluated this proposal against the goals and policies of General Plan and finds, as reported previously, that the proposal (with the considerations is Exhibit 'A') conforms to 21 of the 26 applicable policies. Finding of Fact #3: That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. Applicant States: that thegeneralplan land use mapdoes not provide any other optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. Staff Analysis: The development of the golf course and a five-star, high-end resort in NH 11 has altered tiffy the land uses in this area. The General Plan land use map does not provide optional sites for development of this kind of high-end, low-density housing with a golf course and a resort. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY �..OUNCIL COMMUNIC ATION Page 5 of 6 Finding of Fact #4: That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process. Applicant States: that the amendment will have a positive impact on the community as a whole. It will limiting preserve sensitive areas bydevelopment in physically buildable areas and limiting encroachment into open space. StaffAnalysis: Amending the General Plan land use map designation to a higher density may have adverse impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas of the Town and adjoining areas to the west, north and east. In evaluating this amendment, mitigation of impacts were considered by adding development standards to the proposal attached in Exhibit 'A'. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: In accordance with the State Statutes for public notification, the notification was sent to the Daily Territorial for andposted at the property and at the Town Hall. However, the notice was not advertised in Daily publication p p y Territorial. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: Jn June 5, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this proposal and recommended approval (4-1) of changing the land use designations, and amending the General Plan. The pp Planning and Zoning Commission motion recommended changing Exhibit 'A' from "conditions of approval" (i.e., requirements that must be fulfilled) to "considerations" (suggestions for future development review and approval). This change is reflected in Exhibit 'A'. SECTOR BOARD MEETING: On May 10th, Staff held a meeting with the members of Sector Board 4 and 5, the committees who led the Generallan updates in 1996 for this planning area. By consensus, the boards were opposed to the proposed p p change. They stated that, if the Town chose to go forward with the amendment, it should do so only if the amount of open space dedicated to the Town is 3 to 5 times what is used for the proposed development. To p date, this has not been accomplished. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff developed the considerations in Exhibit A through meetings with the applicant's representative and interested citizens. They are intended to balance the negative impacts of the proposal and meet the General Plan findings. The Town attorneydetermined that the original considerations were not acceptable because they tied approval of the General Plan amendment to the future approval of a PAD. Accordingly, staff modified the considerations andro oses that the General Plan amendment (see the attached resolution) cease to be effective j p p January 1, 2002 unless a PAD amendment is adopted in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map and the considerations in Exhibit A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)01- 84 (Continued) PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 19th day of September, 2001. Paul H. Loomis,Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney EXHIBIT 'A' OV11-01-01 CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 1. Open Space encroachment will be balanced by the dedication of other areas to the Town. Trade areas to the area from the rid eline south and west of Honey Bee Wash, or from 300' south be considered are: (1) rianddgeline west of the centerline of the wash, whichever is less,to the north and east boundaries of the property; (2) the ITC Area(in the north RV Neighborhood 12 area); and(3) the mesquite bosque at the southern end of Neighborhood (currently designated as open space but not dedicated to the Town). 4 2. The Supplemental Agreement byand between Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., Vistoso Golf Partners, L.L.C. pp gr' and the Town of Oro Valley dated April 29, 1996 shall be amended by those parties in a manner satisfactory to the Town Council. The proposed amendments are as follows: a) Exhibit E, Section 2, Paragraph 2.2.7 Interim Service Charges will be modified to read that the rate paidper er acre foot for water used on all golf courses constructed by Vistoso Partners, Vistoso Golf, and/or their respective successors and assigns will increase over the next five years as follows: FY 2001-2002 (Current) $ 100 per Acre Feet FY 2002-2003 $ 204 per Acre Feet FY 2003-2004 $ 308 per Acre Feet FY 2004-2005 $ 412 per Acre Feet FY 2005-2006 $ 516 per Acre Feet FY 2006-2007 and thereafter the then current Tier 1 Commodity rate Additionally, the monthly minimum base rate for a 6"meter(currently in place at the Golf Club at Vistoso and the Stone Canyon courses)will be paid for each course as provided by the Town of Oro Valley Code and the adopted rates. b) Exhibit E, Section 2, Paragraph 2.2.7 Interim Service Charges will be modified to read that Vistoso partners will pay the Town for the purchase of CAP water in an amount equal to the actual amount of water used on each golf course on an annual basis. The cost for CAP water is to be calculated using the same method as described in the supplemental agreement. c) Section 1.6 of that Agreement notwithstanding the parties agree that the liability of the Town pursuant to that and related provisions, if any, is limited to and shall be no greater than $570,588.55. The parties further agree that there were not any intended beneficiaries of that Agreement, named or otherwise, other than Vistoso partners, L.L.C. and the Town of Oro Valley. d) If any amendments to the Supplemental Agreement are not agreed to by the above named parties in a manner satisfactory to the Town Council, the owners of said property seeking the amendment to the General Plan shall be responsible for any damages, costs, changes or other financial detriment to the Town caused by the failure to agree to such Amendment. 3. Vistoso Partners will dedicate land within their property for, and provide funds to construct, a trail system starting from a two-acre trailhead near the southwest portion of Neighborhood 11 and connecting, via northern Honey Bee Wash, to Honey Bee Canyon Park. The trailhead and the trail alignment will be that which is acceptable to the Town in consultation with Pima County Parks and Recreation. (See the note at the end of this exhibit for an alternative proposal by the applicant.) 4. Vistoso Partners will dedicate an acceptable site for a water reservoir in neighborhood 11. The General Plan designation for that site will be amended to Public/Semi Public by this amendment. ....., / Z 1‘ ;ri) (n CD bop 4/ /'rI;iP" ri\;$ � 11) g to 4 ve 13 tO dVda�i d 4‘ Mli Ullidi y a £ Aas J "1",NA 0- 44 %/��V 1" - ,„"kb,. i‘ r\ ,t6 1 1 a o R i � c o s V/ kekl% = O A = �J A N ZaJd Z C re d ---:q:111 1 1 u`' C-) oNN --- - --Av :flE - / w\e\/,, -.---wkdi .,.ss z \ /''W- ItiLfte :'i . 1 'e4t \‘ v 0/4 di," h. 1\ F" o kot 3 Li. tip •%4 ...... a., I oa t'fi W / sari Cr) .....-4-1Nc, 1 ....... iRog11J 1 r /r I Z in0 i TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: Ordinance No. (0)01- 24 Amending Section 2-4-2 (Special Meetings) of the Oro Valley Town Code by making this provision consistent with the Town Council Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct SUMMARY: With the adoption of the Town Council Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct, Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code regarding "Special Meetings" must be amended to make this provision consistent with the following change: "The Mayor AND ANY TWO (2) COUNCIL MEMBERS may convene the Council for the purpose of holding a Special Meetingtime after giving at least 24 hours notice of such meeting. To members of the Council p any •• •• • •- • • • ••• .•• • . • -• • • • \I -•• •• •• • • • -•- •- • • • • •- • r•• - • • 'ouncil and theg eneral public. All notices to the general public pertaining to Special Meetings shall include the date, place, hours, and purpose of such Special Meeting in accordance with State law. In the case of an actual , emer encCouncil Member may convene the Council upon such notice as is appropriate to the emergency, any circumstances in accordance with State law." RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Mayor and Council adopt Ordinance No. (0)01- 24 to make Section 2- 4-2 (Sp ecial Meetings) of the Oro Valley Town Code consistent with the Town Council Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct by designating that either the Mayor or Two (2) Council Members may call a Special Meeting with at least twenty-four (24)hours notice. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to ADOPT Ordinance No. (0)01- 24 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)01- 24 Department Head Dep ment Head r ! Town Manager , ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01- 24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AMENDING SECTION 2-4-2 (SPECIAL MEETINGS) OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE BY MAKING THIS PROVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN COUNCIL PARLIAMENTARY RULES & PROCEDURES AND CODE OF CONDUCT BY DESIGNATING THAT EITHER THE MAYOR OR TWO (2) COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CALL A SPECIAL MEETING WITH AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS NOTICE; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER. WHEREAS, on September 27, 1989, the Town Council did approve Ordinance No. (0) 89-21, which adopted that certain document entitled, "Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 2, Mayor and Council," as the second chapter of the official Town Code; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the Town Council did approve Resolution No. (R)01-80 which adopted the Town Council Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct as a p document to guide the Council regarding standards and usual procedures for the conduct of public meetings of the Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has deemed it necessary to amend Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code in order to clarify that the Mayor and two (2) Council Members may call a Special Meeting with at least twenty-four (24) hours notice as would be consistent with the Town Council Parliamentary Rules &Procedures and Code of Conduct. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that the certain document, known as the "Oro Valley Town Code," is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2-4-2 is amended to read as follows, with additions being shown in ALL CAPS and deletions being shown in t ikethro gh text: 2-4-2 Special Meetings The Mayor AND ANY TWO (2) COUNCIL MEMBERS may convene the Council for the purpose of holding a Special Meeting any time after giving at least 24 hours notice of such . . meeting. .. .. ; _ - - - -- -- _--- - - . .. • •- - - • - . . k , -- • • - All notices to the general public pertaining to Special Meetings shall include the date, place, Special Meetings Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/sib 8.14.2001 hours, andp �u ose of such Special Meeting in accordance with State law. In the case of an actual emergency, any Council Member may convene the Council upon such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances in accordance with State law. SECTION 2. Pursuant to ARS § 41-1346, the Town shall maintain efficient record management forp ublic records and it has been determined that this Ordinance is a public record and three copies of said Ordinance are to remain on file in the office of the Town Clerk. SECTION 3. All Oro Valley Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions and parts of Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor and Town Council, the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 17th day of October, 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTEST: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Special Meetings Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/sib 8.14.2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH 2001 SUMMARY: During the JulyRegular 18, 2001 Re ular Council Meeting, the Town Council approved the Town Departments' Performance Goals and Measures for the Fiscal Year 2001/02. As a result, each department has been tracking their actual performance to the adopted measures throughout this first quarter. Overall, please note that the departments are g near to or at their projected measures. Attached please find each departments very p J respective report for the period ending September 30, 2001. p ATTACHMENTS: Performance Goals and Measurements from: > Town Manager > Clerk > Finance > Community Development Director > Water Utility > Town Attorney > Department of Public Works > Police Department > Human Resources > Magistrate Court SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the First Quarter Performance Goals and Measures as presented. or 1/114 �! C uck Sweet, 'o 4IrManager TOWN MANAGER *INCLUDES ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC INFORMATION PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Town Manager Measure: to attendregularly re ularl scheduled Town Council meetings - 90% of the time Meeting date attendance July 7/18 ✓ 100% ✓ August 8/1 & 8/15 100% September 9/19 ✓ 100% Town Manager attended Council meetings 100% of the time Measure: Return calls from the Mayor and Town Council within 8 hours from the receipt Y of the call - 95% of the time # calls within 8 hrs July 8 ✓ 100% August 6 ✓ 100% September 5 ✓ 100% p Town Manager Y returned calls from Mayor and Council within 8 hours 100% of the time Measure: p Return all other telephone calls within 1 business day - 90% of the time # calls within 1 business day July 54 46 85% August 49 39 70% September 25 22 88% Did not meet 90% performance measure Measure: Respond to written or electronic correspondence from the public within five working days of receipt- 90% of the time # inquiries within 5 business days July 5 ✓ August 5 ✓ September 5 ✓ Measure: By the end of FY 2001/02 reduce number of late performance evaluations to less than 20% Due-d completed on time July July 1. x my 9 x August N/A September N/A Measure.• Provide Manager'sProposed Pro osed Balanced Budget to Town Council the first week in May, annually N/A Performance Measures for Administrative Assistant to the Town Manager Measure: Respond to requests for information from public within 1 business day - Responded to approximately80 requests for information within 1 day, 90% of the time Measure: Return telephone calls within 24 hours 90% of the time - Responded to approximately 65 telephone calls within 24 hours, 87% of the pp Y time to assigned correspondence by Town Manager/Council within 5 Measure: Respond g p days of receipt - 90% of the time - approximately40 assignments by Town Manager/Council of which Received 9 responded to within 5 days - 90% of the time October 9, 2001 Performance Measures Public Information Officer July 1, 2001-October 1,2001 --Responded to 145 requests for information/contacts from media/public within 1 day, 100% of the time --Returned 140 internal calls within 24 hours, 95% of the time from the public within one electronic --Acknowledged 28 written orcorrespondences business day of receipt, 95% of the time --Acknowledged 550 internal written or electronic correspondences within one business day of receipt, 95%of the time --Responded to 25 assigned correspondencesby Town Manager/Council within 5 days of p receipt, 100%of the time MEMORANDUM TO: CHUCK SWEET,TOWN MANAGER FROM: JEFFREY H. WEIR, CED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR DATE: October 9, 2001 SUBJECT: FY 2001-2002 Performance Goals First Quarter Results. The Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget identified three (3) Performance Goals for the Economic Development Department. These goals and actual performance attainment follows: Goal Performance 1. Ensure no more than two workdays Phone records indicate that this goals has elapse for requests from the public. been consistently achieved. 2. Publish a monthly Economic Devel- Reports for July, August and September opment Activity Report within the prepared and published on time. first week following each month end. 3. Establish and maintain a Business Program is being established jointly with the Retention Visitation program wherein N. Pima County Chamber of Commerce. Four businesses are visited monthly. First meeting held with follow-up scheduled for week of October 15th. Two local business- es have been visited to validate proposed approach. CLERK PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 • MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk DATE: October 3, 2001 SUBJ: Clerk's Office 1St Quarter Performance Goals &Measures Status Report Attached for your review are the Clerk's Office Performance Goals and Measures Status Report for the first quarter of FY 2001/02. i Kathr f Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk Attachment A. c 0 Town of Oro Valley Clerk's Office Performance Goals & Measures FY 2001/02 First Quarter ✓ Process synopsis minutes ready for approval at next Council meeting. (95%) Regular Meeting Date Minutes ready for Performance Approval at next regular meeting July 18, 2001 5-30-01;6-11-01;6-13-01; ✓ 6-20-01 August 1 , 2001 6-28-01; 7-18-01 ✓ X August 15, 2001 8-01-01 ✓ September 19, 2001 8-6-01; 8-15-01; 8-20-01 ✓ First Quarter 90% X ✓ Conduct Town Elections in accordance with Arizona State Law. (100%) Election Date Compliance Performance March 12, 2002 N/A dr May 21, 2002 N/A First Quarter N/A ✓ Provide Records Management Services for all Public Records in accordance with State of Arizona Retention Schedule. (100%) ✓ Retrieval and distribution of public Information. (100%) Internal Requests One Hour or Less Performance July 60 ✓ August 51 ✓ September 55 ✓ Total 166 ✓ External Requests Per SOP #6 Performance July 20 ✓ August 12 ✓ September 12 ✓ Total 44 ✓ Total (Internal & External) 210 ✓ First Quarter 100% ✓ I r ✓ Keep accurate legislative history of the Town. (100%) Regular Meeting Dates Council Minutes Performance Approved and Ready for Indexing July 18, 2001 5-30-01;6-11-01;6-13-01; •( 6-20-01 August 1, 2001; 6-28-01; 7-18-01; s/ August 15, 2001 8-01-01 September 8-6-01; 8-15-01; 8-20-01 ✓ First Quarter 100% ✓ ✓ Coordinate with Mayor, Town Manager and all departments in preparation of Town Council agenda packets to ensure accuracy and appropriate ro riate information in accordance with Arizona open meeting law. (100%) Month Meeting Date Performance July July 18, 2001 ✓ August August 1, 2001; August ✓ 6, 2001; August 15, 2001 September September 4, 19, 2001 ✓ First Quarter 100% ✓ ✓ Publish and post all public hearing notices, ordinances, agendas, etc. in accordance with Arizona open meeting law and Town policy. (100%) Month Publish &/or post Performance Notices/Ordinances or Agendas July 18 ✓ August 21 ✓ September 22 ✓ Total 61 ✓ First Quarter 100% ✓ ✓ By end of FY 2001/02 reduce number of late performance evaluations to less than 20% Performance Reviews Actual Reviews Performance 1St Quarter - 2 2 ✓ 2nd Quarter - 1 0 N/A 3rd Quarter N/A 0 4th Quarter N/A 0 Total 3 2 ✓ First Quarter 100% ✓ ✓ = Met Performance Measure X = Did not meet Performance Measure � FINANCE PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 C MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager FROM: David Andrews, Finance Director CPI— DATE: October 3, 2001 SU BJ: Finance Department 1st Quarter Performance Goals & Measures Status Report Attached please lease find the Performance Goals and Measures Status Report for the first quarter of FY 2001/02 for the Finance Department. Pleaseg ive me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss. Town of Oro Valley Finance Department Performance Goals & Measures FY 2001/02 Close the General Ledger by the 10th calendar day of the month. (100%) Month Actual Date Performance July 8/16/01 X August 9/14/01 X September October November December January February March April May June Complete the Finance Report by the 24th calendar day of the month. (100%) Month Actual Date Performance July 7/20/01 August 8/24/01 September October November December January February March April May June Processg rant billings by the 20th calendar day of each month. (90%) Month Actual Date Performance July 8/16/01 August 9/25/01 September October November December January February a March April May June v Make payments bi-weeklyvendor a ments according to schedule. (95%) Targeted Date Actual Date Performance Jul 13, 2001 7/13/01 .7Y Jul 27, 2001 7/27/01 � Y V August st 10, 2001 8/10/01 g � August 24, 2001 8/24/01 g September 7, 2001 9/7/01 V September 21 2001 9/21/01 V October 5, 2001 October 19, 2001 November 2, 2001 November 16, 2001 November 30, 2001 December 14, 2001 December 28, 2001 January 11, 2002 January 25, 2002 February 8, 2002 February 22, 2002 March 8, 2002 March 22, 2002 April 5, 2002 April 19, 2002 May 3, 2002 May 17, 2002 May 31, 2002 June 14, 2002 June 28, 2002 v Process bi-weekly employee payroll by Friday at 6:00 a.m. (100%) Targeted Date Actual Date Performance July 6, 2001 7/6/01 July , 20 2001 7/20/01 `7 August 3, 2001 8/3/01 `7 August 17, 2001 8/17/01 ✓ August 31, 2001 8/31/01 ✓ September 14, 2001 9/14/01 V September , 28 2001 9/28/01 V October 12, 2001 October 26, 2001 r 1 November 9, 2001 November 23, 2001 December 7, 2001 December 21 , 2001 January 4, 2002 January 18, 2002 February 1, 2002 February 15, 2002 March 1, 2002 March 15, 2002 March 29, 2002 April 12, 2002 April 26, 2002 May 10, 2002 May 24, 2002 June 7, 2002 June 21, 2002 v Make Home Rule election presentations to various Town boards and commissions and other interested groups. Targeted Number Actual Number Performance 9► N/A 8 0 ✓ By the end of FY 01/02, reduce number of late performance reviews to less than 20%. Performance Reviews Targeted # of Reviews Actual Reviews 1stQ u a rte r 2 2 2nd Quarter 1 3rd Quarter 2 4th Quarter 0 Total 5 v Develop Information Systems Strategic Plan v Achieve 99% Server Up-time ✓ = Met Performance Measure X = Did not meet Performance Measure Server Down Time Tracking Period: 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 Total Number of Days: 61 Total Down Planned Down Total Up Time Time Minutes Time Minutes Percentage OV MAIN 20 15 99.977% OV BDC 20 15 99.977% OV PROX 5860 60 93.329% OV PZD 70 15 99.920% OV LEGAL 15 15 99983% OV SIERRA 15 15 99.983% OV EXCH 50 30 99.943% OV WAT 15 15 99.983% OV PUB 15 15 99.983% TOTAL 6080 195 93.078% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT *INCLUDES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SAFETY LIBRARY SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING & ZONING GIS PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TRANSMITTAL To: Chuck Sweet,Town Manager From: Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director-) Date: 10/09/01 Re: First Quarter Performance Report for Community Development L Q (13Z V O L t o Z 'T-- 0 O LLL a) -t N co O z 0 O C "0 >- p Z la- ..... N RI L O C z C O E 0 O 0) L 0 -a 7) L o 4.0 .4) N ON E -,:3 O O a. o 0 o O o N o CD >- Q D > a) CD W0 4-+ co _c -o C cn cn = cn cn a) a) •._ o En U) O _oo a) .....7, 0 o co co > Co a) 0 a) Z c U C 4) •co co o E E z N O E -o a) L C Q 0 CO `t cn N ,� 4) c6 Q. co 0 4- a "0 O O C o .Q N a) N D Q) Tu' C C >. a) >, OS,c?... _c3 -Q 0) ...L., 46 CS Q a) O C L CD c\IO Co o O L Q o O LL co L 't N c O z 0 O z LIN L 't O *o `-)4. 0 rooo a) d O>- a) LO 0) 41 .0 a) I ) N o -0 A- o 0 0 O 0 0 c •— o 0) a a 0 � N � > LL 03 c 1E co co U) o .-§ c 'gin a)- U) c _a 0- a) 'cn o yi E o o cn >,L o I c C CU ca Z __ E o :� -o -o co O o a) cn co c as O L z o o n D o a) cn a) E o 0 O O '> � 0> 2 `'- N a) ate) - O .o '> N a_ c �co o c E 2co) U Zi. o Q v ai o) Co :E_ (,)-- *E 0 ._ a) > . o O C Q ca eL > o E Qo>o a) O c a a) 0 LO O * L Q L t 0 l L LL L - N � O 0 N L 't o 1 0 M � N C) N 4 o O z) 2 a c. c. 0 0 0 ao co >- Q M L. c� o 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 I z cv o_c o 0 c EN co ca ca Co 2 a) O -o ca o o -o U 0) a) .c O 2 U a) COO O sa U u -0 E a) Q +_ 3 L Q 03 0 O >-- -4--z-, V- L 't p 0 0 -73L L � N 0 0 z LL N L o't O (13 o (6) a 0 0, co co a >-. o1-7) u_ .4...,_ ,,.... as a) 3 (., a1) O -0 Ce N--- CD� . p O O 06 0 -0 a) a) a) (I) >- - L C C 'D O a) c o ca c O r O a) .� Co co cn W 4. c 6 -- in 2 CD L1J 0_ co ca -t Q cc) ce a) a = 3 0_ V co V_ co Cu O D) co 42 p •— 2 H CO c L co : °- 0) - `i- Q) N O O = O z;IA O C ` CO a 0) 0) U ♦.., coCD EC) O : n, O L G.. 1 C Q) C -t-i. _ c O � a o O O_ ' + O r • fr9 -C +� CO x cn — Q co L • Q Z 1- 0 O T L.L. L t Q CU0 L. L � N CD O Z 0 0 Z LL N C L - a) C ND0 a) a) O C a) o E ca \ *o a) o _ c6 c.t. 1-6 O 0 o O E Q §- O CD_ 0 0 0 a) (13 c C 0) o N 0 0 L.._ r o _. _NC c \ \ -O06 0 , , >,„ >, 45 L_ .-E, O op O O O O a) Q. CO O 0) 0) 0) U O C ›- Q c _ -o 0 - CO > CU a) a c6O > a) o- -0 't C .0 a) a) o o c �.:�. a) >% cn cn O o - c, 0 p -.-- a) L,..: ; a) -§ -o a) a) cUn O c ca o N co Q. -0 ca acuo co O• • C U- n f-- N U •� ♦= •=� -O O co CL. L c a) c . • u) n a) a) N Z p = 0 cn c p 2 co c L-- co O U p U p a) c O O O C a) a) .i) E 1E a) c C �- N 'j to +r -� 0 C a) 4) O O a) 5 a) a) § C� O E 0 .U F- 2 - O ,C aj Q) U cn a) _ c • c (l O co E N O :� : 0 EC p Q. • +_' :+= o m CO C Es" o f E C cn a) E � a) C p O 0 co p C L.. c) .c N U V N Q L U U = a) 4.-- Q �- U U p Q) _c o c ,O CO O o 0) >, E to V 0 _ C .�C ._ O Q z C (13 O > O ca. •>' O a) >,C -o Si -6 D ! O C O C c. (a ._10_ a) p c0 >, v, 0 p c) O U) CO •O O a) 0 o — C O aj a) O cu in E CD a) "O CO w P E N LO a) N > U U • C cn C •• .0 a) _ a) O- a) -8 O -o O Q-,C O O a O O -c U o Ci- U a) U .,._. -O -0 l-' O O C t O c� a) = O �- a) �+- U CO 0 .0 0 0 to 0 • CC s Q O a. 0 L t Q 0 0 L t Q Z V.- 0 0 0 L CO L N Co \O V-- 00 c N 0 EU) 4) LL. - a) N o a) o Cr) co I N a) a) O ' a) CD tet' p °- L U o N L O v) 0 0 0 4 _Y - - C 0 : � WATER UTILITY PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 r Oro Valley Water Utility Performance Measures July-September 2001 Install water meters within 10 working days from receipt of payment. (90%) Month Number of Average No. of Meters Installed Meters Purchased Days to Install Within 10 Days July 46 2.8 93.5% August 67 2.2 98.5% September 36 2.5 100% , Totals 149 2.5 97.3% Read 400 meters per day and in the same order every month for consistent billing periods. (100%) Month Total No. of No. of Days to Average No. of Meters Read Read Meters Meter Reads/Day July 14,501 8.3 1,747 August 14,869 9.0 1,652 September 15,059 8.1 1,859 Totals 44,429 25.4 1,749 OVWU meter reading staff consists of 4 designated positions. Typically,all meters are read once per month. With 4 meter readers averaging 1,749 reads per day,the individual average is 437 meters per day during the reading cycles. Process service work orders within 24 hours or next business day from receipt of request. (90%) Month Number of Average No. of Work Orders Done Work Orders Days to Complete Within 24 Hours July 70 1.1 88.6% August 91 1.0 96.7% September 49 1.1 93.9% Totals 210 1.1 93.1% Complete water improvement plan review within 5 working days from date of receipt. (90%) Month Number of Average No. of Plans Reviewed Plans Reveiwed Days to Review Within 5 Days July 3 4.0 100% August 1 3.0 100% September 3 3.7 100% Totals 7 3.7 100% t By the end of FY01/02 reduce the number of late performance evaluations to less than 20%. Month Number of Avg.No. of Days Evaluations Evaluations Given for Late Evaluation Performed Late July 3 9.7 60% August 2 0.0 0% September 0 0.0 0% Totals 5 4.9 60% � LEGAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 _LEY kyi •":f C • v :::A , Alraai -6UNDED Office of the Town Attorney Memo TO: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager FROM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney DATE: October 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Performance Goals and Measures—First Quarter, 2001/2002 Please find attached the First Quarter 2001/2002 Performance Goals and Measures for the Legal Department. Please call if you have any questions. DLD/ca Enclosure F:\Memos\Town Manager\Sweet-PM&G 1st qtr.doc F; -/ MSM C <C0 a 2 E. g w E."g -ea A rx M g W H g -ttCA Cd A ►� N W W i A W g 4 0 0 p a \ 0 0 0 � . 0ci) g 0 c H \ \ \ O O 111._ )-4 4e4 N-e Pi --_, w M O O C O O O C w p C.) 't ^ ^ et s.., ^ ZC.. cA ,•...) •--' �--� ca cd a) ♦' �v' cic O 0 p4 o a) cl) 8 !,_,. ci- „,,...-, „, ,z) •- .4_, cd ,.. - • 0 0 cts C.) E c..( E o PT* c.) = cd 0 o = •.. 0 aT o . o .-� `ti ago CJ u CA E O o `A • vztU c Fi E .4=-' E ers •5 .-at .c'T.-E O czt E EA LIcidEA et p 0 it, `n v' CU -Pz a) 0 t:40 ` ,) b.0 -P.: 0.0 .,_J 0 > ,0 0 c‘d 0 a) 0 a) 'a' r;' 4a' -5 (1.3 cl,„ •,,-, .a. ;' at CA 1C2 'DC; .C4 ili (.•..-1 C/C .C.--4 VC (D "C) (L) "CD '" ''' ° 43 4 = a; cas,_, &-( re) ;--. PLi '-a;4-5 P-4 a) a) ---4 0 (NI v) ›,.r. vo cj=_,t —4 ,..., ,,ct ct v) "c' "zi 0 E 0 E .7-1_ ,,_,-.- tor., -ci 7,) �-4 a) .� cO •- O ci) .� O V1 .4- rA .E3 7-4 '5 U �., o a) •-4 Q ,0 o Q o O O O O rt c� a) cd o.5 ° ° > ° > r--' " 1-4 V 1. V 11' Ar:4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 •.1 p4 cvPi ciIZ, .-iPi 6. i a T3_ Le- )-4 43 C 0 r--i N M 7t' kr) ‹) N 00 01 r". E et w g • 0 V E. W4 g Cd A M g W H g O a V A c/1 N g v)• N W iet 4 H �. W W P44. � H W 44:t � o a o C \O CA \ ,--1 p., N - Zo 4 01 O o1 C W O *4 A o d '; N v v a)O C. 44 v) A o � o O a) 0 4-4 WW ;., .- ;-, •,-, 00 c) ;' a) v, 4 a) a) -0 c� O O a) a) 0 3 Q O N 0 00 a ici .� v, .E O „, •- 0 — a) a) „fp Cn •4--. .4-' .4-”' 4 C.) a) 1 -5, v, �' �,,�vl ,4 o -cs 2 �-' p ;.., v 0 O O O 0 .� d' 4. a)6. * cvl CA H .0 N o 0 0 c+-I O A! � C .' . E - O A-1 . O • C14 f:14 8 .5 4c7'3 ,4 = .-cs O O s-+ En cd 0 En 0 • cdc a/7) M :'-. 8 cb ° O E O E O 1- cd '� a) O a)8 ' O cn ad M.,1 .,� Cli 0nCi . -, 4.., ..� . 4-4 .' O O c� cc E U 001 V -� 001 „ 4-4 " 3 a) . u U �,-, at U a) , O 01 rn o (� a�/ Cr ,�a,//) ^^ O ,,:4 r—, 4, a) a) a) 1.... N M 1 CIII �, r--+ r--, '--4 c), A-+ a) O O O H H H w PUBLIC WORKS *INCLUDES ENGINEERING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STREET & BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRANSIT SERVICES STORMWATER UTILITY PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2001/02 PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES QUARTERLY REPORT DIVISION ISION GOAL 1ST Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4mQtr All % of on time 100% performance reviews Engineering Deliver projects not to Average g o exceed 15% over Project 5% contract cost under _ Project designs All projects completed within 18 on months of contract schedule award Complete 90% of 86% HURF CIP projects completion within the budgeted for 00/01 year Complete major Projects construction projects under within 15 months after design contact approval Planning Complete Com lete annual 20% safety analysis report complete by 12/2001 Provide annual 30% Bike/Ped report to TC complete by 5/2002 . Update 5 year 25% Strategic Financial complete Plan biannually, report due 3/2002 Attend 90% of 100% assigned PAG meetings Development Complete 3 working Review Development Plan days review within 5 working days Improvement Plan 8.5 review, first submittal, working with 10 working days days Revised submittals- 5 2.8 working days working days 1 Grading Plan review— 2.9 per day 4 per day Street & Complete road average- Building in service requests 9.4 days Maintenance within 14 calendar days Achieve 90% 92% customer satisfaction by customer surveys Complete 90% of average- facility service 1 day maintenance requests within 5 working days Transit All drivers to have 40 100% Services hrs of combined classroom and driving training at the time of hire All drivers certified in 100% CPR at time of hire All drivers receive 100% annual training in fire extinguisher operation All drivers subject to 100% periodic random alcohol and drug testing per FTA guidelines 100% of all trips 100% scheduled and confirmed by 5:00 PM of the previous working day Maintain the cost per 100% trip at $25.0001 less Farebox revenue 100% provides 10% of expenditures 2 Stormwater Drainage Plan review 100% Utility — 7 working days Complete revised 75% Floodplain Ordinance complete by 9/30/01 Drainage Manual 75% adoption by 8/01/01 complete NPDES Data ready On for permit by 12/31/01 schedule 3 POLICE DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT FY 2001 - 2006 STRATEGIC PLAN AGENCY STRENGTHS AGENCY WEAKNESSES • Community support • Technology - Lack of personnel • Quality personnel • Space • Teamwork • Lack of communication • Reputation • Budget constraints • Commitment • Equipment • Facilities/Equipment • Compensation • Value-driven standards • Training facilities • Partnerships • No internal mixed training • Diversity • Resistance to change • Leadership • Apathy and morale • Vision • Resistance to delegate • Volunteers • Micro-management • Training • Community/Department demographics AGENCY THREATS AGENCY OPPORTUNITIES • Complacency • Strong economy • Growth • Community support/involvement • Maintaining staffing • Community trust • Economy • Political support • Unforeseen event • Grants • Competition for resources • Continuing education/training • Negative perceptions • Networking • Changing political priorities • Growth PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS 1. First and Oracle by 2005 is projected to handle 90,000 vehicles per day (@ 50,000 in 2000) 2. Growth in staff, facilities, etc. (decentralization of facilities) 3. Opening of second high school 4. Reorganization of Department 5. Annual call load growth - 11% 6. Increase in annual investigative follow-up -20% 7. Population in 5 years at 40,000 8. Annexation to increase patrol area 9. Demands for service increase Oro Valley Police Department Strategic Plan 08/31/2001 Page 1 of 14 IMPACT ON FUTURE PLANS • Diversity of population • Community resources • Internal growth • Maintain full staff • Recruiting • Examples to other agencies • Developing relationships with other agencies • Raised expectations • Advanced technology • Public perception • Town identity • Annexations • Behavior/attitude modification • Stay proactive versus reactive • Increase professional image • Employee empowerment • Pilot new programs - take risks • Technology Interaction (web site) • Maintain low crime rate AGENCY GOAL SUMMARY Goal 1 To ensure public safety in Oro Valley, first and foremost. Goal 2 To attract and retain exemplary employees with outstanding abilities, uncompromising integrity, and a strong work ethic. Goal 3 To improve organizational effectiveness and community partnerships through enhanced communication. Goal 4 To deliver services in a timely, consistent, fair and high quality manner. Oro Valley Police Department Strategic Plan 08/31/2001 Page 2 of 14 as —01 O 0 .� 0 cd U etoto O as 4) bA al o - -p 0, cidbU O 0 •N 5 4-4 O E E -5 --,.., O .-O -0 0 bA cidM U 0 CA bA 0 0 "� O b W a C4 '0 •- cA �-' a) U > dO 0 0 '— U to 0 U "Ci til) b.0o • , rid 73 .� •-� r' C U cin 0 VA 0 M — O U• te,,, 'V �-+ U bA MI r-+ CI NQ c� co^d �' n to . vo o M U •� U U 4) U N 7:3O -tt E 8 cri O t) ck) cn U cip P-4 c.o 0 � .� O 01 'RS o O 0 CS it, 0 0 "Ci U HU (1) 'CI 0 0 al U cd U U cidU +' U N cd cd cn cd 4) iicl a 0 . r� E ci, ad U ^ U U V U U U —• 6 0 ct 0 En cis r, , P. U U • .r'' cd cu a) 0 a) as a) 0 a) •� a) •.� a) v Cr)4 4' 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 P. W ci.) E g E ,s ct OO ✓ et OM �0 OM ✓ ' MU M M U M 0 Q+ z U U � U 0 00 _c' 0 — , •-a ,.., 0 ►--, U ti ti . O : �, > bbA •�" > 4; , U s. cl. ,•0c2 cid '� cin r0 > ,� ri O 6) M ,4 M *-4-.. ••••0 2 i•••••4 4.1 U O 0 CI, " O 0 O O O O 0 O O N ,. N _ N N N 0 4' N E.1.1 )O O 9C •OO O •. M MV M M •,-. Mco U• a) 4)0 0 8 4) •• U 0 co -6 ;.., a) 4:),,, >, p0 „, 0 — q v) GA C:4 GO U G4 it, GO 747, etc L� A A A A A A 0 0En N cv � O � � o p, M O M �, — ,..,_) c::' Cl) , +41 N O M p p 4) - , 4E1, O � ,—, 4) O d-O ON �O e- 0 O .--, U Cl)im5 a--+ o o N 4-, •^'OO Cr) O O O O 00 V N ,---, Cr r--+ � p.m O Cl) r--, bA �' N p � --, O O CA v, ) pCl)774z3 (1) o N Cl) ^ v) N < 0 0 O Cl) O O N M N '� o 0 00 CO 7, 0 00 , 0O 00 V 0 O N 4) M v, OT O 00 00 O p m o o 0 O •- O - N N oc N , N Mct OO �bA O • • A, w •a cii U a) •5 •° o -� 0 -ct o a 0 ° E 0 •� Cl) 7r.)-- to 0 O �c 0 ,0j 0 ,,, ..... p 0 ,,, ,_, 0 c� ° .0 0 0 E 5 a 0 a) r-... Ir:: a) ^, O • N G `A-4Cl) O 0 A'' Cl) cd •, pp., O v .. o .. cl., •• cd 't� "45 U `'o U U U o U a); ., i-. ,,...., cd 4) 1--1 •� '3 v, �; bA o N c rn 1 .4 -� `°p O .Q) Cl) o0 N O o o ^� O c U ,bA r-' O r-' \ p M \ `O 00 cr ,--4 c.) ,..L., -.6 cn , a) ,4 (cip rn ,_, ›, . 0 ... 0 �-+ U • O� N 4 M N N '7) Uo U M tO 0 o o 4) 0• r--' O V U r-, O U ,4 O r-' N ›, N M •E "4 . .-•� 4-' U E N N O M N NLj O c-r' - O o to v) a) o a .,=.`" O M r-.. o O oN 00kr) N -c,74 ° -F) •- .4 U ;-' U N CA O N N N '' ct O O O O r-•, N r , M CA VD Ci) o� 4 VD � O ) Cl)• 0 0 O O04 ° _ rO U O O � M M O U .4 p0 N , 0 -, 0 N I ' ' O O O N M p O `� N N c O o c M O ,n p . a) N CT c 00 —4 -7t- O El 4 N O O O v) U P4 c:'' 4) Cl)� � N � O � �� O U � N O � 0 � � ct- '�' al .04 N U ,-. QT 00 N ..-4 b1) U czi N to M A •- O 71. c�i O .4-4 _ ., a) .,:a g 0 ...., .,..., 0 . ,,, c) bp cl, t -tii -,:, ;.., O c,,: c:), ct •- 0 -,-, 6 S2 ›, o ,---, •5 p. -4-5 .p2 . 0 }-34., t• a0 ;-4 § c© ••. 74.5 > v) CI, +., O s. O ♦., v, ›-, • U • O c 0 0 �, �" NbA U Z r-+ 0 U 4 U s-, 6 0 ;- 2 E`-71 4' :,,, . ;- N Tij 4-4 .1:1 v) .- as ,.. -4-e(12, c,`:' ccs 0 _ (..) • c.. v:::, ,,„,, ›, E tne e czs0 OU W '� v1 O o .. U ” Nom-, O .o o ,.� Z Wo Woe' " .. ct .. v o ' Mo L O '� (� •5 U O N E--+ N-4a:1 r: ye, '"E:-1 r:4 ,-,5 p U o .. .. 0 - c_,.• 0 a� H 0 U '" W 4 a VI O o O ao a a v) O r a) O 't, 0 � O be U p 7, U . O 0 'al U O ..fi) z 4) 0)) Cl)" 5 4) "0 a) o Q 00 V O a e. , ' rcl 0 •o O o tat) 17i WO r--' ct U bQ . cd Cl) .� t;__,, •E e,0 as•�4Q ate) ,cid —o a .z bA C .� •� •E Cl) U ♦' O cid U al 0 0) -/� +, v cC 3 > bA = �b.A 0 4-0 >a) ''i U rs. •4 U '� 4• O cn 0 ,4 a) v' N b!J 'ti O O,- `p M : N •�, ,z c�U c� c"' al4 0 4. C) C.) p., (1) C.) 5 ›, o ct § U U *4 ,13,— •,,....„ ,.„, a.-5, tz. " ra, „, _ az •5..., .4_.; ..c) -15.„ O 0 p p 0 � ,� 0 o a) 0 ct le ..1: 0 ...... r-+ UE '5 8 a) a) cKS U 4, U crU U cn rn ' U pcd CI? x ,..8 Q,•� 0 U COt' cn citt E ` 0 0 p p • , p 0 -5 c0E U Op v Q ^ = E o o .� O o ..� O M M M _ O M r—. .� U ct U 5 U U ,U„i Td ao 7:1 i. 0 in. 0 o o O Fd 0 a. citt0) Oa) in , ' ' 0 Lt v cc:ett bA czt .1 .I. r-•1 O ct$ 0 17:1 O P.= N N ;•-, N •cu N N p ,U p o O ..'' O . M p M Fd M bA U Us--., = 0 a) 0 ';.45 O ti ti U ti •�' ti �., N -� pq cot A4 E ao bA G4 U p4 a) 74 oA A ciD A A A A cid O o O o a>-, c, cU � O O �o A cn .c= W 4_, a) O CI) F N C . En 0 4.) �, N U bA. CD li'll O � N w M cn 00 bA O O p N 7, O r--i cd N a U .r.., + bA cii . 0 . V1 r O E 0 O o 0 0 U N 0 o ct H 0 E Q 0 U = as :,.. Ua., o O .� a .E 0 o cis o et ,e a) o C. � 6 .. k, o -v o � ,... •-c) pc: = cdk. zZ ca� - < 0 .. ,o W E-0 CO = o < bAo Z 0 Q.,, 0 3 � ••� •� EZ o cW W •[_, w cn cd 5E O o a� C r=4 ..2 a. UE—+ � cz9 4) ;-, .7.1 aA a- o o p o o 7, a - O M o ,_. E@_.)— � w N r. o O . - O '� U \ o C - o �"� 4c) N N O O c� O N = 0 ,-c 51 0 @_) 7t rzJ ct a) U, 00 0 u O U to �'" -5 b4 il:3 a) • O V p o o p-1 4? -ci U b)A k.i N N O O - N CJ (I) ; — o v o � o O 4v _ o o = ct •-lt A ,) a) °r ct W ,N �,— -5 O O e ..4) 00 U O O O 0 ti N U a) :•4 4) U O vD . •--, 4 r:10 � N 4 • 0 at) ctr' et r♦ a N M - O '-ci _ O = 7, .� N O- p a�) 4) +�' 0 0 o w A-' �, .,,..., o .— . v O _ bA � E cua) �' �' 4., O o 4) -5 vD C„ O �-+ C P 4� cti O •,. •+, cu VD •. `n ( CA CA 0 0 CAa) cci � o En � E — 0 � E > E w c.) 0 a) 4) 4) •�' 4) U C: C)) ci N • - •� C) ..-1 4) • • . ' U - �- 0 .� ••--, i. 6, UO ,4bA4 ct O CiO • U O0 O p Q 4�� M 4) � +-+ 'U U .. 4, >1 •• 4 cp O iCo 'u. )--, 0 ,c . ,..c "Fij 'a' li c) cu ;-..4 8 •:=4 0 ;.., •' c'' 4a' d209 v - o ›, En E t6 E 0 ›, ;.. c1:54 4) .� N .0 4) O O O Q Q cn,ID 2 U g < c) :V, < -4 .-- c) c-4-9 r61) •-rct-1 ct -....r 4-i j © - ,0 E O E ct �° > Z 3 5 4 ›, • a) O C A A $. wH 0 �-, 0� - oE� � �3E� a � v) 4--i O s. 00 C ,, z E ,4 N N v , CT O �, N O •= N c r--� .--� ° O ON N N r--, CA c73 O .-•, N 00r•-+ U M 00 0 Cl)rk ;•••4 ..� �., 00000 c� CV; p N V? s. O p `O O � O M • N • O O 0 O� `O p r..� �' ›, N c%r --, , C5 oc 71- N cam, O ' O� i..., O N Cl) Cl) Cl) bA ct ct O O r--, O ON .4 M ,4 O c 00 ,-.--� v) v) v) Cl) a Cl);. O d' ch N , O . �. 2 �O 00 v ,4 O �, r-, O ct N •4 M .4 c) O ct N 4) O O - O 0 cA al �, U N r-' O O N Cl) ,--4 ci) rn U M ) 00 Q; Ct m •U a O O O ( p p 241,,, O O N • 5= c) 0 a EN O ` ° ° kr, O O O 't� ch Okr) .4 a) t �, (Tict (/1 c� c� O N r-•, .- 00 OU U bA 0 U rt . '� a .� (Ti.4O `� E O 0 vi U U U 0 U (1) .r, oE rzi mE bA c • O bA 'O __ > O 0 •=cics ,U .2 Cl)00 747t i-.4 0 4.4 •- O 0 fa, O •N,.. ct •� O 73N • •- 4--+ c Cl.) U 6.r, • ; O cr . O U p , , O O � �73 U OU � � '+ � O Uo Li-4 U U O > .r., O U ct ;t4 ♦' '� O O O c7$ bA UO rl t C..) 7§ 7" +ae .2 CI) (g .. (1) C/) v) vp v) '—‘ •'It 0 ' - 4 ,4E 44 -*,-=.44 4 -g 476 ,4 — .-i'L-jE ° 2- EE ,.--7,-. E = . - c) C:D CD F., P4 CD P4 --, eii 0 •.-. ilijc; p4 U 0 .0r1.4a• j 1 -4- D U U . U .. N .. 4) .. 4) .. c� 4) p., U p.i � 'O � � p. -o . O 73 � •U O , v,. gy �7; — - -. 0 < I, -, 72 < -ia' [... - -tc › › <C › < z404.,, ...euucu › o › O › O › o › o ° > 0 › 0 › . 2 >cm' p. UU ,i, UUUU a � wa. IW o V) V) EA O O v) Q)ai ►P O 1•-� Oh 5 .- O� O . , 0 0 O o c� 0 O O G4 = O -, ' � ,4 O o0 r-, H H O Nkr) N M A CA ° • oo N. � O o-,o o C) a) � oo v O H P21H o E �- o� — — W — z kr) N V 0 0 O a) 4 C O 5 � 0 \ � �o O O o cri p-+ • O co°O o M �.,00 o c) ^c3 0 CC) o N A v) v) a � o �r 0o N 00 0 0 a � 0 O W W G4 c) oo •E O N ,� 0 O 00 ci O V H H O V 0 O N M C) r) O o0 a) C v .0 prD N N V .c U .r, bA N ›-, O N ct 0 -5 S ,,, (:; 0 ia' •- .• O �, O c:::' c) -45J ,1- tO Nvj, al N 0 C v) kr) +-) Ti .0 `) 0 O Lam, O '•� •�' -4--e O 0 Q c� ♦, c�3 U >1 E bA E a) U W W a) W 'to czs kr) 7d o 0 ›' ° ,� '-� ° „c 6. o :,.., c.) ,. .,._., . a) (1.) � ,.., , �' .. a, O W c',- 8 W a) ,h W aD >i_...., c_. 0 Z a3 0 ci) .• as •• ct ,,, a, - PL- -`) a..4) ° ,'-4 ai u ,_.. 0 -4 4,•:, _ v4 P-, o0 .- 0--,-, e , . 0 ,.- -, ,— 8 -- a.) 0 at E. ,., c,:s -4— a) 4=1 -, -, -, 4 tO _,, cz3 a, �, x'0 °0 o Z ° Z Z o O 0 9 c73 c E-+ E� a) CA U r� E-� a) .2 +-� ! a) C7 Cr� � v) 4. v P4NP4 ct , v14J � +. ci..-, VD a) E . • 0 °�' °' cd 2 W W .� W W o w a, O - 0 P 45 �-+ P.E .4 sE ,au a) w w v - 0 a. O ; . O O Q 0 a, Q 0 c a, p4 a� (4.-, p4 0 0 O01 ,35J0 sc) . 0 �C ,E 4-4 'E. o <C U p.., a D o a U a U E-1 — a E-� 0 a) U +-. •. 0 U V] U o ct o Q U M N o �.-� ° o •O •- `C ,---4 •'-, a›. E-4 0 - N •— ctw `O N � U r-•+ r--+ .—+ o U a) Ocn O C _ U U cn C) � U VQ Ua oO .. o cO � • 00 d' •~ Q- • E — E Q7 — • pCO rt (4-4U N N ,--+ ,--4 r--i 0 al U U p-4 o'� � bA �til � o '^' °1 Ec — Ec 0 U '� to M to CZt E c - — — ° .CO 73 � Cr) .4 Tit cn cr 0 0 ) L a) a) U N .� ti N U Q N O . ^+ .1- '� O 4- bA a) N = co U •� cn la c� a) N C a) E 0 cn 0 ? o 5 o cd O � > O C O 0 ; S M= NNH m • °T °T a., oo w o OUA al -5 al ›' C 4J 4) (O C) U 'CA .r,U, S `r •• v) 0 c 4' cll p U +O = 0 " � (4-4 O v v) bA v) �, bA E'' U O 0 E a, ° `0 a) a� U aJ .., •U O p U O a a) U a) ct a) a) v1 U a ocJ ct ccs = C) 0" 7::) ,...., . (u E 4a4 p .. .4 ''.-S U > al U - C Ch O . -,:i 6 ,-,:' -,, ct ,-, ,.. 5 a) cc-4 ..., ;_, ,L, 4 O 7,4 O Ocn• co bA 0 C% C a) Cr •= ' No O N a N 0 N •� -� •� c �; H ^ o ^ •-�-, U •O C) O O •c U OM 'U c. Z c D U • c) c,) r,-,.• as — Ei 0 m ,-,,, •• 0 ;-., 4 4Ese c) -ci cip ct p _12 ailik a) .' ,ii �, o O w '5 O 6.4 0 71, U G4 ,►-+ z) U w A4 e: o Q o U E a, U E O A A o U ct p4 o 4 o o bA A U ' z U ct U AHUQ � p.� U a)vp p up up E up u ,. 01 ,- U �O N 'CD 0 p •• U 00ii kr) C) 00 00 00 00 •.-, r--, 00 CA CA CA 0 ›.' 7d E c© cd E c' ct •— , c..) 0 — 0 •-c kr) o •, 8 (-) (1) `7t' a) 71- 00 M > — O _j kr) N M r--+ in N O ' ,..--4 0 r—, 00 r) N r-, CD bA ct Cll v) E vD U, a, - CA a) .._, V) ,i, r-•+ O (1) a) o •- o czi•— c> C..) 0 ‹) 0 ''t: kr) ° •f--, r-S) ° cl.) 8 CU 01 N > r--+ r' o CT O Q1 ( 4) v) +�.� cZ$ cam, c� p c� E O �.+O NcNi p \ •kr) M O '. r-r °O N �p •�-' ' — N r—. 00 v, r--+ Cr) 00 4-4 00 v) O Ov) o CI) v) O Q) o" .� v) '� ct CT a) ►� ›,O\ O\ , O C,ct • ,--4ct O to to Ma.) � � M up N 0 y-4 0T:10 • 0 0 LI E ,-, O "' o -4.... C,., -4.... •r,' v) 4) ,-••• r V1 C CN 0 0 ›-' 0 N ,.,, v, A•, E .5 0 ›, o ,.. o , E 0 ) O 01oE CA a o . , up ..., U - ,4 C • Q fl 0 0 C a) a) .. v) al ♦-, ,U z -4, to .. •. 4) c� U (+-a 1-, .� b1) 4) cc3 U a) ccs — E-. czi E.-4 ,... ,--, E E 0 , ,a 4., Ri 00°1 Oma, • • QQ J.. H H a' `t p4 cu E ,4 — m rzi up c) ^3 ma) ' v m v) (L) 4 v) ' W a) O '5 A-, c) o o .5 Q • O /p 4� o P4 0 a) E a� a4 E.-4 s a � � w � 4 � A-i CT P-4 U v 4-4 Ci) vD '4:14 _ _ _ ',49 u ,:-.=.' c� 4) N N 'ti) vD • U b •p 73 vD 'ti vD Cl) p OW ^ a) O p AO O s�� O V O p 0 N , • ;_, O - ip O bA O 0.0 O bA r-+ U U vv 0 cn to r--i En 00 M N M v) 7' `O ,---i d' �, 00 .--' O O O O O M U M M r--- 73 O 4) O En bi)ct • bA.� ti) bA O El 0 Lt O ct O �' O D U 00 C 7r N M U b . .- U 4) CD .-+ Cr) Cr) .-� 4-+ — 00 Cr) N Cr) d' `O Cr) O Cf) •--, �O O O O O N ct Cr) 4) 00 M_ Cr) Cr)_ Cr) '-"'� p 0 ct O N 4:1 ,41:1 4 +-� (71 a 10 _ ,D to v, N O , O bA O 00 ;_, O � v, ,., � O. •tAD,4 C O 7t• O= ,--, p O O O O (ID k �, N O M -CI O r--, .� _ _ 74 `r' � O '-t: .- ) .� i. O O ElOcO U0 O O ao O bA O O bA,. •v ,.. 0 U' bio 2- - v tp 3 N c (1) VD v...4 bA O • N NU' M o ` O O O O O M O M O � Z Z N Cr)O OO Cr) 00 O �71- M `p N o O M M M M N � 6/) M �M M co N u'a 'tO v v) O ,(1) ^'7) ;•A' 7, �� �- �� O Cl) O0 cam., N cip cC Cl) c� Cl) cc Cl) ct Cl) cc3 Cl) O bA O bA O 0 O O bA r--, 5 00— CI, a) �t a bA bA Q O .—, yr , c -o y C O O U r- � .0 r--+ NO r-+ 0 N 0 M 0 d' 0 C U U O tat) N M (ID a 0 "Ci cll o ct al C GI) Q O p 0 O U ca--+ Q Q U' O a v' a., bbO • O O o o 78'04 Ti 0 bA o Cl) . 0 • � � � Q "• Cl) � > CD cn oa Q � cn• ;-, ›, 4) 4"'' bA U •• U 7:, `O •O -ti 0 71 v, E -cP4 p O .0 U C CA U U U Cnv)a) a) cn O 5 �"� cO O .� N E 7r cc kr) CA U CA 45 N U O Z 4-i to O 44 th ct cn Q+ 44N cn c=c) � o N CAO d- .EO N U Z E 7t. Q o o N U• O Z r-+ O N M 00 O cn a) 00 moo cc9 CD ct CD z z •r-iC a Cr) U v---, 0 bA 0 cnN ••U a .,..4U OO U U ;5 R ,.., cz, N c, �,N - CO�- + N ct .--, Occi ra, 0 c4 r-, N Q czi ,.U •• ' ccs- O 5 0 E4 E o a? o — • O , U .,_ '�, 6, a,) 4 O cttl) — a) :'-•2 .. •� v 0 c93 — ,e W cci -ci• .9. 1-4 r) '5 Z .,.a •• +9 o 0 •- p n 4'.13 c'd• 1 8 -4'-1 ..- 0 yo cd cci caij .,- ,....,› "-cj .>7 CN1 Cr) U U (1) t4.'' *- � o E-4• '''' 0 0-4 '' `c-4 0-4 E—I •-c, 0 • a) • › O • a- a) 64 o Q p4O (4 ♦., W P-4 P4 a) P-, ach C HUMAN RESOURCES PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 C C MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager FROM: Jeff Grant, Human Resources Di ect!''` DATE: October 9, 2001 SUBJ: FY 01-02 First Quarter Performanc easures Three of the annual goals had benchmarks during the first quarter. The Goals and the relative Performance were: Goal: Develop Audit procedures that focus on the measurement of current human resource service levels by September 30, 2001. These will subsequently be utilized and monitored through March 31, 2002 for use in future planning. Performance: Audit parameters were developed using SHRM and IPMA best practices standards. These will be refined and introduced as a questionnaire during 4Q to all internal and external clients of the Human Resources Department. The results will be distributed during the balance of the year for use in developing ongoing goals in future FY's. Goal: Fill 90% of all jobs within 60 days of the initiation of open personnel requisitions. Performance: During the quarter, 12 open requisitions were filled. 9 (75%)were filled in less than 60 days. The average duration of the 12 requisitions was 38 days, while the three that took longer than 60 days averaged 69 days each. Goal: By end of FY 2001-02 reduce the number of late performance evaluations by <20%. Performance: During the quarter, 61 evaluations were processed and 48 (78.7%)were late. The late reviews were an average of 40.2 days late, for a cumulative total of 1930 days. There were three departments (DPW— including Transit, Finance, and the Court) with no late reviews during the quarter. The Human Resources Department shares the guilt. One review was processed in H.R. during the quarter, and it was 24 days late. MAGISTRATE COURT PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 r rl w W Q Cd g W g Cd 0 CL M g W g C Cd z N W W oiii E-1 A g f.L-4 7• c C acc 1.4 W o F. CC0 o 0 0 © E-9 N o o 0 0 0 0 0 V.4 .---•+ In r-1 v... r--� Z v... C:::) • al W ~ o — _c a) .U O a) _ Z 0) C a) .0 p -ca) a .0 (In RS O � U o 4E1 >' g ° 2 •-e= 0) (1) ° a) � 3 s- .C `- a) .c_ C a) gca - 00) E a) .0 : -=, C Q C a) t v- c -0 Q) � T Q a) .? -o o - OQ o T a) p p L 4' a) 0 0 p w C 0 U O - a) O .� ..c v- 0 >' cn -0 O C) o U a) 0 4-' c -4--i CZ L, 0 0 2 a ca- cc:, Ph.., c�C N E! ca O O - 2 .c (ts c) C — a) — cn a) .� a) 0 a) ii: .-.E. i- E 0 2 .,1-) (,) C s) _a) 4-, o 23 -(-15 „-c.) -c 0 3 O ° 0) a) — ° •- o 0 U " 4- co%," �O ca — o ) 4 a) '5 0- 0- E °QUA •cra a) a) O :L a) ca a) ' o O p >, ° UO c _ O a) (1 _ O O-4..._ a) 0 {.., E �O O g r— ,7- c6 C p O) O O O O a — >� 02 6 a) p a) U t E - '( a 'U can co p t0 � C -o a) > -6..1— a) 8 >, -,(13 OQ ° a Q C co nc5aOOcCwcac� OcU ca _c� � 4-- 1-. OO U 0.1* QO � p0 _ B -•= O cn c U a -= a) .. a) co -L Q o U � .Q L a) ao co Q = W p �, ' - a) p ,-- � „ —'' � a.. " a., �' a � cn � oo A a a) o > O ,42 Lc) l- o .g � ctY oc Q.QIll 00 W G U C • c'i .0 U 'tI 4) 4--, bi) c� 4 a ,---. r--, r~ r~ r---, ,-+ N N a E. > O C t W W 4.) U c •rV tti OY C O � 0 0 cn ct 0 W 0 -G ra CPI E ce McA O U) ai 'T: O i 'll CU 4) '"C ;-, 4.. 4) Ct U Od o CI) Z ° o W el O `i-i 4 rn ;24 En -+E Z H W O -C) c+-4 W R4c. A U N O a) • W o O' o a o C4 g W o — � z z z z i--4 �, Ct tab 0 cv o W o `= `) O C.) o - CO L) U) "0 z 0 c c o 412 C o+ c -t5 c 0 ct h a) ' G/ 0 += _ C2.. t 4-,C 0 U O �_ >, 0 izo < a) a) a) 0) ° •f a c o a) o W E 2 >, can' ``_ w " E0 0 0 0 a) O ♦-' O Q c �-- v a) o - co a o E gi a) O 4p E U ``'" a) OU . _ c 4:,-_-,, " O N O 0 O . 4- ..c 5 Q) -.E,;_2 „a) pc, a) E ,-. § 0 cl.-- 0 -. w — E . cu a) c > eL C E a) (13 > ..0 .�, U rti +-r ISI O -c � � O � co , � Q �� � O � .c � � —+ U y-- 2 > a) x a) a.) a* O 0 O -ci N a) c9 ' O C . a) 0) g a) 03 O >' O cn u) .c O F -0 0 co +-• U c CO p E' -0 Q-0 EDIO a) tT3 Q E U 0) O c� TT,) ..--, 2 0 (7) -0 2 -, (9 E a) 93 _c III --. .92 c.) W O N C (6 O U O a) �"' = ) O > a) � O AUv) Uoonm _cm c0 ° w0 E U a) (1) W o Cv •2 � `. O "� 0 CCI U ''t: c7;$ ,. V H H 5 N M M C) M71- U c > A /04 —1-7?"1- OV Council: Hector Conde 10/17/01 We have suffered lately, not personally, but as a community, several attacks on our rights by our town government. These are: 1. a violation of a mandate of Et federal judge that restored our first amendment rights. 2. a violation of the public's right to refer a town ordinance 3. a violation of the statutes that empower the population to formulate a general plan for the town, by appointing a committee to do that, and eliminating many known concerned citizens from it. The council has to, eventually, deal with the issue of Neighborhood 11 and the use of Honey Bee wash. The conditions presented today, particularly in what refers to the use of the Honey Bee Canyon as an as yet unknown kind of trail, does not show much colcern for this environmentally important area. Is this a horseback or motorcyce trail? How is the traffic going to affect the delicate canyon? Remember, vie are dealing with the entrance to the Tortolita Mountain Park, with a lot of pot.ntial traffic. These conditions imply that the pre-annexation agreement for Neighborhood 12 is dead, in reference to the location and cost of the water facilities. Is that so? Let me remind you: nothing like public participation, it is the American way. Y io--/-7 LI Li TA-V 1-4 it i ilk) _IL/AIN El r UK_ IlititiN ?ACE IP' / . JOIN US FOR A MEETING AT ARCHER CENT :. HR ON THURSDAY OCTOBER 25, 78 PM. PLOTS ""9" and "10"ARE CURRENTLY ON THE PRIORITY ONE LIST TO BE PURCHASED AS OPEN SPACE TO.BE INCLUDED INTO TUCSON MOUNTAIN PARK 1____Ar .___,-----,,,:vs ......7.L ''zii;.•;',..,,,.-_.. -', ; Afr\kfMNMM11aV::L -7-7— _— ilife*'...',,,t .:---,:::: :•:.,7,„ -----,•-- -_, .......T.ff--. b.-.:.1•.ptljr...t: .;,--.4..,:tdt-y-,1,..L.el.,3W ( r---i 1 I / IfitTlir: ,•...ai:•''.64411 if-W' , 1 1 ' 145.,7.-- ..Altiiii_ ..4., .7"- ..--- ,. , L......, • U (I, . .,.0 .:,44,::.,-4..!..‘ ...,,, ;,..i.?..A I t_1,----.1 .,,,-.=±1. , c ....! • - - 1 5.4=1111•114$1./r .„,,.4,vium I's•---- .......- • --...--. M . - • „.:/;,,,:..,..,.:':!:t'.: .,----' r, _....,-; , •• . , ..,. .., ..,--.,...„ A ---,.. .,,,,....;(74,..,,,.,,__.,...._, . • ...----- i______...4.________..._.....4., ..,,,„., _:..„.„ ;,...,_,A____.--„,-,-„,,f-'777,7 . ...... ...... ..... . .....••....:, .---,...,,, .. ....-• ..F,- - • . •L.....,,.... -...,..,...., g.......,....-1,_.....1-, . .............,• .,.,.. . ,...,, • .. ...•• . .....a.... 1 tr----,, ,,---i . i t-Ttr—i.r, _a)ral. m ....,,:,,...„..„............. ._ ,,,,__,....„„_,,,,,_ 7. „ ,....,...„......,.... ....__..... .....,,,,. ,,.... ...„._,..„...,,....._.. , ,_.. i .-...-,. ..., ..r-F.L.;„,Li_i.4:-___,.., I.r---------. L-T---. i ,--!, —,. ", ..1..._....,_,' ri: ..' , , _....., ,. i / • , •-, • ...4 , '71,i- , •• .r--1,--:-.....--, ..--.-, 0 M 0 UNTAIN r_, f _,,-.4.,..j, \,..i.,,...--- • , j -- -, r ( [ 7 •••.' 1 I -4 ..j....; ------4, 1....--1-r-t-------1,_5,-7' , .‘-,,,,i.,....., I .-„?."..47.1.,-2{" 7.--„........ , -----7- .--...---i / ..-1 ---.....— ,..,,_, -t-7-rt--,---t. C .„- T.A.RK l---,.. ts---„:_ , , 1 , t,----------i . ... , . , , .....• ...•...•..:... .. •......•...... ... ............................-...........• i ! ‘Fl 1=:4- :—..7.4421 • 'C I. ..,. -:. WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE PLOTS ‘A'AND 'B' FROM DEVELOPMENT WE WANT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TO JOIN FORCES TO PtJRCI-TASE TH ES 1--.., GROUP OF CONCERNED NEIGHBORS HAVE INVITED: GAY-LE HARTMANN, CHAIR OPEN SPACE COMMIT TEE RAITL_ GRIJALVA CHAIR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOSE IBARRA, WARD I COUNCILMAN Iffl P-US SAVE PRISTINE DESERT IIABITAT WILDLIFE COR- 4 _A RIDORS AND FREE FLOWING WASHES FOR OUR CHILDREN. _ , YOUR- ATTFNI)ANCE IS CRUCIAL TO SHOW SUPPO.RT FOR TIRS OPEN SPACE INITIATIVE. BRING A FRIEND, BRING , ANYONE WHO CARE,S ABOUT OPEN SPACE. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ENCHANTED HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD JADE STOKES-869-8880 MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND VIA DE SUENOS NINA BORGIA-ABERLE 623-3103 PARADISE MOUNTAIN ESTATES FRANK TOMAY0 623-9167 SANTA CRUZ NEIGHBORHOOD BERYL BAKER 624-1614 TUCSON PARK_WEST 1 HOLLY FIANCOCK 623-1719 v/The City of Tucson,ifs officers and employees,its Citizen and Neighborhood Services Office and all 11JCSON PARK WEST 2 BRUCE FAVEY 882-0216 other offices neither agree nor disaoree with the TUCSON PARK WEST 3 JIM SCILEPPI 792-1758 views expressed or implied in this communication and are not responsible therefor. The distribution TUCSON PARK wEST 4 KIM BUCK 884-8355 requestor is solely responsible. 160 rci,u+ /o 1-D l . ...5_ -?-49-7,4-ar-a--j /11- iftlec"" (466Ze_..e1V