Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packets - Council Packets (1488)
AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION MARCH 15, 2000 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM 1. Pursuant to ARS 38.431.03 (A)(3) to obtain Legal Advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365 and related cases and matters 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal advice relating to Supplemental Water Agreement Amendments 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal advice relating to General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso PAD (Neighborhood #11) 4. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal advice relating to PAD Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 5. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) & (4) Legal Advice relating to pending litigation regarding U.S. Homes v. Oro Valley, Pima County Superior Court Cause No. 335827 6. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) & (4) Legal Advice relating to pending litigation regarding New World Homes v. Oro Valley, Pima County Superior Court Cause No. 325395 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 03/15/00 Agenda,Council Regular Session 2 member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes — 2/2/00, 2/16/00 B. Finance Report — Month Ended January 31,2000 C. Approval of Budget & Bond Committee Report to Council for Quarter Ended December 31, 1999 D. Approval of Budget & Bond Committee Recommendation to amend the month of the Committee Election of Chairman & Vice-Chairman from April of each year to July of each year E. Resolution No. (R)00-26 Authorizing the Police Department to apply I for the 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for the funding of Law Enforcement Support Equipment and a 10% match of the total program in the amount of $388 F. Resolution; No. (R)00-27 Project No. DPW 99-00-09 Awarding a contract to Kimberly-Horne & Associates in the amount of $215,077.20 for the Town Wide Drainage Study, Update Floodplain Ordinance & preparation of a Drainage Manual G. Resolution No. (R)00-28 Confirming & authorizing entry into the Continuation of Occupancy Agreement between Ann Alden & the Town of Oro Valley, and authorizing the early payment of $45,000.00 to Alden for relocation expenses prior to vacation of the premises H. OV12-96-04B Rams Canyon Phase III Final Plat located 1/4 mile east of Oracle Road & 1/2 mile northeast of Allied Signal UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 2. PUBLIC HEARING- ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-07 OV11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORO VALLEY (CONTINUED FROM 2/16/00) 3. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-08 OV9-98-02A AMENDING THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 11, RECONFIGURATION OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL REALIGNMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY (CONTINUED FROM 2-2- 00) 4. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-14 RANCHO VISTOSO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS (CONTINUED FROM 02/02/00) 03/15/00 Agenda,Council Regular Session 3 NEW BUSINESS: 5. APPOINTMENT OF LAQUITA STEC TO THE WATER UTILITY COMMISSION EFFECTIVE 3-15-00 - 6-30-02 6. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-28 APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT BOARD MEMBERS 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-11 AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE ARTICLE 15-17-5 AND ARTICLE 15-17-10 AND RELATED PROVISIONS AS TO WATER UTILITY CONNECTION FEES/DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 8. RADON REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WATER UTILITY COMMISSION 9. POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO U.S. HOME V. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY CAUSE NO. 335827 10. POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO NEW WORLD HOMES V. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY CAUSE NO. 325395 TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 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 g 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: 3/3/00 4:30 PM RG 03/15/00 Agenda,Council Regular Session 4 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 8:30 a.m. — 5:00p.m. complies The Town of Oro Valley with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disabilityneeds any type of accommodation, please notify Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of thep ublic have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. Ify ou wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please p a complete speaker care: located on the Agenda table at the back of the room p 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 g 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 4f)4) REGULAR SESSION 44 pp FEBRUARY 2, 2000 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member Paul Parisi, Council Member(Arrived at 6:37 p.m.) MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala and SECONDED by Council Member Bryant to go into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. Motion carried, 5 —0. EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:30 PM The Executive Session was called for the following purpose: Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain Legal Advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365 and related cases and matters Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3)to obtain Legal Advice relating to U.S. Homes v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 335827 MOTION: A MOTION was made by Vice Mayor Johnson and SECONDED by Council Member Bryant to go out of Executive Session at 6:55 p.m. Motion carried, 5 — 0. RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 1 2/02/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 2 UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming meetings. CALL TO AUDIENCE BillEagle Adler, 10720 N. Ea le Eye Place, stated that exceptions to variances to the Town's Zoning Code should be directed to the Board of Adjustment. He stated that the Board of Adjustment has State mandated criteria that applies to each application, so there is no "precedent setting." Each application rests on its own merits. He referred to Agenda Item#2, and stated that it is an exception to an ordinance with no criteria for exceptions and should therefore, go to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration. Ken Kinared, 10280 N. Krauswood Lane, referenced an Executive Summary compiled by Eben Fodor regarding impact fees, and stated that both sides of the equation need to be g g looked at when considering impact fees. Mike Kerrigan, 12428 N. Mt. Bigelow, stated that he had concerns with the destruction of the natural environment. He stated that recently a preliminary plat was approved by Council but not all of the environmental criteria were met. Now Council is considering another development in Neighborhood 11. Mr. Kerrigan asked that Council "stand up" to the developers and negotiate developments on an equal basis. SWEARING-IN OF DANIEL G. SHARP, CHIEF OF POLICE BY MAYOR PAUL LOOMIS Mayor Loomis swore in Daniel Sharp as the new Oro Valley Chief of Police. Chief Sharp stated that he was thrilled to have the opportunity to serve the community and would do so to the best of his ability. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 7:15 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:22 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member Bryant, Mayor Loomis pulled Item I from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item I. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 -0. A. Minutes—01/05/00 B. Approval of 1999-2000 Planning Commission Work Plan: Mid-Year Update . 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 3 C. Resolution (R)00-10 - Accepting those streets within Sun City Vistoso Unit 11 for Maintenance as Public Streets. D. Resolution (R)00-11 - Accepting those streets within Sun City Vistoso Unit 12 for Maintenance as Public Streets. E. Resolution (R)00-12 - Accepting those streets within Sun City Vistoso Unit 13 for Maintenance as Public Streets F. Resolution (R)00-13 - Accepting those streets within Sun City Vistoso Units 16 & 16A for Maintenance as Public Streets G. Final Report regarding Emergency Procurement at the Linda Vista Well H. Resolution No. (R) 00-08 A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town Valley committingupto $10,000 toward a July 4TH, 2000 of Oro Va y celebration at CDO Riverfront Park in conjunction with Greater Oro Valley Arts Council (GOVAC) (Continued from 1-19-00) I. Authorizing the construction of a left turn bay at the La Canada/Calle Concordia Intersection and amending the Town wide Roadway Development Fee Budget to reflect this project with a cost estimate of $105,000 I. AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LEFT TURN BAY AT THE LA CANADA/CALLE CONCORDIA INTERSECTION AND AMENDING THE TOWN WIDE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT FEE BUDGET TO REFLECT THIS PROJECT WITH A COST ESTIMATE OF $105,000 MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to AUTHORIZE the Department of Public Works to proceed with construction of intersection improvements at the La Canada/Calle Concordia intersection and to amend the Townwide Roadway Development Impact Fee Budget to reflect this project. Council Member LaSala p p SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 2. OV12-99-14 THIRD FAIRWAY AT ORO VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO THE CANADA DEL ORO WASH, AND NORTH AND ADJACENT TO ORO VALLEY ESTATES (CONTINUED FROM 1-19-00) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the Council Communication and stated that the preliminary plat is 11 acres in size and will consist of 15 single-family lots. He explained that the main issue is that Lots 1 through 6 are adjacent to the Oro Valley Country Club Golf Course. Because the development would encroach into the setbacks asp rovided by the Town's Golf Course Overlay District, a golf course architect was hired to analyze the situation. Mr. Sinclair explained that the architect determined that although the proposed project does not strictly comply with the guidelines set forth in g the Golf Course Overlay District, it does fall within the acceptable industry standards for development adjacent to a golf course. Staff is recommending approval of the ;� „ preliminary plat with the conditions as listed in Exhibit A A . . 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 4 p Steve Lanahan, 431 E. Yvonne Drive, applicant, stated the property is currently zoned for apartments. explainedthey He that have met with the Oro Valley Country Club and the Oro Valley Estates Homeowners Association, and have reached agreement. He said that have also agreed to set the patio walls back thirty (30) feet and the homes back fifty they g . feet from the olf course. He explained that these setbacks are either more or (50) g consistent with other homes in the area. Mr. Lanahan also stated that they have agreed to the followinglanguage to their purchasing contracts and the CC&R's: "Purchaser by add entering into this purchase agreement, agrees to assume the risk of living adjacent to a golf course, includingbut not limited to the risk to both property and person of errant golf balls bouncing flying, or rolling within the boundaries of the purchased property." Mr. Lanahan then reviewed the site plan for the proposed project. In onse resp toquestions from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Lanahan stated that the project would be tied into the Pima County sewer system. He also explained that a recreation area would be provided for the fifteen new residences. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, asked that the Town's Golf Course Overlay District Ordinance be enforced on the project. MOTION.• Vice' Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-14, 3rd Fairway at y Oro ValleyCountry Club Preliminary Plat, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit "A" including the letter for wording on the purchase contract and CC&R's as presented by Mr. Lanahan. A) (**Additional conditions added as per motion and amendment.) 1. Delete "TZ-5" from general note 2. 2. General Note 12 shall be revised to state "The minimum lot size for lots 7 through 15 is 20,655 square feet." 3. Add the following note, "The roadway cross sections shown on this plat are for information only. The design of the roadway cross section shall conform to the Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards." 4. The 30-foot depressed curb opening at channel section A-A must be a scupper. The apron down stream of the scupper must be concrete not rip rap. 5. Remove the asterisk from"Private Street" on section C-C. 6. A letter is required from the property owner to the east stating that they will grant the ingress and egress easement for the proposed road prior to the final plat being scheduled for Town Council approval. 7. Remove the word" Hammerhead Turn Around" from the plat. 8. Improvement plans, conforming to the Town's Subdivision Street Standards, for this project shall be submitted for review prior to final plat approval. 9. Add the following note to the plat, "The 30-foot existing public right-of-way shall be abandoned under a separate instrument. 10. Add the following to the end of Note #10, "for town inspection." 11. The street name on section B-B must match the one on the plan view. 12. Add this note to the plat, "Lots 6, 7 and 8 shall require floodplain use permits." 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 13. Note number nine on the plat must be changed to the following, "The drainage way between lots 7 and 8, and the retention basin shall be constructed as part of the improvements for the subdivision." 14. The engineer must provide calculations to determine the time it takes for the retention g basin to drain down. 15. ** Purchaser byenteringinto this purchase agreement, agrees to assume the risk of living adjacent to a golf course, including but not limited to the risk to both property J andperson of errant golf balls flying, bouncing or rolling within the boundaries of the purchased property. 16. ** Preserve existing vegetation along the property line along the development or the equivalent. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed regarding: • Following the Ordinance or getting rid of it • Setting Town's standards high • Apartments verses 15 single-family homes • Oro Valley Country Club and HOA being in agreement • Numbers serve as guidelines, look at each situation and use common sense approach • Development Review Board has reviewed and approved the project • Preserving the natural vegetation AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Mayor Loomis asked that the following wording also be added: "Preserve existing vegetation along the property line of the development or the equivalent." Vice Mayor Johnson and Council Member Parisi agreed to the amendment. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Carried, 5 —0. Motion carried, 3 — 2, with Council Member Bryant and Council Member LaSala opposed. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0) 00-03 AMENDING SECTION 2-2-2 VICE MAYOR OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY (CONTINUED FROM 1-19-00) Town Manager Chuck Sweet reported that Ordinance No. 00-03 if approved, would provide that the Vice Mayor position would be rotated annually at the first regular Town Council meeting in January. It would also require that any council member whose term is due to expire during that calendar year would not be eligible for consideration for the Vice Mayor position. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session question from Council Member LaSala, Town Attorney Dan Dudley In response to a stated that the Ordinance would take effect thirty (30) days after Council's approval, but the current Vice Mayor would continue to serve until January, 2001. Council Member Parisi stated that he had no problem with rotating the position of Vice Mayor, but he felt that the timing was not right due to the upcoming election. He suggested that this item be referred to the Government Review Committee. Council Member LaSala agreed. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing y p was closed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to DENY Ordinance No. (0)00-03, amendments to Section 2-2-2 Vice Mayor of the Town Code of the Town of Oro Valley. Motion for denial carried, 4— 1, with Mayor Loomis opposed. 4. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE HALF CENT (.5%) INCREASE IN TOWN SALES TAX RATE ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO FUND THE ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE (CONTINUED FROM 1-19-00) Finance Director David Andrews reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the Town of Oro Valley Tax Code and the Model Cities Tax Code permit the ability to adopt different tax rates among business activities as established in the codes. He further explained that a half-cent sales tax increase on construction activities would generate approximately $460,000 to $600,000 annually. Discussion followed regarding: • The Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) and the fact that the item should be sent to the ESLO Task Force for their consideration and review. • Having monies to purchase environmentally sensitive lands • Preserving open space • Exploring all opportunities and allowing public involvement MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to FORWARD this item to the ESLO Task Force for their recommendations on how to preserve open space and how to fund thep reservation of open space and to also send the package as prepared by Council Member Parisi and Finance Director David Andrews for the ESLO Task Force's review. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 5. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-07 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES AND PROVISION OF WATER UTILITY SERVICES UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT FOR STEAM PUMP VILLAGE (CONTINUED FROM 1-19-00) 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the agreement for Construction Facilities and provision of Water Utility Services under Private Contract of Water Utility g with Steam Pump Village investors and authorize the Mayor and other Town officials to enter into this agreement and to take all other actions necessary to effectuate this motion ve Resolution No. (R)OO-07. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the and to appro motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:35 p.m. 6. APPROVAL OF MODIFIED LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR LA CANADA DRIVE FROM LAMBERT LANE TO NARANJA DRIVE (CONTINUED FROM 1-19-00) Civil Engineer Paul Nzomo reviewed the Council Communication and explained that past roadwork alongLa Canada Drive between Lambert Lane and Naranja impacted the existing irrigation ii ation s stems in the median islands and along the roadsides. Issues also g y existed between the Canada Hills Homeowners Association and the Town as to whom was responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Nzomo explained that McGann & Associates were hired to modify the landscape p general to meet the guidelines of low-maintenance and low water use. This in modified landscaping plan as presented to the Development Review Board (DRB) meeting on December 14, 1999 for their review and comments. Mr. Nzomo reviewed the recommendations from the DRB and the implementation of the current proposed plan: • The removal of existing shrubs and ground cover plants that would require supplemental irrigation on an on-going basis • The retention of all existing cacti and other plants not requiring irritation • The retention of all existing trees within the right-of-way • Repair of existing water services and the installation of a new drip irrigation system to the existing trees • The retention of existing river rock surfacing within the median • The removal of all existing boulders within the median • The installation of additional decomposed granite within the median and in selected locations along the roadside • DRB recommendation to add more drought tolerance landscaping Mr. Nzomo reviewed areas recommended for exclusion of the landscape project. Those would be the Canada Hills monuments located at the northwest and northeast corners of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane and the west-side of La Canada Drive at its intersection with Canada Hills Drive. Mr. Nzomo stated that staff recommends the acceptance of the modified landscaping plan for La Canada Drive. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 8 Although this item was not noticed as a public hearing, Mayor Loomis allowed public input. Bill Adler, 10720EagleEye N. E e Place, stated that the Development Review Board ignored the General Plan which details that Town gateways are to be enhanced and beautified. He stated that La Canada Drive is a gateway to the Town as it runs past Town Hall and the proposed library. He stated that the recommended plan downgrades and degrades the appearance of the area. Mr. Adler stated that more needs to be done to enhance one of the Town's gateways. Gary Forrest, 10842 Sand Canyon Place, representing the Canada Hills Homeowners Association (HOA), thanked Town staff for their help and cooperation on the issue. He agreed with Bill Adler in that more needs to be done to enhance the area if it is determined to be aatewa to the Town. Mr. Forrest stated that he would like to see the g Y large boulders kept in place as they are no more a safety problem than the trees. He also p stated that the HOA supports the modified landscaping plan with additional desert plantings. In response to a concern expressed by Council Member LaSala, Mr. Forrest explained that the original landscaping was put in by developers and not the homeowners. The HOA feels that it is not something it wants to maintain or is licensed to do so. He explained that the median landscaping was destroyed when work was done on La Canada Drive. The HOA is not asking for the landscaping to be returned to its original state but only that a few extra desert plantings be put in. Vice Mayor Johnson stated that the medians are something that distinguishes Oro Valley from other communities. Gateways, entrances, and medians should be maintained. He said that theatewa s should be embellished without getting into plants that require lots g Y of water. In response to questions from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nzomo stated that some new irrigation p would be added and old irrigation removed as deemed necessary. He also explained that to use the medians for the Save-a-Plant would bring about liability issues. Mr. Nzomo also explained that a Save-a-Plant nursery is being provided at Public Works. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to ACCEPT the modified landscape plan for La Canada Drive and that staff and the consultant will work with the Canada Hills Homeowners Association on a realistic drought resistant landscaping plan for an enhanced median and authorizing a 10% increase over the existing budget cost if needed. If more than 10% is needed, the plan will be returned to Council for their consideration. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3 to 2, with Mayor Loomis and Council Member LaSala opposed. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 7. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-06 PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR THE ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY AND DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 15, 2000 Mr. Taylor,Mark Ta for, consultant from Westland Resources, Inc. explained that it was important when consideringa system development impact fee, that the burden of the . facilities and costsgo to those who use the facilities. Mr. Taylor reviewed the process for impact developingand calculating the recommended potable water system development fees. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to ADOPT Resolution (R)00-06, providingNotice of Intent to Increase Potable Water System Development Impact Fees for the Oro Valley Water Utility. He further moved that staff publish the Notice of Intent as required by ARS 9-511.01A.2 so that the public hearing may be held on the matter on March 15, 2000. He further moved to direct staff to make Exhibit "A" available to the public as required by ARS 9-511301.A.1. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Mayor Loomis expressed his concerns about the smaller multi-family usage and asked y that a definition for "multi-family use" be given or that a minimum total be determined. Mr. Taylor stated that they would look at Mayor Loomis' request, but explained that it is currently based on historic usage. Motion carried, 5 —0. S. APPROVAL OF THE BARRERAS SLOPE IMPROVEMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST AVENUE AND LAMBERT LANE Civil Engineer Paul Nzomo explained that the Barrereas Slope is the result of the realignment of Lambert Lane and that improper maintenance over many years has resulted in a heavily eroded slope. Mr. Nzomo reviewed three alternatives for the slope improvement project: • Option One: Series of tiered retaining walls that would provide good stability to the lower portions of the slope. (Approximately $200,000) • Option Two: Use of rock rip-rap along the lower portions of the slope. (Least expensive alternative, but slope stability would not support it.) • Option Three: Use of gabion rock treatments with landscaping and hydro-seeding. (Determined to provide slope stability at a reasonable cost, approximately $100,000.) Mr. Nzomo reviewed an overhead slide of the recommended gabion treatment. He explained that the gabion rock treatment has natural weep holes that release pressure so there would be no hydrostatic pressure build up. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 10 was not noticed as a public hearing, Mayor Loomis allowed public Although this item input. Bill Adler, EagleEye N. E e Place, stated that people who spoke at the Development Board meetingwere not in favor of the gabion approach that was being Review recommended bystaff. He stated that the slope is highly visible and such a massive wall of rock unsightly.would be unsi htl . He stated that he was in favor of the retaining wall (Option 1) for aesthetics reasons and asked that Council consider the same. Mayor Loomis stated that he agreed with Mr. Adler. He expressed his concerns regarding havinga rock covered slope that is 400 feet long and 20 - 40 feet high when it g g isnot attached to a flood plain. He asked that Council refer the item back to Engineering and have them restudy the issue. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to refer the Barreras Slope Improvement Project back to engineering and have them look at possible combinations of the different g Options. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:32 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:45 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 15, WATER, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 15-12 CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES OTHER THAN BY TOWN ActingWater UtilityDirector Shirley Seng reviewed the Council Communication and explained that byeliminating refunds in future line extension agreements, the Town will p not incur any new financial commitments from growth related system expansion. p Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing Y was closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Ordinance No. (0)00-05, amending the Oro Valley Town Code Article 15-12, Construction of Facilities other than by the Town. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-06 AMENDING CHAPTER 15, WATER, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 15-11 AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF WATER FACILITIES ActingWater Utility Director Shirley Seng reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the proposed revision to the Town Code regarding construction agreements required for this work would eliminate refunds to the applicant with the g pp exception of applicable oversizing refunds. By eliminating the refund, the Town will p incur no financial commitment. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 11 Mayor Loomis openedpublichearing.the hearin . There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: CouncilBryant Member B ant MOVED to APPROVE Ordinance No. (0)00-06, amending the Oro ValleyTown Code Article 15-11, Agreements for Construction and Financingof Water Facilities. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 — 0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SERIES 12 RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION—RUBIO'S BAJA GRILL LOCATED AT 745 E PUSCH VIEW LANE Mayoropenedpublic Loomis the hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE the request for a Series 12 Liquor License for Rubio's Baja Grill located at 745 E. Pusch View Lane. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 — 0. 12. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-07 OV 11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN Planning and ZoningAdministrator Bryant Nodine reviewed the current Planned Area (PAD)Develo ment and the proposed development for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood p 11. He explained that the estimated impact in terms of the amount of Open Space that is fragmented is approximately 100— 150 acres. Mr. Nodine further explained that in exchange for the impact to Open Space, Vistoso Partners arero osin an exchange for Open Space and other benefits to the Town. The p p g exchange Space Open han e is for 95 acres in the Honey Bee CanyonlSausalito Wash pg confluence area, 25 acres of Open Space that is being proposed for dedication to the Town, the 60 acre Honey Bee Park and a trailhead and trail that is approximately 6—7 acres of Open Space. Mr. Nodine then reviewed the projected intrusion into the open p space, riparian areas, buffers, and slope areas. Mr. Nodine stated that staff is requesting that Council continue consideration of the amendments to the General Plan in order to further study slopes, wildlife habitat, clustering, and building envelopes. Melissa Shaw, Senior Planner, reviewed the four Findings of Fact necessary for amending the General Plan: • 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. 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 12 • That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan • • That the General Plan Land Use Map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. • 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 processes. In responseto questions from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Nodine explained that as the planbeing is proposed, it only meets the criteria for Finding #3. He explained that he believed thatresentl there was not enough information to say that it meets the p y conditions for Findings 1, 2, and 4. Mr. Nodine stated that staff would like more time to work with the developer and the community on addressing issues. Vice Mayor Johnson said that there are economic impacts that need to be evaluated y . taxes, ro erty taxes, fiscal impact, etc.) He explained that these items are being (school property studied and he would like their findings to come back to Council along with the Planning staff's findings. Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, stated that they would also like to have the opportunity to work with staff. He said that this was an extremely complex project and each site needs careful evaluation. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. The following peole expressed their concerns about the proposed project citing such p reasons as: • Does not meet the 4 Findings of Fact in the General Plan • General Plan does not provide for land swaps • Hillside development • Preserving the beauty of the area • Impact to open space, washes and wildlife • Buffers • Regulating the developers Hector Conde, 14040 N. Lobelia Way Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place Paula Abbott, 10773 N. Glen Abbey Patty Estes, 11700 N. Joi Drive Nancy Young Wright, 1005 W. Wilkenson Dee Zook, 12929 N. Meadview Way Robert Rubino, 13 878 N. Lobelia Way Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. • 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 13 MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to DENY the request for the General Plan Amendment finding that the Four Findings of Fact are not met at this time. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member LaSala stated that if the General Plan is "for sale" for an economic benefit to the Town, then the Town should not settle for the lowest price. He stated that the Town should not belittle the General Plan. Even if the project does not meet the General Plan, that does not mean that the project could not be approved if there were mitigating factors. Vice Mayor Johnson stated that the economic benefit is only one factor to look at as the decisions are beingmade. All aspects must be studied. He stated that he felt everything was not clear and he was willing to have the item come back to Council after further study of all the issues. Mayor Loomis stated that it currently looked like the project would not meet the criteria set out in the General Plan. However, there could be mitigating circumstances to approve the development plan even if does not meet the General Plan. Council Member Parisi stated that he felt that if staff and the developer have requested a continuance on the item, then he was also willing to continue the item. Motion to deny, carried 3 —2 with Vice Mayor Johnson and Council Member Parisi opposed. 13. PUBLIC HEARING —ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-08 OV9-98-02A AMENDING THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 11, RECONFIGURATION OF OPEN SPACE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TOWN Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group, representing the applicant Vistoso Partners, reviewed the map for the proposed project and the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD) amendment request. He explained that they were working very hard on locating the building pads for individual homes on lots so that the area would work. He asked for the opportunity to continue to meet with staff on the project. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE consideration of Ordinance No. (0)00-08 until March 15, 2000 to allow for further study. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 14. REQUEST FROM VISTOSO PARTNERS TO ANNEX A 480 ACRE PARCEL, AKA NEIGHBORHOOD 12, INTO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN LIMITS . 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 14 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to INITIATE the annexation process on the y 480 acre parcel, aka Neighborhood 12, as outlined in Oro Valley Resolution No. (R)95- 22 Oro Valley Policy for Annexation of Unincorporated Land and per the requirements of Arizona State law. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 -0. 15. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-14 RANCHO VISTOSO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE consideration of Resolution No. (R)00-14, Rancho Vistoso Supplemental Agreement until March 15, 2000. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 16. AUTHORIZING STAFF TO BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ARCHAEOLOGICAL CLEARANCE, RIGHT OF WAY DETERMINATION AS WELL AS CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT, FEMA AND 404 PERMITTING FOR PUSCH VIEW-LAMBERT LANE EXTENSION, AND AMENDING THE TOWNWIDE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT FEE BUDGET TO REFLECT THIS PROJECT MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to AUTHORIZE the Department of Public Works top roceed with Environmental Study, Archaeological Clearance, Right-of- Way Determination as well as Centerline Alignment, FEMA and 404 Permitting for the Pusch View/Lambert Lane Extension and amending the Townwide Roadway Development Fee Budget to reflect this project. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. ENGINEER'S REPORT Civil Engineer Paul Nzomo reported that the First Avenue project is going smoothly and that the Calle Loma Linda rehabilitation would be starting next week. He also reported that the signal lights at La Canada Drive/Naranj a and Lambert Lane/First Avenue have gone through the bidding process and information would be forth coming. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. , 2/02/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 16 I hereby certify thatforegoing the fore oin 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 1 on the 2nd day of February2000. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. q4jkN.-a-tr;� �,-. 2000. Dated this day o f /e(7(// 1,L__, • ___,Lc Kath E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk . 2/02/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 15 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT No report. WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Johnson reported that the Town's library project is moving along and there y p would be a Study Session covering the design options. He also reported that House Bill 2121 (HURF Bill) passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. Council Member Parisi requested that due to the delay on the Hardy/Oracle Road traffic q signal, Engineer Town En ineer contact Arizona Department of Transportation(ADOT) and theyqualified request proceed with the next qualified contractor. He also reported that the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) would be meeting with the Town to commence collective g bar ainin talks. The Chamber of Northern Pima County held their retreat in bargaining Rio Rico. Council Member Bryant reported that a presentation was made by a group of young people to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board proposing a roller blade circuit in the new park. CALL TO AUDIENCE Paula Abbott, 10773 N. Glen Abbey Drive, expressed her concerns regarding a Tot Lot located in Copper Creek. She stated that the Tot Lot is near a very busy entry and exit way and a detention pond. She is concerned for the safety of the children. She also explained that the Tot Lot sits outside the actual subdivision it serves. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to adjourn at 11:10. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity, Deputy Town C erk . . DRAFT MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 16,2000 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor(Arrived at 7:25 p.m.) Wayne Bryant, Council Member(Arrived at 6:20 p.m.) EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala and SECONDED by Council Member Parisi to go into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried, 3-0. Mayor Loomis announced that the Community Developer Director Bryant Sinclair and Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine would be present for item#5, in addition to the Town Manager Chuck Sweet, Town Clerk Kathryn Cuvelier and Town Attorney Dan Dudley. The Executive Session was called for the following purpose: 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) Legal Advice regarding the valuation of the Tucson Water System in and near the Oro Valley Town Limits 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) & (4) Legal Advice regarding current litigation in regards to Agrillo v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 320471 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) & (4) Legal Advice regarding current litigation in regards to Town of Oro Valley v. Canada Hills Development Company Cause No. 332525 4. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain Legal Advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365 and related cases and matters 5. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain Legal Advice relating to General Plan Amendments and Planned Area Development Amendments 6. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3)to obtain Legal Advice relating to negotiations for effluent rights from the City of Tucson 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 2 nt to ARS 3 8-431.03 (A)(1) and at the request of the Town Manager, personnel 7. Pursua matters relating to the Town Manager MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala to go out of Executive Session at 6:48 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor (Arrived at 7:25 p.m.) Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck reviewed the upcoming meetings for the month of February. CALL TO AUDIENCE Terry Dudas, 10713 North Pomegranate, informed the Council of the GIS computer generated report of the Oro Valley Aquifer. She stated that this information could be obtained off the World Wide Web or by contacting the Department of Water Resources. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member Bryant, Mayor Loomis pulled Items F and G from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items F and G. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. A. Minutes—01/19/00; 01/24/00 B. Police Report—December 1999 C. The Chamber of Northern Pima County Quarterly Report—October 1, 1999 —December 31, 1999 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 3 D. The Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) Quarterly Report—July 1, 1999—September 30, 1999 E. Resolution No. (R)00-14 Award of Contract for Project No. DPW 99/00 09 Professional Engineering Services For Tangerine Road: First Avenue to La Canada Road Safety Improvements-Phase 1 to Catalina Engineering, Inc. in the amount of$76,350 Resolution No. (R)O0-15 Award of Contract for Project No.99/00 04 & F. 05 Lambert Lane/First Avenue and La CanadalNaranja Drives Traffic Signal Installations and Intersection Improvement to Cimetta Engineering & Construction Company in the amount of$318,790.50 (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) G. Resolution No. (R)00-16 Approving the transfer, acceptance and use of Forfeiture Funds by the Oro Valley Police Department and supplementing the existing Police Department Budget (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) H. Resolution No. (R)00-17 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County in order for the town to bill and collect sewer fees on behalf of Pima County I. Resolution No. (R)00-18 Authorization to enter into an Agreement with Sierra Computers Inc. for Permit Tracking and Project Management Software J. Approval to purchase a$26,128 maintenance vehicle for Parks & Recreation Division utilizing $18,000 from existing vehicle funding and $8,128 from the existing capital equipment funds K. Request from Legal Department to change work week from 37.5 to 40 hours F. Resolution No. (R)00-15 Award of Contract for Project No.99/00 04 & 05 Lambert Lane/First Avenue and La Canada/Naranjo Drives Traffic Signal Installations and Intersection Improvement to Cimetta Engineering & Construction Company in the amount of$318,790.50 MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)00-1 5. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. G. Resolution No. (R)00-16 Approving the transfer, acceptance and use of Forfeiture Funds by the Oro Valley Police Department and supplementing the existing Police Department Budget MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to ADOPT Resolution No. (R)00-16 approving the transfer, acceptance and use of Forfeiture Funds by the Oro Valley Police g Department and supplementing the existing Police Department Budget. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. • • 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-09 RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. (0)96-05,WHICH ADOPTED THE TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND RE-ENACT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BY RESOLUTION Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. No comments from the public were received. y p Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to RESCIND Ordinance No. (0)96-05. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 3. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ADOPTING THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES" Town Attorney Dan Dudley explained that this resolution would re-adopt the Town Council's Polices and Procedures that had been rescinded through Ordinance No. (0)00- 09. Council Member Bryant had concerns with restrictions and was reluctant to approve the resolution in its current state. g Mayor Loomis agreed with Council Member Bryant that there were issues that needed to y be addressed, however, he would like to have the policy in place and develop a task force to address the issues. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to ADOPT the Town of Oro Valley Council Policies and Procedures by Resolution No. (R)00-19. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice Mayor Johnson arrived at 7:25 p.m. 4. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE (PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Community Developer Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He explained that staff had forwarded a favorable recommendation, if all of the conditions listed in"Exhibit A" are adhered to. Council Member Bryant stated that he had concerns with traffic, parking, drainage ways, easements and common areas. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 Mr. Sinclair concurred that these were legitimate concerns and that some of these issues had been resolved. He added that there would be agreements made between the developer and the homeowners association regarding the drainage ways and easements. Charles Hulsey, with The WLB Group, representing the applicant (Beztak) stated that there were a number of things that had changed and gave the following update: • Commitments have been made regarding the landscaping. • All accessp oints had been moved further away from the intersection than had been required byCode. Everything is being done in accordance under the direction of the q traffic engineers. • The flow of the drainage way along the eastern boundaries would not increase. • Beztak has offered to maintain the wash adjacent to the site and make the necessary repairs. • The Homeowners Association (HOA) has granted the developer an egress and ingress easements to maintain the wash. Fro Adams, 10160 North Fox Hunt Lane, representing the Villages of La Canada Homeowner Association. She stated that the HOA had met with the developer and has a tentative agreement. The following arrangements were made: • Agreed to grant egress and ingress to maintain the wash for access • The developer will repair and maintain their portion of the wash • Drainage ways will not exceed the present level but if an overflow occurred the HOA and the developer would re-negotiate to determine where the overflow originated. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Ms. Adams explained that the inp �e etuity only pertained to the land. She added that if any damage occurred the developer or owner would be responsible. Matt Moutafis, 10707 North Pomegranate Drive stated the following: • That all grading waivers conditions are met • Disagreed with the widening of Lambert Lane on either side • Access was very important and there should be some safety precautions implemented in the development plan • Water was a very precious commodity and should not be squandered on water features Jerry Roberts, 10280 North Camino Valdeflores expressed his satisfaction and appreciation. He explained that he was in attendance to make sure that the promises made by the developer were kept in relation to the location of the buildings and understood the communities concerns. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Town Engineer Bill Jansen explained that the amended conditions had been submitted regarding Item 6 and Item 18. He explained regarding Item 18, staff concurred with half of the friction coat for La Canada, but recommends the full width for Lambert Lane. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 Mr. Jansen explained that in regards to Item 6, the engineer shall provide the design p information from the Villages of La Canada Block A which shows how the flows from concentrationp oints 5 and 6 have been directed away from the guard house on Congressional Way. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE OV12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan, subject to the condition in Exhibit "A" and in addition to the amended conditions to Item 6 and Item 18. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Exhibit A (*As amended per motion) Code Issues and/or Town Standards 1. Where not screened by proposed landscaping or perimeter screen wall, loading areas shall be screened in accordance with OVZCR Sec 11-203B 2. The applicant Shall either: (a) Resolve issues regarding drainage concerns with the Villages of La Canada HOA, and provide documentation of a written agreement. Written permission from the HOA of the Villages of La Canada for the construction of any improvement on their property is required prior to submittal of an improvement plan, or (b) Submit an acceptable drainage study and improvement plan to release storm water runoff at the flow rate, velocity and location as the existing conditions without necessitating any off-property improvements. 3. The traffic impact report must include a section that analyzes the internal circulation by the design vehicle. 4. Determine the actual near side intersection sight distances for driveways number 5 & 6 and compare them with the required near side sight distances, then include them in the revised traffic impact report. 5. A final drainage report will be required during the improvement plan review process. A percolation test is required for the retention basin. 6.* The engineer shall provide the design information from the Villages of La Canada Block A which shows how the flows from concentration points 5 & 6 have been directed away from the guard house on Congressional Way. 7. The proposed CMP in the R/W along La Canada Road shall require a license agreement from Public Works. Call out head walls and wing walls for all inlets and outlets for these CMP's. 8. The southern driveway on La Canada Drive shall be constructed as a right in out driveway. 9. Construction of the retention basin and spillway shall utilize local rock and other materials that, combined with revegatation of the basin, create a natural look. Review Considerations 10. Architectural plans, especially for Pads A and C and the east side of Building. 2, shall be submitted for DRB approval. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 11. Meet with staff to review comments of the revised traffic impact report, revise the report and resubmit for approval. 12. Improvements along La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane shall require Town engineer's office review and approval. 13. The traffic impact report must be revised and be approved by Town staff prior to approval of the improvement plans. 14. The lighting for this development shall conform to the lighting in the commercial centers to the north and west of the site. A lighting plan for this development shall be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of building permits. Other Considerations 15. The fair share cost of the maintenance of the existing channel shall be addressed with the Villages of La Canada HOA and signed by both parties. 16. "Scrubbers" and filters shall be installed on the venting outlets of all businesses preparing food to mitigate smoke, vapors, and odors. (Add this as a note to the development plan.) 17. The developer shall install 12' wide pavement and striping on east side of La Canada Drive and south side of Lambert Lane for the entire site frontage. 18. *A friction coat must be applied to the full width and frontage of the existing pavement on Lambert Lane and for the east half of the pavement on La Canada Drive after the new right turn lanes are installed. 19. A striping plan is required for the new configurations of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. 20. Call out cross-sections AA, BB,CC, and EE on page 2. Revise page 3 or remove the reference to detail 6/3 for the basin on page 2. DISCUSSION: In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Town Attorney Dan Dudley stated that he did not believe that it was appropriate to add a private agreement between the parties, although some of the conditions could be inserted as long as the condition were consistent with the law. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Sinclair explained that in condition "2A", the Homeowners Association (HOA) and Villages of La Canada were required to provide documentation of a written agreement. Motion carried, 5-0. 5. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE (PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He stated that the landscape plan presented by the applicant does satisfy the Oro Valley Zoning Code as well as the El Conquistador PAD. He explained that the features in the proposal would include linkage to the planned Lambert Lane multi-use path. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" herein. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Exhibits A 1. Add to note 1C "Wooly Butterfly Bush has also been approved for use." 2. Where not screened by proposed landscaping or perimeter screen wall, loading areas shall be screened in accordance with OVZCR Sec 11-203B. 3. Provide vegetation, a minimum of 3'high, in the 5'-wide landscape buffer for the entire length of the drive-though stacking lane for Pad C. 4. Add a note that the `stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 5. Continue the 8' screen wall on the east side south to just north of the retention basin scupper. 6. Add landscaping on the west side of Building 4 at least as far north as the bike racks. remove the trees and shrubs from the middle of the loading area at Pad C. Remove the shrubs from the sidewalk at the northeast corner of Pad C. Remove the shrubs and tree from the bike rack area on the east side of Pad B. 7. Conditions listed above, and any additional Town Council conditions, shall be submitted with a revised landscape plan, prior to receipt of a grading permit. Motion carried, 5-0. Mayor Loomis called for a recess at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Loomis called the meeting back in session at 8:00 p.m. 6. OV12-99-19 MIRA VISTA PRELIMINARY PLAT, PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TANGERINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He explained that it had been determined the subdivision would be mass graded. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Sinclair stated that he was unsure as to why the noise level was not taken into account. He stated most of the traffic would be generated from pedestrians living in the subdivision. Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group representing the applicant stated that the recreation area would be centrally located according to the development plan that had been previously approved; the wildlife crossing would be maintained with mature growth vegetation; three parking spaces was an adequate number according to the ordinance. In conclusion, he stated that the applicant had no objection to any of the conditions. Hector Conde, 14040 North Lobelia, stated that the park was not easily accessible for children and should be centrally located. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session In answer to aq uestion from Mayor Loomis, Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine stated that an adequate noise study had been conducted. He added the noise level q p would be in a rangespecified by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Town Engineer Bill Jansen stated that a noise study would actually be included as a part of the development and design of the project. Mayor Loomis suggested adding additional language in Condition#3 (General Note) to read, "Tangerine Road would be expanded in the future into a State Highway and that potential buyers are notified that the property will be next to a highway". MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-19 Mira Vista PreliminaryPlat, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith and to include Tangerine Road would be expanded in the future into a State Highway and that potential buyers are notified that the property would be next to a highway. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Motion carried, 4-1. Council Member Bryant opposed. Exhibit A (* As amended per motion) 1. The developer must pay an in-lieu fee for a future bike lane under AASHTO standards along the south side of Tangerine Road. The in-lieu fee must be established for a minimum of ten years and may be extended by the Town Council thereafter. 2. A cross-section of the "wildlife friendly" road crossing must be shown on the plat. 3. *Aeneral note shall be added which states; "Prospective owners shall be informed g that direct access onto Tangerine Road may be closed in the future. Tangerine Road would be expanded in the future into a State Highway and that potential buyers should be notified that the property will be next to a highway." 4. Three parking spaces shall be provided for the recreation area. 5. The owner of this subdivision must construct the drainage channel along the north property line of lots 11 — 16 of the Copper Ridge II Subdivision. Permission must be obtained from that property owner. 6. Add a detail for the "D" lots to the detail sheet of this plat. 7. Lots 8 — 10 and 55 — 58 shall not construct screen walls across the drainage easements. This statement must appear on the notes of the final plat with the condition that all property owners must be made aware of this condition before any purchase agreements for those lots are made. 8. Add note on the final plat that gives the Town of Oro Valley permission to enter the common areas for the maintenance Town owned drainage structures. 9. Add a section to detail sheet for concentration point 3.4 that adequately shows the design of the compound were as it relates to the sidewalk, curb, pavement, right-of- way line and open space. 10. Submit all comments of the traffic impact report and improvements to Tangerine Road from Pima County to the Planning and Zoning Department and the Department of Public Works when they become available. All of Pima County concerns must be addressed prior to the Town's approval of the improvement plans for this project. 11. Clarify section 4/4 on the detail sheet so that it shows the proposed lane widths. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 10 12. Provide an access on the south side of the box culvert at concentration point 3:1 at a grade no steeper than 4:1 for Town maintenance purposes. 13. These conditions must be addressed prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. 7. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-20 AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE DENNIS WEAVER PARK POOL RENOVATION Community Development Director Brent Sinclair stated that the pool was in very poor condition. He recommended entering into an agreement with Earl Kai Chann Associates, LTD, top rovide architectural and construction administration services for the Dennis Weaver Pool renovation. He stated that the $33,000.00 available in the Parks and Recreation Divisions "Grounds Repair and Maintenance Fund" would cover all plans and specifications as well as the construction management required to complete the project. Council Member LaSala expressed his concern that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) had not been sent out in order to find the most qualified business for the project, therefore, was uncomfortable accepting the recommendation. He stated that"the town only has one pool and one shot to do it right". In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Parks and Recreation Administrator Ainsley Reeder stated that after speaking with Jeff Chow, representative for Earl Kai Chann Associates, the project would take approximately one year to complete. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Ms. Reeder explained that staff believed there was a strong chance to renovate the existing facility and bring it back on- line. She explained that to renovate the facility would cost substantially less, as opposed to bulldozing and building a new facility. To replace the pool in its entirety would cost about $2,000,000.00. The following citizens spoke in favor of the Dennis Weaver Pool renovations. • Patti Garcia—6800 North Palermo Way • Cindy Gastreich— 1969 West Placita Colima • Nancy Swank— 1050 West Lost Dutchman Place Eric Anderson, 10757 North Glen Abbey Drive stated that the pool was a primary recreational facility for his family, therefore, opposed the pool being closed for such a long length of time. In answer to a question from Council Member Parisi, Mr. Sinclair stated that staff could not recommend any immediate repairs. He explained that the problem with the pool has been ongoing for quite some time and is gradually getting worse. Vice Mayor Johnson stated that until he knew what the extent of the problem was, he was reluctant to make a decision at this time. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 11 In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, President of Earl Kai Chann Associates Jeff Chow explained that the reason for including "Article 7 —other provisions", was to protect the companyif the Town decides to expand on a larger scale. He added that the basic contract would provide coverage for the investigation and to repair any existing problems. Mayor Loomis agreed with Council Member Bryant and members of the public. He requested that this item be continued to March 1. He stated that he would like staff to be sure that the statement of work includes; comparison of cost in relation to the repair of the pool; upgrading the pool; cost to bulldozing the facility; and if there was any way to use the pool in the immediate future. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE Item 7 to March 1, 2000. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member Parisi agreed that item 7 should be continued. He added that if the repairs could be done at $350,000.00, it would make more sense rather than spending $2,000,000.00. Motion carried, 5-0. Mayor Loomis called a recess at 9:10 p.m. Mayor Loomis called the meeting back to order at 9:20 p.m. Mayor Loomis moved Item 9 to follow Item 7. 9. ANNUAL EMPLOYEE FORUM—POLICY 29, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CODE Town Clerk Kathryn Cuvelier read 3 letters that had been submitted by Town employees for the record. (See attached) Don Manspeaker, Civil Engineer Technician stated the following: • Personnel - The Town needed more employees in order to provide better service; the work load is extremely heavy due to the commercial development coming on-line. • Process—the development and capital process needs help. Staff can't get the working processes in place effectively because of the workload. He added many processes are either outdated or have not be implemented. • Policy—Council should consider reviewing the procurement process. • Annual leave - consider more annual leave which would reward longevity and provide incentive for new employees. Melissa Shaw, Senior Planner, stated the Town was at a crossroads and that staffing has been ap rimary concern. She stated that her vision for the Town is that new growth be pro-actively planned rather than reactionary. • 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 12 Mayor Loomis asked for a continuation of Item 9 to March 8th at 5:00. He explained that this would enable more employees to attend. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to CONTINUE Item 9 to March 8, 2000. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 8. APPROVAL TO AMEND THE FY99/00 BUDGET FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FOR THE ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL CAMPUS CommunityDevelopment Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He stated this request was to amend the budget for $250,000.00 for a new Town wide phone system. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the request to amend the FY 99/00 Budget for a Town wide telecommunications system, and authorize the allocation $250,000.00 towards the purchase of this system. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 10. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-07 OV11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment. Irving Kempner, 288 East Calle Diamante asked why was Council so eager to approve this development in the face of so many serious negative factors associated with the proposal. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to reconsider. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Motion carried, 3-2 with Council Member Bryant and Council Member LaSala opposed. 11. ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-07 OV11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN (Due to ARS 9-462.04 regarding requirements for public notice, it is anticipated that a motion for continuance will be made) MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE this item for consideration on March 15th. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-2 with Council Member Bryant and Council Member LaSala opposed. i yy 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 13 12. AWARD OF BID (STATE CONTRACT) FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FOR TOWN HALL CAMPUS Council Member Parisi excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest. Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He explained the Task Force had formally invited each vendor to submit their State Contract price for a turn key telephone system. A total of five (5) bids were received (U.S. West bid two separate systems), which were evaluated by the Task Force. The top two bids preferred by the Task Force included the Axxess System by Inter-tel at$156,227.00 and the Nortel System by U.S. West at $167,650.44. He stated the Task Force favored the U.S. System because it would accommodate the Town's current and future needs. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the procurement of the U.S. West Nortel System as outlined by Mr. Sinclair. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 13. STATUS REPORT—ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY PIPELINES UNDER BRIDGES IN THE RANCHO VISTOSO AREA Acting Water Utility Director Shirley Seng gave a status report on the condition of the pipelines. She stated that the actual design and construction cost had not been determined, however, the costs are not anticipated to exceed $200,000.00. Mayor Loomis thanked the Water Department for their hard work. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Sweet announced that the Facilities Maintenance Coordinator Carol Ellis had won 2 Bronze Metals in the Senior Olympics. ENGINEER'S REPORT Mr. Jansen stated that the pavement work along First Avenue and the left turn bays at Naranja and Palisades is going well; the re-paving and reconstruction of Calle Loma Linda has begun; ADOT has approved the Warrant Study for First and Tangerine. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. h 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 14 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT Chief Sharp stated that the Police Department had to be evacuated last week because of a gas main eruption; he commended the Police Department for their handling of the murder/suicide situation. WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Seng stated that the water company had experienced no total coliform events for the month of February. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Johnson stated that he had attended a Public Hearing for the Library and would bring that information before Council for discussion in the near future. Council Member Parisi stated that he had met with the Fraternal Order of Police, Town Manager, Human Resource Director and Police Chief and commended everyone for their professionalism. He added that he would be meeting with the Economic Development Director and a potential restaurant owner who was interested in relocating to Oro Valley. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member LaSala motion to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. -sp- tful ly submitted, Arg, /— . 1' i s•a Hersha,Administrative Secretary 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 16th day of February, 2000. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of ,2000. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2000 TO: Mayor Loomis and Town Council FROM: Shirley Gay/ DRB Clerk I have been an employee of the Town for approximately 4 1/2 years. First and foremost I want to say I think the Town of Oro Valley is a good place to be. I currently have a great supervisor who is caring and wants to helpme achieve better things. I'm frustrated right now because of the workload that has been placed not only on myself, but all employees in Community Development ment due to the rapid growth of this Town. I challenge the Council to employees meet with all em to ees and get input on just how we all feel. I also ask you to also consider our Dental benefits and how they can be improved. Respectfully, Shirley Gay Memo To: Oro Valley Town Council From: Laura Pinnas, GIS Analyst Re: Annual Employee Forum Date: February 16, 2000 tonight cannot be at the meetingtoni ht so I am submitting this memo instead. myjob and conditions in the Town. What I am concerned about is my IamhaPPYwith health benefits. The United Health Care HMO is a good plan and is flexible to meet my needs. However, the dental and eye plans are sorely deficient. The dental plan is a very restrictive HMO that has a tinylist of dentists who accept new patients and the waits are extremely long. I have a dentist in town that I have been going to for 23 years and he I have to payfull price to see him. I would prefer a plan that pays for isntontheplanso of dental work each year and doesn't limit my choices. I have talked to a certain amount who wholeheartedly agree, and even encouraged other employees me to write this memo because of this very problem. In fact, even the head of human resources himself and he uses his wife's plan instead as do many of the Town staff. thinks the plan is bad I do not have a spouse so I do not have a choice in plans. The Avesis vision plan has similar deficiencies to the dental plan. It limits visits to a small list of practitioners of which myoptometrist of almost 20 years is not on, so I have P to pay full price again. In addition because I have an extremely high prescription, I need thin lenses to refill myframes. The list of places to get frames and contact lenses is even smaller than the list of practitioners and I found out that I have to pay 80% of the cost of the few outlets on the plan and the costy called Robinson-Ma , one of the refill lenses. I -mydo for frame is $15 5. In addition. if I this benefit than I on. use of dust the refill lenses not get any contact lenses. If I want to use the contact lenses benefit instead, they will It costs me $432 for contact lenses for 24 months. All in all pay $100 every 24 months. the vision plan is so lackingthat I feel like I don't have a vision plan at all. My vision is extremely important to me, especially es ciall since I work at a large monitor all day every day, which has detrimental affects on my vision. I need a plan that will lower my out-of- pocket ut-o -Pocket expenses for maintaining the health of my eyes. itself in offering Town of Oro Valley prides a good quality of life and good benefits refore I ho the Town Council reconsiders the dental and vision to its employees. The pe plans and offers ones that better suit the needs of staff members Thank you. 472l TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Finance Report For Month Ended January 31, 2000 SUMMARY: Attached to this communication is the Finance Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2000. GENERAL FUND: Select points are as follows: Sales tax from construction(through December) is up 18% compared to the same time last year. t•b. Residential building permit fees may exceed budget by approximately$200K- $300K. q> Hotel/motel sales tax collections (through December) are up about 6% compared to the same time last year. qt> State/county shared revenues are tracking to budget. q;> Departmental expenditures were under budget. Other Funds State shared fuels taxes are tracking to budget. q;> Townwide roadway development impact fees and water connection fees revenues are meeting or exceeding budget. $291,409 in bond proceeds was received from Pima County for construction of the CDO Riverfront Park. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 Oro Valley Water Utility Current retained earnings is $1,554,428. Water revenues may slightly exceed budget based on current collections. Capital expenses are below budget. Cash from operations is exceeding budget by $3,182K. . (;) David L. Andrews Finance Director Chuck Sweet Town Manager CC: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager All Department Heads Town of Oro Valley GENERAL FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12 =58.47" 1999/2000 Percentage Januar Y-T-P Total olBudget y Actuals Actuals Burg et Com leted REVENUES Local Taxes $ 389,207 $ 2,690,227 $ 4,962,000 _ 54.2% ount/C St to shared 385,306 2,501,887 4,503,000 55.6% State/County a d Fines17,088 108,310 201,000 53.9% Licenses & Perm its 147,690 920,490 1,105,000 i Charges (or Services - 18,652 150,332 220,600 • Federal Grants 182,263 311,869 647,323 48.2% State Grants 36,272 114,815 281,993 40.7% Interest Earnings 50,094 235,783 318,600 74.0% Miscellaneous 16,675 49,805 15,500 321.3% Bond Proceeds - - 2,700,000 0.0% Car forward 7,531,724 TOTAL REVENUES 1,243,247 7,083,518 22,486,740 47.4% EXPENDITURES: Town Council 13,851 64,496 81,983 78.7% Town Clerk 14,446 109,735 275,132 • 39.9% Magistrate Court 32,620 194,982 340,173 57.3% Town Manager 15,361 115,488 243,401 47.4% . Human Resources 10,404 93,105 180,327 51.6% Economic Development 31,678 111,999 313,249 35.8% p _ , Finance 22,535 166,899 334,793 49.9% Legal 31,495 192,038 459,809 41.8% , Community Development Administration 12,127 122,683 288,440 42.5% r Plannin• & Zo i . 71,092 431,321 971,541 44.4% n n Parks& Recreation 32,959 293,327 849,292 34.5% Pc oli e 416,320 2,959,435 5,450,974 54.3% Police- Ca•ital Contin enc - - 132,493 0.0% Building Sa ety 53,193 379,545 934,772 40.6% usto i I F M i nce 10,228 70,442 146,752 48.0%, C & ci l it� a a y nten a a , General Administration: _ , Personnel, Operations & Maintenance 26,873 179,632 381,674 47.1% Improvements - 8,468 115,489 7.3% ' Vehicles & g P E ui ment 22,906 34,759 24,500 141.9% Land - 1,877 3,243,500 0.1% Transfers to Other Funds - 699,554 1,901,810 36.8% Contingency/Reserve 5,816,636 _ 818,088 6,229,785 a $ 22,486,740 37.4% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 425,159 $ 853,733 FUND BALANCE A TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 8,176,367 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 9,030,100 Town ofOro Valley HIGHWAY FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12-58.45 1999/2000 Percentage January Y-T-P Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Com'feted REVENUES: State Shared Fuels Tax $ 140,091 $ 800,421 $ 1,629,000 49.1% Other Revenues 13,969 71,377 70,800 100.8% Trans er rom Debt Service Fund 71,544 71,544 73,860 96.9% Carry orward o Fund Balance 1,832,378 TOTAL REVENUES .•4 943,342 3,606,038 53.2% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 50,399 325,608 634,725 51.3% Operations & Maintenance 32,378 316,968 551,134 57.5% Capital Improvements • • 57,805 1,030,000 Equipment & Vehicles 26,739 292,052 •• • ' ' Lease Purchase Pa ments 55,982 40.6% Contin enc 968,126 TOTAL EXPENDI T/R ES ', 159,746 '' 1,015,166 �' '•' • ' REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 65,858 $ C71,824) FUND BALANCE AT.JULY 1, 1999 $ 1,960,836 CURRENT FUND BALANCE 1, 1,889,012 Town of Oro 1471ley PUBLIC TRANSPOR TA TION FUND Budget Comprecl to Actu1l5 Report Through Jlnuivy 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12 =58.45 1999/2000 Percen tc7ge Jinumry Y-T-P Totil olBudget Actuals Adults Bud•et Com•letec/ REVENUES: H B 2565 State Grant $ - $ 24,044 $ 11,000 218.6% Local Tra ns.ortation Assistance Funds 17,290 104,240 156,000 66.8% Other 2,242 14,099 18,500 76.2% Car orwa r� o Fu n� Balance 74,153 TOTAL REVENUES 19,532 142,383 259,653 76.8% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 11,486 74,245 153,034 48.5% 2perons & Maintenance 5,899 25,240 59,923 42.1% Capital Outlay - 8,992 24,980 36.0% ContinFasy 21,716 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 717,385 $ 108,477 7 259,653 45.6% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 2,147 $ 33,906 FUND BA LA NCEA TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 104,249 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 138,155 Town olOro Valley TOWNWIDE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FUND Budget Campared to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12 =58.45 1999/2000 Percentage JanuaryY-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Bud•et Com"feted REVENUES PAG Reim _ _ $ - $ 70,000 $ - 100.0% Interest-Investments 38,206 173,778 270,000 64.4% Develo.ment Im Pact Fees122,508 991,249 '1,307,000 75.8% Car orward . Fund Baiance - 5,428,238 TOTAL160,714 1,235,027 7,005,238 Personnel 4,698 17,817 62,812 28.4% Outside Pro essiona l Services - 22,037 80,000 •• I m.rovements 37,871 402,779 : :'• Contingency - 4,724,426 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 442,633 7,005,238 19.4% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 792,394 FUND BA LA NCEA TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 6,133,360 CURRENT FUND BALANCE IIIIIIIIIIIII '. 6,925,754 Town ofOro Valley CPO RIVERFRONT PARK FUND Budget CQmpred to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Yeir Completed 7/12 =58.4Z 1999/2000 Percentage ))nu ry Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES Pima County Bond Proceeds $ 291,409 $ 291,409 $ 1,250,000 23.3% . Tra nscer Irom General Fund - - 773,256 0.0% Interest-Investments 996 8,059 - 100.0% Carryforward o(Fu nd Balance - - 388,876 TOTAL REVENUES 292,405 299,468 2,412,132 14.8% EXPENDITURES: Outside Professional Services 1,575 21,294 83,000 25.7% Improvements 199,847 481,120 2,329,132 207% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7201,422 7 502,414 2,412,132 20.8% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 90,983 $ (202,946) M FUND BA LA NCEA TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 5./4,253 _ CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 171,307 Town ofOro Valley MUNICIPAL FA CIL I TIES CONSTRUCTION FUND Budget Camppred to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12 =58.42 1999/2000 Percentage January Y-T-P Total of-Bac/get Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Interest-Investments $ 5,959 $ 35,915 - 100.0% Carry orwa rd o Fund Balance - 1,435,944 TOTAL REVENUES 5,959 1,435,944 2.5% EXPENDITURES: I m•rovements 184,984 576,075 '1,435,944 40.1% TOTAL EXPENDITURES � 184,984 1. 576,075 1. 1,435,944 40.1% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (179,025) $ (540,160) FUND BALANCE A TJUL Y 1 1999 $ 1,353,400 CURRENT FUND BALANCE 1. 813,240 Town olOro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER CONNECTION FEES FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of Year Completed 7/12 =58.40 1999/2000 Percentage January Y-T-D Total olBudget Actuals Actuals Beset Completed REVENUES: Connection Fees $ 7 0,250 $ 387,733 $ 775,000 50.0% Interest-Investments 6,365 27,867 - 100.0% Carryforward oEFund Balance 743,303 TOTAL REVENUES 76,615 415,600 1,518,303 53.6% EXPENDITURES: Improvements - 52,370 1,324,000 4.0% Debt Service Payments - 14,157 73,289 19.3% Contin enc 121,014 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 - 1 66,527 77718,303 4.8% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 76,615 $ 349,073 FUND BALANCE A TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 429,433 , CURRENT FUND BALANCE ---7.----7-78,506 Town olOro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Budgeted Income Statement Through January 31, 2000 Percentage of-Year Completed 7/12=58.45 1999/2000 Percentage January Y-T-P Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed OPERATING REVENUES.• . Water Revenues $ 429,511 $ 3,369,401 $ 5,228,000 64.4% Service Charges& Meter Income 26,971 155,762 209,000 74.5% TOTAL REVENUES 456,482 3,525,163F-5I 4371 000 64.8% OPERATING EXPENSES.• Personnel 67,155 464,126 952,339 48.7% Operations & Maintenance 147,865 1,003,022 1,802,691 55.6% Depreciation &Amortization 106,344 744,409 1,351,000 55.1% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 321,364 2,211,557 4,106,030 53.97 OPERATING INCOME 135,118 1,313,606 1,330,970 98.7% NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Interest Income 39,777 192,040 190,000 101.15 Interest Expense 134,447 954,932 1,616,833 59.1% TOTAL NONOPERA TING REVENUES (EXPENSES) (94,670) (762,892) (1,426,833) ey NET INCOME $ 40,448 $ 550,714 $ 70,937 RETAINED EARNINGS AT)uly 1, 1999 $ 1,003,714 $ 400,333 CURRENT RETANED NED EA I RNINGS $ 1,554,428 $ 471,270 Town oIOro valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Cash St Capital Budgets Through January 31, 2000 iu•ge Current 4t Over/ Cate or &lance 6/30/2000 (Under) Cas tom O erations $ 4,644,678 1,463,074 3,181,604 1996 MPC Bons Proceeds - - - 1999 MPC Bond Proceeds 836,058 966,610 030,552) Debt Service Reserves 2,287,940 2,287,940 - Tis 7,768,676 4,717,624 3,051,052 January Y-T-D 1999/2000 5 Budget CAPITAL BUDGET Actuals Actuals Total Bud et Com leted r }. MachinerY Equipment E u ipment $ - $ 12,649 $ 173,300 7.3% Vehicles - 28,906 169,000 17.1% Meters 22,680 83,888 66,500 126.1% Wells 8,481 71,790 5 30,000 13.5% Booster Stations - 54,767 212,500 25.8% Transmission/Distribution Main - 25,590 490,800 5.2% Reservoirs 500 4,316 1,287,000 0.3% Hydrants - 3,500 7,500 46.7% Telemetry - 7,915 130,250 6.1% Structures 14,558 28,263 100,600 28.1% TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $ 46,219 $ 321,584 $ 3,167,450 10.2% TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Budget and Bond Committee Report to Council for Quarter Ended December 31, 1999 SUMMARY: The Town's Budget and Bond Committee held its second meeting on January 31, 2000. The purpose of the meeting and in accordance with its rules and operating procedures, was to review the budget to actual comparisons of revenues and expenditures through the quarter ended December 31, 1999 and the expenditures of long term debt issuances. Mr. Barton Rochman, Chairman of the Budget and Bond Committee, is present this evening to discuss the results of that meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft minutes from December 31, 1999 Budget and Bond Committee Meeting 2. Finance Report as of December 31, 1999 3. Bond Projects— Status Report BUDGET AND BOND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommended the forwarding of the long-term debt issuance status reports and the Finance Report to the Town Council for approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the Finance Report for December 1999 and long-term debt status reports reviewed by the Budget and Bond Committee. or r Imove to . . . David L. Andrews Finance Director / f i C uck Sweet Town Manager i " 4 MINUTES Town of Oro Valley DRAFT Budget and Bond Committee Town Council Chambers 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona Monday, January 31, 2000 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Barton Rochman, Chairman Vito Tedeschi, Vice-Chairman Louis Dudas, Member ABSENT: Mark Neihart, Member Jack Longley, Member STAFF PRESENT: David Andrews, Finance Director Mary Rallis, Senior Accountant Suzette Krueger, Administrative Assistant MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes from October 25, 1999 Committee Meeting MOTION: Louis Dudas MOVED to APPROVE the minutes as written for the October 25, 1999 meeting. Vito Tedeschi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0. 2. Consideration and Possible Recommendation to Council to Amend the Month of the Committee Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman MOTION: Mr. Tedeschi MOVED to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to amend the Rules and Operating Procedures to read "the Budget and Bond Committee shall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman form among its own members in July of each year . . .". Mr. Dudas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0. 3. Discussion Regarding Duties and Roles of Committee David Andrews, Finance Director, explained that the committee was given two examples of bond oversight committees from other jurisdictions. The committee members deliberated their duties and roles with regard to the level of detail and content of items to be considered. After much discussion by the group, it was decided that each of the members would submit their comments on this subject to Chairman Rochman and at that time he and Mr. Andrews would meet to go over the comments and come to a conclusion as to a recommendation to be forwarded to the Town Council. 4. Review and Recommendation Regarding Town Use of Proceeds from Long- Term Debt Issuances A. 1996 Municipal Property Corporation Water System Acquisition Bonds B. Series 1996 Certificates of Participation C. 1999 Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds Mr. Andrews explained the status of each of the bond issues and answered questions raised by committee members. MOTION: Mr. Dudas MOVED to forward the quarterly Long-Term Debt Issuance Status Reports to Town Council for approval. Mr. Tedeschi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0. 5. July 1 — December 31, 1999 Budget to Actual Review of Reported Town Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses Mr. Andrews answered questions from the committee on the Finance Report and Revenue and Expenditure Reports. MOTION: Mr. Tedeschi MOVED to forward the item to the Town Council for approval. Mr. Dudas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Dudas MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Mr. Tedeschi. Motion carried, 3-0. Respectfully submitted, Suzette Krueger, Administrative Assistant TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Finance Report for Quarter Ended December 31, 1999 SUMMARY: Attached to this communication is the Finance Report for the Quarter Ended December 31, 1999. GENERAL FUND: Select points are as follows: • Sales tax from construction(through November) is up 12% compared to the same time last year. q> Residential building permit fees may exceed budget by approximately $268K based on the first six months of collections. Hotel/motel sales tax collections (through November) are up about 6% compared to the same time last year. • Retail sales tax collections was budgeted at $1,387K this figure will most likely be exceeded due to the early opening of the Home Depot. Federal and state grants are below budget due to timing differences in collecting from outside agencies. t;t> State/county shared revenues are tracking to budget. q> Departmental expenditures were under budget. Other Funds t:$ State shared fuels taxes are tracking to budget. q> Townwide roadway development impact fees and water connection fees revenues are meeting or exceeding budget. q> An interfund loan payment was made from the water connection fees fund to the general fund in the amount of$36,645. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 Oro Valley Water Utility q;> Current retained earnings is X1,513,979. Water revenues may slightly exceed budget based on current collections. W Capital expenses are below budget. W Cash from operations is exceeding budget by S3,653K. Ls- David L. Andrews Finance Director 31/644 • Chuck Sweet Town Manager CC: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager All Department Heads Town of Oro Valley GENERAL Ft/ND Budget Compared to Actuals Report- Through eportThrough December 51, 1999 Percentage of Year Completed 6/12 =50.0 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-71-0 Total of-Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed ,REVENUES: Local Taxes $ 594,295 2,301,020 4,962,000 46.4% _ State/County Shared 389,256 2,116,581 4,503,000 47.0% Fines 13,500 91,222 + 201,000 45.4% Licenses & Permits 146,225 772,800 1,105,000 69.9% Charges for Services 20,670 131,680 220,600 59.7% Federal Grants 129,606 647,323 20.0% State Grants 78,543 281,993 27.9% , Interest Earnings 48,163 185,689 318,600 58.3% Misceil neous 33,130 15,500 213.7% a Bond Proceeds - 2,700,000 0.070 Carryrorward 7,531,724 TOTAL REVENUES 5,840,271 22,486,740 37.7 � EXPENDITURES: Town Council 5,332 50,645 81,983 61.8% Thwn Clerk 17,477 95,289 . 275,132 34.6% ,gistrate Court 32,188 _ 162,363 340,173 47.7% Town Manager 18,915 100,127 243,401 41.1% Manager Human Resources 13,28282,700 180,327 45.9% _ Economic Development 16,749 80,322 313,249 25.6% Finance 26,849 144,790 334,793 43.2% Lega i 34,266 160,543 459,809 34.9% Community Deveiopment Administration 23,167 + 110,556 288,440 38.3% J Planning & Zoning 72,197 360,229 956,491 37.7% Parks & Recreation 39,390 260,368 849,292 30.7% Police 465,6522,543,115 5,450,974 46.7% _ Police- Capital Contingency - - 132,493 0.0% Buiidin9 Safety 77,766 326,352 934,772 34.9% Custodial & Facility Maintenance 15,585 60,214 146,752 41.0% , General Administration: Personnel, Operations & Maintenance 27,664 152,759 381,674 40.0% p Improvements 35 8,468 115,489 7.3% Vehicles & Equipment 9,540 11,852 24,500 48.4% Land 177 1,877 3,243,500 0.1% Transrers to Other Funds - 699,554 1,901,810 36.8% Contingency/Reserve 5,831,686 I TURES 896,231 $ 5,412,123 $ 22.486,740 32.5% TOTAL EXPEND � -VENUES LESS EXPENDITURES 331,398 -x-28,148 FUND BA NEAAT JULY 1. 7999 $ 8,176,367 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 8,604,515 1 Town oIOro Valley HIGHWAY FUND , Budget Com area to Actuals Report Through December 51, 1999 Percentage o1Year Completed 6/12 =50.0f, 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Bucket feted REVENUES: ~ State Shared Fuels Tax $ 134,032 $ 660,331 $ 1,629,000 40.5% Other Revenues 10,306 57,408 70,800 81.1% Tra nsrer from Debt Service Fund - - 73,860 0.0% Carrvfiorward of Fund Balance 1,832,378 4 TOTAL REVENUES 144,338 717,739 3,606,038 . 40.5% EXPENDITURES Personnel 44,218 275,209 634,725 43.4% Operations & Maintenance 57,794 284,590 551,134 51.6% Capital Improvements 7,575 7,575 1,030,000 0.7% Equipment& Vehicles 204,481 265,313 366,071 72.5% Lease Purchase Payments 6,215 22,733 55,982 40.6% Contingency _ 968,126 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 320,283 � 855,420 $ 3,606,038 f 32.4% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES , � (175,945) $ (137,681) FUND BALANCE A TJUL Y 1, 1999 $ 1,960,836 - CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 1,823,155 Town o lOro Valley PUBLIC TRA NSPOR TA TION FUND Budget Com aced to A duals Report Through December 51, 1;399 Percentage ofYear Completed 6/12 =50.00 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-7---0 Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Bud et Com leted REVENUES HB 2565 State Grant � - � 24,044 $ 11,000 218.6% Loci Transportation Assistance Funds 17,139 86,950 156,000 55.7% a , Other 2,012 11,857 18,500 64.15 Ca rrvtorwa rd or Fu nd Balance 74,153 TOTAL REVENUES 19,151 122,851 259,653 66.2% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 11,192 62,759 153,034 41.05 Operations & to,intenance 5,229 19,341 59,923 32.35 Capital Outlay 8,992 8,992 24,980 36.0% Contingency 21,716 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 25,413 $ 91,092 $ 259,653 38.3% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (6,262) $ 31,759 FUND BALANCE AT- UL Y 1, 1999 $ 104,249 CURRENT FUND BALANCE , 136,008 Town olOro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER CONNECTION FEES FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through December 51, 1999 Percentage of Year Completed 6/12 =50.0; 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T-D Total of-Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Connection Fees $ 32,900 i $ 317,483 $ 775,000 41.0% Interest-Investments 4,429 21,501 - 100.0% Carrvrorward of=Fund Balance 743,303 TOTAL REVENUES 37,329 338,984 1,518,303 43.7% EXPENDITURES: improvements - 52,370 1,324,000 4.0% Debt Service Payments 14,157 14,157 73,289 19.3% Contingency 121,014 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 14,15756,527 $ 1,518,303 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 23,172 $ 272,457 FUND BALANCE ATJULY 1, 1999 $ 429,433 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 701,890 Town olOro Valley CPO R1 VERFRONT PARK FUND Budget Campared to Actuals Report Through December 5 1,1999 Percentage of Year Completed 6/12 =50.05 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T D Total of-Budget Actuals Actuals Budcaet _ Completed REVENUES: Pima County Bond Proceeds $ - $ - $ 1,250,000 0.0% Tra nsrer from General Fund - - 773,256 0.0% I n to restf n vesm n t e is 1,435 7,063 - 100.0% Ca rrytorwa rd of Fu nd Balance - - 388,87 TOTAL REVENUES 1,435 7,063 2.412,132 0.3% EXPENDI TUR ES. Outside Professional Services 1,255 19,719 83,000 23.8% 'mprovements 167,697 281,273 2,329,132 12.1% ..7TAL EXPENDITURES ' 168,952 ; 300,992 2,412,132 12.5% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (167,517) $ (293,929) FUND BALANCE AT-JULY 1, 1999 $ 374,2 53 •[CURRENTFUNDBAiVCE $ ` 0,324 Town olOro Valley MUNICIPAL FA Cl L I TIES CONSTRUCTION FUND Budget Campared to Actuals Report Through December 51,1999 Percentage o1Year Completed 6/12 =50.05 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES Interest-Investments $ 4,953 $ 30,955 - 100.0% Ca rrvfiorwa rd of-Fund Ba(a nce - - 1,435,944 TOTAL REVENUES 4.953 50,955 1,435,944 2.25 EXPENDI TT/R ES Improvements 150,149 391,091 1,435,944 27.2% o ements TOTAL EXPENDITURES aT150177 391,091 $ 1,435,944 27.2% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (145,196) $ (360,136) 1rUNDBANEAT)ULY1, 1999 $ 1,353,400 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 993,264 Town ofOro Valley TOWNWIPE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT 1,v1 PA CT FEES FUND Budget Campared to Actuals Report Through December 5 1,1999 Percentage of Year Completed 6/12 =50.05 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T-D Total of Budget A duals A duals Bucket Completed REVENUES: PAG Reimbursement $ - _ $ 70,000 100.0% Interest-Investments 26,201 135,573 270,000 50.2% Development I mnact Fees 113,544 868,741 1,307,000 66.5% Carry orwa rd or Fund Balance - - 5,428,238 139,745 ►,074,314 7,005,238 15.3% TOTAL REVENUES ._.__. EXPENDITURES: Personnel 5,146 13,119 62,812 20.9% outside Professional Services 3,725 22,037 80,000 27.55 provements 24,321 405,436 2,138,000 19.0% _ - 4,724,426 Contin _ • TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 53,192 $ 440,592 $ 7,005,238 19.3% + 1 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 106,553 $ 633,722 FUND BALANCE AT-JULY 1, 1999 $ 6,133,360 CURRENT FUND BALANCE 1 _ $ 6,767,082 Town olOro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Budgeted Income Statement Through December 51, 1999 Percentage ofYear Completed 6/12 =50.05 1999/2000 Percentage December Y-T-D Total of-Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed OPERA TING REVENUES: Water Revenues $ 548,570 $ 2,939,890 $ 5,228,000 56.2%, Service Charges & Meter Income 18,925 128,791 209,000 61.6% TOTAL REVENUES 567,495 3,068,681 5,437,000 56.4% OPERA Ti NG EXPENSES Personnel 71,736 396,971 952,339 41.7% Operations& Maintenance 280,395 855,158 1,802,691 47.4% Depreciation &Amortization 106,344 638,065 1,351,000 47.2 0 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 458,475 1,890,194 4,106,030 46.0% ..may 1 OPERA TING INCOME 109,020 1,178,487 1,330,970 88.5% )NOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Interest Income 32,482 152,263 190,000 80.1% Interest Expense 137,303 820,485 1,616,833 50.7% TOTAL NONOPERA TING R EVEN UES (EXPENSES) (104,821) (668,222) (1,426,833) NET INCOME $ 4,199 $ 510,265 $ 70,937 RETAINED EARNINGS AT Jut)/ 1, 1999 $ 1,003,714 $ 400,333 CURRENT RETAINED EARNINGS $ 1,513,979 $ 471,270 Town olOro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Cash &Capital Budgets Through December 31, 1999 ilent clt Over/ Ca9Y to or l 6/50/2000 (Under) Qs trom OP erations $ 5,246,789 ' 1,463,074 5 3,783,715 1996/WPC Bond Proceeds - - 1999 MPC Bond Proceed 11111111111 '•• • (130,552) Debt Service Reserves 2,287,940 2,287,940 Totals 8,370,787 Li-,717,624 3,653,163 December Y-T-D 1999/2000 o Budget ,CAPITAL TAL BUDGET Actuals Actuals Total Budget Com feted MachineryEquipment& $ - $ 12,649 173,300 7.3% Vehicles - 28,906 169,000 17.1% _ Meters 26,327 61,208 66,500 92.07)i Wells 4,334 63,309 530,000 11.9% + . Booster Stations 178 54,767 212,500 25.85 M i - 25,590 + 490,800 5.2% Transmission/Distribution a n Reservoirs 3,816 3,816 1,287,000 0.3% Hydrants 3,500 3,500 7,500 46.7%, Telemetry 5,989 7,915 130,250 6.1% Structures - 13,705 100,600 13.6% TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $ 44,144 $ 275,365 $ 3,167,450 8.7 1, 1 Project Description: CDO Riverfront Park Development ($500K Funding) Funding Source: Series 1996 Certificates of Participation Status: McGann & Associates has been retained as the architect and project manager. Three Pygmy Owl Surveys of the site have been completed by Westland Resources. SWCA Inc. has done an Archaeological Survey of the land. Civano Nursery Inc. continues to monitor the trees and cacti in the on-site nursery. The park is beginning to take shape as Lang-Wyatt Construction moves forward with the construction of the buildings and fields. Sellers & Sons, the field lighting contractor, and artist Paul Edwards are coordinating the implementation of their projects with Lang-Wyatt Construction. Comments: The project is scheduled for completion by April 2000. Funding Sources: Certificates of Participation $500,000 Pima County Bond Proceeds 1,250,000 General Fund Cash Reserves 804,132 Total Budget $2,554,132 Project Description: Development Services Building ($1.5M Funding) Funding Source: 1999 Municipal Property Corporation Bonds Status: Council awarded the bid to Richard Lambert Construction ($1,159,500) on August 18, 1999. Construction is 65 % complete and is on schedule. Award of bid for furnishings is scheduled to go before the Town Council on January 19, 2000. Comments: Project costs are within budget and March 30, 2000 is the estimated completion date of this project. Project Description: Water System Project Improvements ($1M Funding) Funding Source: 1996 Municipal Property Corporation Water System Acquisition Bonds Status: Numerous improvements were completed at Water Plant #18. They include equipping a well, installation of a 500,000 gallon reservoir and construction of dual booster stations. Water Plant #18 is located on the south side of Naranja Road between First Avenue and La Canada Drive. This site serves three different pressure zones throughout the water system. A 16" water main has been installed that connects the reservoir at this plant to the existing water main located on the south side of Lambert Lane. A new well was drilled and equipped at Water Plant #23 and a 6 foot perimeter wall was erected. This plant is situated on the north side of Lambert Lane and south of First Avenue. Installation of a 12" water main to connect the well at this site to the existing water main has also been completed. Two sections of 12" water main were constructed on the south side of Lambert Lane. This main replaced sections of existing 8" main sections that created "bottlenecks" in the system. Comments: All available bond funds for system improvements have been expended. Project Description: Water System Project Improvements ($1.1M Funding) Funding Source: 1999 Municipal Property Corporation Bonds Status: New water mains that connected the Oro Valley Water Improvement District (OVWID) water system to the Oro Valley Water Utility (OVWU) water system have been installed throughout the OVWID service area. Improvements have been made to the Old Linda Vista booster station located in the OVWID service area. These improvements were required to allow the OVWU to provide water service to the OVWID residents. Comments: Additional main installation and replacement will be completed over the next 2 years to enhance the level of service to these customers. 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUN CIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Consideration and Approval of Budget and Bond Committee Recommendation to Amend the Month of the Committee Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman SUMMARY: The Rules and Operating Procedures of the Budget and Bond Committee currently read "the Budget and Bond p g Committee shall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among its own members in April of each year. . ." The terms of office of each member expire every two years on June 30. To ensure a smooth transition for the new members, the Budget and Bond Committee has recommended (3-0 vote) that the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be held in July of each year. This proposed change is reflected in the Officers section of the Rules and Operating Procedures which is attached to this communication. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rules and Operating Procedures of the Budget and Bond Committee . Schedule of Members of the Budget and Bond Committee r RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Budget and Bond Committee recommendation. SUGGESTED MOTION: With regard to the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, I move to amend the Rules and Operating Procedures of the Budget and Bond Committee to read "the Budget and Bond Committee shall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among its own members in July of each year . . ." or I move to . . . David L. Andrews Finance Director I 0/Lifi .-- Chuck Sweet Town Manager RULES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES ORO VALLEY BUDGET AND BOND COMMITTEE Operating IT DIRECTED that the Rules and Op g Procedures of the Budget and Bond Committee for the Town of Oro Valley shall be as follows: MEMBERSHIP be composed of a total of five members who The Budget and Bond Committee shallp g shall be residents of the Town. The members of the Budget and Bond Committee shall Appointments shall be for a period of two years each be appointed by the Council. ppmembers so staggered that the terms of no more than endingon June 30, with terms of g9 year. Upon initial formation, two of the five three members shall expire in any one p ofyear in order to allow for staggered terms appointments shall be for a periodone for reason shall be filled by appointment by the Council thereafter. Vacancies for any until their term. The term of all members shall extend the remainder of the unexpired a member misses three consecutive regular meetings, successors are appointed. If a response shall be sent. If the response received letter of inquiry requesting a is Committee may of frequent absences, the Budget and Bond indicative of a continuation q uncil appoint a new person to complete the term. request that the Town Co pp OFFICERS hall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from The Budget and Bond Committee s� July among its own members in of each year who shall serve for one year. The initial appointees upon committee formation from stipulation shall not exclude pp consideration for the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. In no event shall a Committee serve in the capacity of Chairman for two member of the Budget & Bond consecutive terms, a term being definedyear.as one The Chairman shall preside at all duties and prerogatives of the head of any meetings exercise all the usual rights, ghall perform the duties of the Chairman in the similar organization. The Vice-Chairman s absence or disability of the Chairman. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent member of the Commission shall preside. Vacancies from a meeting, the senior election. created by any cause shall be filled for the unexpired term by a new MEETINGS Regular meetings of the Budget and Bond Committee shall be held at the Oro Valley g Town Hall subsequent to the 10th day of the month following each calendar quarter but such meeting the last day of that month and shall be duly noticed, in accordance If it is necessary Arizona Statutes, as to exact time. to change the location of the meeting, a notice of such change shallposted be at the Town Hall so it may be readily seen and read whether or not the Town Hall is open. 1 Schedule of Members Budget and Bond Committee Member Term Expiration Seat Barton Rochman 6/30/00 Chair Jack Longley 6/30/00 Member g Y Vito Tedeschi 6/30/01 Vice-Chair Mark Neihart 6/30/01 Member Louis Dudas 6/30/01 Member Meeting Dates January 24, 2000 April 24, 2000 July 24, 2000 (election of new officers) October 23,2000 April 3, 2000 — Ad for opening to Budget and Bond Committee to Clerk's office for advertisement May 15, 2000 — Interview Candidates May 19, 2000 — Deadline for submitting agenda item to Clerk's office May 23, 2000 — Deadline for Council Communication to Clerk's office June 7, 2000 — Town Council Meeting — Selection of new members to Budget and Bond Committee July 24, 2000 — Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Daniel G. Sharp, Chief of Police SUBJECT: 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant(LLEBG) Resolution No. (R) 00-26 SUMMARY: The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice is offering law enforcement blockgrantsupon based u on the total number of Part I Violent Crimes reported under the Uniform Reporting System Re ortin S stem for 1995-1997. The number of monies based assigned to the Oro Valley Police Department, upon those statistics totals $3,883, of which is a 10%hard cash match amount by$3,4951s Federal montes and$388the Town of Oro Valley. These monies will be used for Law Enforcement Support under the Equipment category. This request is for authorization from the Council to submit the grant application and also for permission for to provide Town the matching funds in the amount of$388. FISCAL IMPACT: FY 99/00 - $388.00 .TTACHMENTS: 1) Copy of the letter from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission requesting application for the block grant. 2) Copy of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Local Application Form. 3) Resolution No. (R) 00-26 • RECOMMENDATIONS: t a resolution topermit the Police Department to apply I recommend that Mayor & Council gran . k Grant (LLEBG) ro am from the Arizona Criminal r the 2000 Local Law Enforcement Bloc p �'fo Justice Commission for the funding � of Law Enforcement Support Equipment and a 10/o match the total program in the amount of$388. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Resolution No. (R) 00-26 be adopted. L-(`N 0100 Daniel G. Sharp, CM- 044. hi- ' ►lice Charles F. Sw-- , own Manager RESOLUTION NO. 00-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TILE ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION (ACJC). the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission is accepting grant applications for monies WHEREAS, allocated to ACJC from the Bureau of Justice to be used by local government. Basis of monetary awardby isdetermined total number of Part I Violent Crimes reported under the Uniformed Crime Reporting System from 1995 to 1997; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Town of Oro Valley to apply for and receive grant funding for the purposeof providingfor the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the Town of Oro Valley and that these funds will be used for Law Enforcement Support Equipment to further public safety. These funds will not be used to supplant local funds, but will be used to increase the amount � funds. local funds that would be available for law enforcement purposes in the absence of these of o It is understood that the Town of Oro Valley will provide a 10% CASH match and the Town has the ability and willingness to provide this 10% cash match. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1. That thep rant application requesting funding from the ARIZONA g CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION is hereby approved. 2. That the Mayor of the Town of Oro Valley, Chief of Police and other administrative officials are hereby authorized to execute and complete the grant application documents on behalf of the Town of Oro Valley.. Mayor AND ADOPTED bythe Ma or and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 15th day of March , 2000. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney f •. ' n 1(A' ._ CriminalCommission � � � ' 1 s. • • 1951 February 9, 2000 Chairman The Honorable Paul Loomis, Mayor BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Vice Chairman 11000 North La Canada Drive JAN BREWER Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Board of Supervisors M aricopa County JANET NAPOLITANO Dear Mayor Loomis Attorney General DENNIS DirectorG ,Director Vico De of Public Safety RE: +4399 Local Law enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) TERRY L.STEWART,Director Department of Corrections The Bureau of Justice Assistance provides grants to units of local DAVID K.BYERS,Director government, based on the 3-year average number of Part I violent crimes Administrative Office of the Courts reported under the Uniform Crime Reporting system for 1995-1997. Larger KATHRYN D.BROWN,Interim Chairman grants were awarded directly to local governments by BJA. A small residual Board of Executive Clemency amount was awarded to Arizona to be passed through to units of local WILLIAM HOLOHAN Chief Justice Retired governmentineligiblelargergrants that were for the from BJA. RICHARD M.ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission approved a grant in the CHARLES HASTINGS amount of$3,883 which includes a mandatory 10% hard cash match, to be Yavapai County Attorney awarded to the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY upon return receipt of the JOSEPH ARPAIO completed enclosed application and a check in the amount of $388. Maricopa County Sheriff f Instructions and additional information is also enclosed. NOTE: The CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff deadline for submitting the application is 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 17, WILLIAM ROBINSON,Chief 2000. Yuma Police Department TOM SHEAHAN If you have not already done so, please submit your 1999 financial and Mohave County Sheriff activity reports to the Commission Office, so that we may close out that grant CHRISTOPHER B Mayor,City ofFlagstaff and expedite the processing of this 2000 LLEBG Program grant. If your agency needs board or counsel approval, please do so immediately. It is important to note that grant funds may, but are not required to be deposited into an interest bearing account. Please call Kathy Karam, Casey Hines or me at the Commission Executive Director Office (602) 230-0252 if you need additional information, or if we may MICHAEL D.BRANHAM otherwise be of assistance. Suite 260 3737 North 7th Street Phoenix,Arizona 85014 Sincerely, (602)230-0252 FAX:728-0752 E-MAIL acjc e goodnet.oto oseph R. Farmer, Program Manager Drug Control & System Improvement Our Mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, the cohesiveness, the productivity and the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION X;. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM J' .: ;3 LOCAL APPLICATION FORM Name and Address ofApplicant (Unit Local Government- coun , City, Town, Municipality): 1 PP of �' TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 2. Federal I.D. Number or E.I.N. Number: 86-0293039 3. Name and title of Chief Executive Officer of Unit of Local Government: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Charles F. Sweet, Town Manager Daniel G. Sharp, Ch,e .of ice o X520) 4. Telephone Number.• 742-5474 Fax Numb (520) 797-2616 Number: S. Grant Period: January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 6. Administering Contact-Name of Person and Agency Receiving Funds and Responsible for Sending Reports in for the Grant: (Name, Title, Agency, Complete Address, Telephone Number, FAX Number:) Nancy Riera, Admin/Data Ops Manager Oro Valley Police Department (520) 742-5474 11000 N. La Canada Drive _ (520) 797-2616 (fax) 8 Oro VAlley, AZ 5737 7. Award Amount: Federal: $3,495 Match: $388 Total Award: $3,883 8. Enter Amount and IProposed Use of Funds: Law Enforcement Support: Amount $ 3,883 ❑ Hire Officers ❑ Overtime Officers Xi Purchase Equipment ❑ Hire Support Personnel ❑ Overtime Support Personnel Enhancing Security Measures: Amount $ ❑ Around Schools 0 Other Drug Courts: Amount $ O Establish ❑ Support Enhanced Adjudication: Amount $ O Violent Adults 0 Violent Juveniles Establishing Multi-jurisdictional task force: Amount $ O Rural Area Crime Prevention Programs: Amount $ (Additional program assessment will be due) Indemnification Insurance of Law Enforcement Officers: Amount $ Sign Here Signature of Executive Officer (Mayor, City Manager or Chair, County Board of Supervisors) Date CERTIFICATION It is affirmed that a 10% cash match of the total program will be provided as required to qualify for Local Law Enforcement Federal Block Grant funding allocated by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. 'Sign Here Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date PtEY q A /4" OJ L as 0 ►O,IC_ 11000 N. La Canada Dr. ;L I jh }\ ` Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 t 4 ► Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX (520) 797-2616 DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief of Police } , 1** 1 7, —LiAl ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG): Proposed Use of Funds: Funds will be utilized to purchase equipment for the Property/Forensic ID Unit. The items to be purchased may include but are not limited to the following: Digital Camera Scene Barrier I.F. Alternate Light Source CU5 Polaroid Camera Radio Rack Charger Shade Canopy -�L��s1. ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION ..„ �` LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM i:,..'ia7.---t- y it uti f' APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS - s 798: . PLEASE TYPE ALL INFORMATION 1. Name and Address of Applicant: Please make changes or corrections if necessary. 2. Federal I.D. Number or Federal Employer Identification Number (E.I.N.) of the Recipient Agency: Enter the Federal Employer Identification Number(EIN). This number may also be your IRS number(86- )• 3. Name and Title of Chief Executive Officer of the Unit of Local Government: Enter the name of the Mayor,Town Manager or Chairman, County Supervisor or other official who has authority to make financial and programmatic commitments on behalf of the applicant jurisdiction. 4. CEO Phone/Fax: Enter the direct line numbers for the Chief Executive Officer. 5. Grant Period:The beginning date for the grant period is January 1, 2000 and the ending date is December 31, 2000. 6. Administering Contact- Name of Person and Agency: Enter the name, address, title, and telephone number of the person responsible for sending in reports required from the recipient agency. 7. Award Amount:The award amounts have been entered for you. There is a cash match requirement of 10% of the total program, this match must be submitted to the Commission prior to the distribution of any funds. 8. Purpose-Proposed Use of Funds: Provide the requested information regarding the distribution of funds. This information is intended to be a best estimate based on preliminary planning. Enter the amount and check the box or boxes that the money will be used for. More than one area may be utilized with these funds,please make sure the amount of money totals to the grant amount including matching funds. See the enclosed information sheet on what units of local governments can do with these funds, and the prohibition on use. 9. Signature of Chief Executive Officer: This document must be signed by the official who has the authority to make financial and programmatic commitments on behalf of the applicant jurisdiction. 10. Required Cash Matching Fund Certification: The above chief executive officer must certify that cash matching funds in an amount equal to ten percent(10%) of the total program cost will be provided prior to the execution of the grant agreement, and prior to disbursement of any block grant funds to the grantee agency by the Commission. There is no waiver provision of the match. The match portion must be included when the application is returned to the Commission office. 11. Please forward the completed application to: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 3737 N 7th Street Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85014 If you have any questions please call Kathy Karam at the Commission Office(602) 230-0252 ext 204. P:\DRUG. .APP\1.1FBO.APPNINSTRUCT.WPD �L 1L;s ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION e.....�~= rf`� ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM __ .,� LOCAL LAW EN O ‹. ;. :1 GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST d PLEASE RETURN WITH UNBOUND ORIGINAL GRANT APPLICATION 198 Please pre-check your application to ensure it is complete. This checklist should be used to facilitate this process, and then returned as part of the application. Write "NO" in the pages column for any item not included, and provide an explanation in either the transmittal letter or elsewhere in the application. ITEM CHECKED: Grant Application: Federal I.D Number OR EIN (86-XXXXXX) Amount of Proposed Use of funds (include match amount) and Purpose Area are checked. .._ Signature of Chief Executive Officer-Mayor or City Manager, Chairman Board of Supervisors. ^, Signed Certification affirming ability & willingness to provide 10% cash matching funds. Attach a brief statement as to how the funds are to be used and time frame for expenditures. Copy of the applicant's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. (If an EEOP is not required please send a letter certifying that there less than 50 employees, therefore it is not required to maintain an EEOP pursuant to 28 CFR 42.301 et.seq.) Copy of the last available audit report for applicant agency. ``:.I►L 3l 5ffo c. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission "4'�.,'` Law Enforcement Block Grants Program "s: LLEB G) INFORMATION How much funding did Arizona get under this program? In Fiscal Year 1999 the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) received $223,754 for pass-through to county and local governments that did not previously receive a direct grant from Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). How was the amount of each grant determined? The BJA determined the amounts for units of local government eligible for larger grants on the basis of the average number of Part I violent crimes reported for a 3-year period, 1996- 1998. The staff of ACJC used the same basis for determining the amount of each of the smaller grants. The calculations are shown in the attached table for each unit of local government awarded a Law Enforcement Block Grant by the Commission. What can units of local government do with these funds? The seven (7) authorized program purpose areas are shown on the application, as follows: 1. Law Enforcement Support for: A. Hiring, training, and employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel (must show a net gain over the applicant's appropriated budget in the number of officers performing non-administrative public safety service). B. Paying overtime for officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personneL C. Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions. 2. Enhancing security measures in and around schools, and in and around any other facility or location that the unit of local government considers a special risk for incidents of crime. 3. Establishing or supporting drug courts, which must include the following: A. Continuing judicial supervision over offenders with substance abuse problems, but who are not violent offenders. 1 B. Integrating the administration of other sanctions and services, which shall include: (i) mandatory periodic testing of each participant for the use of controlled substances or other addictive substances during any period of supervised release or probation; (ii) substance abuse treatment for each participant; (iii) probation or other supervised release involving possible prosecution, confinement, or incarceration because of noncompliance with program requirements or failure to show satisfactory progress; and (iv) programmatic, offender management and aftercare services such as relapse prevention, vocational job training, and job and housing placement. 4. Enhancing the adjudication of cases involving violent offenders, including cases involving violent juvenile offenders. For the purposes of this program, violent offender means a person charged with committing a Part I violent crime under the Uniform Crime Reports system. 5. Establishing a multi-jurisdictional task force, particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement officials representing units of local government; this task force will work with Federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control crime. 6. Establishing crime prevention programs involving cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control,detect, or investigate crime in the prosecution of criminals. (An additional assessment report will be required, if this purpose area is used.) 7. Defraying the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers. Funds or portion of funds allocated may be used to contract with private, nonprofit entities or community-based organizations to carry out the purposes of this Block Grants Program. What are the prohibitions on the use of these funds? They cannot be used to buy, lease, rent or otherwise acquire tanks, armored vehicles, fixed- wing aircraft, limousines, real estate, yachts,consultants, or any vehicle not used primarily for law enforcement. In addition,Federal funds cannot be used to supplant State or local funds, but instead to increase the amount of funds that would be available otherwise from State and local sources and appropriations. What is the Matching Fund requirement? The federal law requires that 10% of the total grant must be made up from local hard cash matching funds. The Commission requires the unit of local government to send cash matching funds to the Commission prior to disbursement of grant funds. Once the grant application and agreement have been submitted and executed by the Commission, the full amount of the grant will then be disbursed to the unit of local government. 2 How long will units of local government have to spend this money? The grant period will be from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. All Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds awarded by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission must be encumbered or expended prior to December 31, 2000. What are the application requirements? The application must be signed and submitted by the chief executive of the applicant jurisdiction; i.e., mayor, county manager or board of supervisors chairman, etc. Moreover, if the funds are to be used to employ additional personnel, suitable preference must be given to members of the Armed Forces who were involuntarily separated or retired due to the . reductions in forces within the Department of Defense. The Commission further requires a brief statement as to how the funds are to be used, a time frame for the expenditures(no later than December 31, 2000), and a signed grant agreement that includes the special conditions and requirements that govern the grant, including the filing of an annual financial report showing the expenditure of the grant funds, and an activity report detailing the results, outcome or benefits derived from the use of the block grant funds. Recipients of LLEBG funds may choose to establish an interest-bearing account to deposit program funds. Only allowable program expenses may be paid from this account, and may not be used to pay debts incurred by other activities beyond the scope of the LLEBG Program. Who can I call for additional information? For information regarding the larger (>$10,000) grants, or concerning the federal program, please call Shani Freeman at 202-305-2354, or access the BJA home page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/I3JA. For information concerning the administration of pass-through grants to units of local government that were ineligible for the larger grants, please call Kathy Karam, in the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission office - (602)230-0252 ext 204. P.1ApplicadonsLLLEBGSinformatioo Form.wrpd 3 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 t TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Paul K. Nzomo, P.E Civil Engineer: CIP & Development SUBJECT: Resolution (R) 00-27 Award of contract for Project No. DPW 99-00-09 Professional Engineering Services for Town Wide Drainage Study. SUMMARY: This project involves the professional engineering services for the Town Wide Drainage Study, updating the Town's existing Floodplain ordinance and preparing drainage manual for the Town. See the attached detailed scope of work and fee schedule from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The following summarizes the selection process of the consultant. On November 1, 1999, the Town released a notice for Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Town Wide Drainage Study. The Department of Public Works (DPW) mailed a total of 10 RFP's to engineering firms and received 3 proposals in response. A panel of 3 members from different Town Departments was selected to evaluate the proposal and rank the engineering firms. The engineering firms were rated on the following criteria: 1. Project understanding and approach 2. Project team 3. Firm capabilities. After the ranking of the firms the top two firms were interviewed by 3 panel members, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc was selected. DPW staff negotiated a contract for $215,077.20 for Professional Engineering Services. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution (R) 00-27 2. Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc proposal dated February 28, 2000 FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is available from budgeted Town Funds for the 99/00 fiscal year. `WN (lamflRflVAILE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Public Works staff recommends the awarding of this contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. through the adoption of the attached resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve Resolution (R) 00-27 OR I move to deny Resolution (R) O()-27 V v Y William A. Janse .E Town Engineer Chuck Sweet, own Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 00-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE TOWN WIDE DRAINAGE STUDY, UPDATE FLOODPLAIN ORD INANCE AND PREPARE A DRAINAGE MANUAL FOR THE TOWN FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO KEN/LEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, the drainage study within the Town's limits is necessary to the public health, safety, and welfare in order to provide for the safe and effective convey of runoff; and WHEREAS, the Town Council deems it necessary, in the interest of providing for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Oro Valley, to authorize the Town Manager to contract with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for the Town Wide Drainage Study within the Town limit. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: That Town Manager is authorized to contract with Kimley Horn and associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for the Town Wide Drainage Study g g PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 15th day of March , 2000. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Date Date 4 . Kimle -Horn prw-� y r. Associates, Inc. •`` �1 Q� 'bib,.NIP _ and 2 `lk -` '�`�i•,,1.� v�► . February 28,2000 __ ■ Suite 250 7600 N.15th Street Phoenix,Arizona 85020 Mr. Paul Nzomo, P.E. Oro Valley Arizona 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Dear Paul: Attached is the revised scope and fee estimate based on our recent conversations. Based on these conversations we have done the following. 1. Adjusted the scope language per our meetings and phone conversations. 2. Increased coordination meetings with Boards or Council to six meetings total. 3. Added a drainage complaint identification phase. For purposes of this scope of services we will not be performing engineering calculations for these areas. I trust that you still have copies of our requested modifications in contract language. We look forward to working with you and the Town on the important project. Please call me at your soonest convenience should you have any questions. Sincerely, Doug Plasencia,P.E. Project Manager Attachments ■ TEL 602 944 5500 FAX 602 944 7423 PPP- Kimley-Horn OIL and Associates, Inc. Town of Oro Valley Town Wide Drainage Study Scope of Services 1.0 The Town of Oro Valley (TOWN) is preparing a town-wide master drainage study. Thep �u ose of the study is to update the floodplain ordinance, provide watershed based flow rate estimates for washes as developed in the hydrology model, and develop an overall structure from which to guide the implementation of a master plan. It is understood that detailed hydraulics, the mapping of flood hazards, and the development of design concepts for specific problems will be provided as an additional service following the development of a specific scope and fee.p The additional services will commence upon the written authorization of the TOWN's project manager. 2.0 Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA), is the consultant to the town providing professional engineering services as defined in total within this scope of services. 2.1 KHA shall meet with the TOWN'S Project Manager monthly over the duration of the project schedule to provide him with an overview of findings and an opportunity to provide ongoing project direction. KHA shall provide meeting notes to the TOWN's Project Manager within five working days after the meeting. 2.2 KHA's Project Manager shall contact the TOWN'S Project Manager weekly by telephone or e-mail to provide him with a schedule update over the duration of the project schedule. 2.3 KHA's Project Manager shall develop and provide the TOWN with a detailed project schedule within 10 days from notice to proceed, for scheduling and g bud etin purposes the anticipated schedule is 6 months. The execution of g optional items, or delays by the town that lead to the extension of the p schedule shall result in a project change order including time extension and budget adjustments to cover additional services, meetings and project management activities. KHA shall provide the TOWN with monthly invoice and progress reports, progress reports shall be no longer than a single page providingthe TOWN with a report on items completed to date. KHA shall meet in total up to 6 times with policy groups such as the Town Council, planningboards or other appropriate groups as identified by the TOWN. Half (3) meetings will be scheduled to coincide with the monthly Project meetings. KHA shall provide within the submitted budget an allowance for an additional 8 meetings that can be executed incrementally or in total by the TOWN's project manager. KHA shall be responsible for presenting and/or updating these groups on project status. scope2.doc 1 of 5 /''gni Kimley-Horn _____ _ and Associates, Inc. 3.0 Ordinance Review and Master Plan Development 3.1 The TOWN shall provide KHA at no cost to KHA, copies of the floodplain management ordinance, subdivision ordinance, zoning code, and other appropriate ro riate ordinances or written policy guiding the development of the town. The TOWN shall allow KHA to research records and shall provide copies of pertinent data to KHA for KHA's use on the project. 3.2 KHA shall review these materials and shall prepare a matrix that includes key standards and guidelines regarding floodplain and drainage criteria within the TOWN. The matrix will identify areas of overlap and potential conflict, as well as source of information. 3.3 KHA shall evaluate current SWPPP standards and how they may be incorporated into controlling sedimentation related to land disturbing activities. 3.4 KHA shall evaluate the TOWN'S existing floodplain management ordinance versus the ADWR/FEMA model ordinance and provide recommendations related to modifying the ordinance. 3.5 KHA shall meet one time with Pima County Flood Control District staff to evaluate County standards, and their applicability to the TOWN, and shall advise the TOWN's project manager as to the date, time, and location of the meeting. 3.6 KHA shall meet one time with the US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory branch to evaluate how Corps regulations and criteria may be best integrated with TOWN standards and procedures, and shall advise the TOW's project manager as to the date, time, and location of the meeting. 3.7 KHA shall meet one time with TOWN maintenance staff to learn of current maintenance programs and practices. KHA shall also meet with maintenance staff of two other communities with similar land form and maintenance requirements, and shall advise the TOWN's project manager as to the date, time, and location of the meeting. 3.8 KHA shall meet one time with town staff to better understand the budgeting process as it relates to the funding of storm water related CIP expenditures. 3.9 KHA shall evaluate the impact that NPDES Phase II may have on the community. 3.1 OKHA shall evaluate other federal and state level programs of assistance that may be of benefit to the TOWNS floodplain and drainage programs. 3.11KHA shall evaluate proposed hydrologic methods that could be incorporated within the framework of the US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1. 3.12 KHA shall investigate standards and practices of stormwater detention/retention with 2 Arizona communities, and 2 other communities in the southwest United States. scope2.doc 2 of 5 f 1 IPF-Min Kimley-Horn MIN and Associates, Inc. 3.13 KHA shall prepare a program based master plan report that identifies for the TOWN, immediate, near term, and long-term program and policy needs for the management of floodplain and drainage resources. This report would be intended for the internal use of the TOWN, KHA shall provide five copies of the draft report and ten copies of the final report. KHA will also prepare a list of drainage related problem areas based on existing drainage complaints, interviews with TOWN maintenance personal, input from TOWNs project manager, and drainage related complaints received during public meetings. 4.0 Hydrologic Modeling- KHA shall initiate task 4.0 based on a specific written notice to proceed from the TOWN's project manager. 4.1 KHA shall utilize the US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 hydrologic model to prepare hydrologic estimates for the TOWN. It is assumed that current hydrology can be prepared assuming no existing retention/detention basins. 4.2 Within areas that are currently developed, flow estimates shall be prepared at arterial roads (approximately every mile), for contributing drainage areas of 320 acres or larger. 4.3 Within areas that are contained within the TOWNS corporate limit, flow rate estimates will be prepared at arterial roads, for contributing drainage areas of 160 acres or larger. 4.4 For areas that are contributing to the TOWNS corporate limit, basins will approximately 1 square mile in size or larger, with flow rate estimates developed at the point of ingress and egress to the TOWN corporate limit. 4.5 KHA shall prepare a report that summarizes methods, watershed boundaries, and results. KHA shall provide the TOWN with two copies of this report. 4.6 Within the town limits, the TOWN shall provide KHA with digital data including topography, orthophotos, existing zoning, master plan information, information related to culverts and roadway crossings and any other information pertinent to the development of the hydrologic model. 4.7 KHA shall provide to the TOWN hydrologic information developed as part of the HEC-1 model for the TOWN's GIS system. The information will be submitted on CD's in AutoCAD format in a coordinate system compatible with the TOWN's GIS system. 4.8 As an additional service KHA shall prepare a user-friendly pre-processor to allow a user to input data into the HEC-1 model via the pre-processor. This additional service will be undertaken only after the submittal of a detailed scope and fee estimate for this task. scope2.doc 3 of 5 Pr- riKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 5.0 Drainage Criteria- KHA shall prepare a standards and practice criteria manual. It is understood that this product will be limited to the establishing of specific standards andp ractices, but is not intended to be a design manual. As such design methods, supporting tables, figures, charts, equations, and other parameters are not part of this pp g scope of services, unless these are specific to Oro Valley and not part of generally available references. However, it is understood that KHA should format this criteria manual in a manner that would allow for future updates and inclusion of specific design tools. 5.1 The sections of the drainage criteria manual shall include the following: • Hydrology • Open Channel Hydraulics • Street Drainage and Storm Drains • Cross Culverts • Sediment Transport • Detention/Retention • Bank Stabilization • Floodplain Management • Environmental Regulatory Compliance 5.2 KHA shall provide the TOWN with five copies of the drainage criteria manual, in addition KHA shall provide a write protected electronic copy of the report that interested parties could download from the TOWN's website and/or that could be reproduced at a local reproduction shop at no or minimal cost to the TOWN. 6.0 Public Outreach and Input 6.1 KHA shall host three public outreach meetings. The first shall be within 45 days from the notice to proceed and shall consist of a presentation of the project and provide for public input. The second meeting shall be at the completion of the Program master plan. The third meeting shall be at the completion of the drainage criteria manual. 6.2 KHA shall be responsible for presentations at public outreach meetings including the staffing of sign in sheets, providing of refreshments, and summarizing of public input. 6.3 The TOWN is responsible for locating public meeting facilities, public noticing, and other forms of meeting invitation. scope2.doc 4 of 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6.4 The TOWN shall provide KHA with copies of drainage complaints. In addition KHA shall provide forms at public outreach meetings to allow Citizens to register specific drainage concerns or complaints. KHA shall organize this information and display on a map in order to see frequency and trends related to drainage problems in the town. 7.0 Training 7.1 As an additional service KHA shall prepare a program of training for the Town Staff. The training will be focused on design standards, and the use of the HEC-1 hydrologic model. At the direction of the TOWN, KHA shall provide a detailed scope and fee estimate. scope2.doc 5 of 5 0 0 0 N CO CNN O 1-- O CO CD LO 0 N 0 0) 0 CO O '4- 6 M 00 0.) U) N ('4 O CO CO -4-- N 45 L O N- Et C) a) 1-- 0 CO O CO O O O) 0 0 0 O .4' .' 0 O E L° O N Eft 'O Eft CD LEft n Q CNI- Eft 0 O 0 0 Cr O -- CV CO 0 O O U 0 ci Eft 00 Eft CO CO- Eft tft O CO V' N 0 CO V' 0) 0 0) 00 0 O • 0 .- N 0 0 Oa) ,-'- O co Eft 0 ,-- lM N- Cn N c0 Eft Eft C LU 0 0 0 0 CD O o d-COD 0 0 O 0 CO r- M C) >,00 Eft 0 O C Eft N Q Eft 0 CO d' V' 0 0 0 .- (V CO N N r- CV .- CO O CO 0 d' O O O 0 0 CO N Ln r- O N V. r- CO CO O 'Z N O O r O O ci w O -,:t- co co a_ ,- r- • Efl ON Ea ta EA- O CO ct CO CO 0 0 V' CO CO t N r- 0 0 r- 0 0 00 r- d' CO CO C) ) O CO (N '�t 0 0 N e- ,-- 0 Ln t1) O O Ln co co 0 N-- CL a. Ef3 ,c--- Ea Eft Eft CO 0 CO 0 d" 0 O 1- N CO O ci O 0 CO CD Ln0 CD Eft Ln EF). EA. `� C H a) a>i Q, cC Q N a) - Ct a oE QC E L O a) to C 0 >' a) O •'— o N ,- 03 co , to C U '-- C O a- w 0- .� Q) N a) C C -O m - t0 Q a) a) a) O O •--' +� D a) oco v 3 civ O �_ c� ca C ID g o a a) > c^n .c _c cva_ - oo E o is a� u� o � o vi .= U U w a- -Q 3 3 2 O w a) O v Q) .� O C C --' a) •a? V) cv MI a- o a) a) a) a) 0 cu a) O U - a) O 0 CO Q) o a) o N � v 5 o a) a) a) a) a. LL c a co >, n3 E 2 E d- 2 a- oocou_ 2222zo = " ,,, _ _0 C 0 _ ,- N Cr) CD 1- N CO Vt LO CO N- CO Q) c- r- e-- r- CO O C j ca D 0 I U N0 N N N H M M M M M Cr) M M M M Cr) Cr) cC F- 'I ,4 lb 94 o -,3 6 CL 0 0 01 g e: a-.. i 3 0 ift i ro N ' P: i iE g En co 1 2 .._ . i 5 ! g g sr i a 4. , s g 8 N g I4)) Asj dit 42 S 40 "N) 0 0 -0 5) 8 Pg 8 ei, 8 1 8 8 S . 0 o g § 'i ?' P v g'Z g • 5' p x .21 0 ig g 8 E s "ig t -4 So .12 Z1 t E A -1 grrtu, -4 srncn 8 If ; t2 411 410 i I 1 1 a FRI §.. ,.... $ 1 T , C4 * iv r $ I 6 6 8 8 a -41. t 4,, t ,T4 2 -_, !..4,WT .-s -, d N------ A N, $ g ,., % f. w - -§',1‘' V. IA' 8 8 8 'id g§ g g $ 8 8 4 8 kl 8 8 i s e O ) ... SMOM piiand AO ZOZZ-L6L TV:VT 000Z/E0/E0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 03/15/2000 f0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R) 00-28 ; Confirming and authorizing entry into the Continuation of Occupancy Agreement by and between Ann Alden and the Town of Oro Valley and authorizing early payment of$45,000.00 to Alden for relocation expenses prior to vacation of the premises. SUMMARY: Ann Alden ("Alden") was the owner of a 10.0 acre parcel of land located at the north half of the west half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 11 South, Range 13 East, Pima County, Arizona. The Town authorized entering into an Acquisition Agreement with Alden for the purchase of that property for the extension of La Canada Drive on January 19, 2000. That Agreement was entered into and the property closed on February 22, 2000. Town staff is asking Council to confirm by resolution the Town entering into the Agreement for the Continuation of Occupancy and to permit the early payment of $45,000.00 (previous authorization granted January 19, 2000)to Alden for relocation expenses prior to vacation of the premises. ATTACHMENTS: 1)Resolution No. (R) 00- 28 2) Agreement for the Continuation of Occupancy FISCAL IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends confirming the action of the Town's entry into the Continuation of Occupancy Agreement by and between Ann Alden and the Town of Oro Valley and permitting the early payment of $45,000.00 to Alden for relocation expenses prior to vacation of the premises by adopting Resolution No. (R) 00 - 28 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No. (R) 00 - 28 AFL Ami/ tea / Signa e of Department . Town Manager's Rev ew . RESOLUTION (R) 00-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, CONFIRMING AND AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO THE CONTINUATION OF OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ANN ALDEN AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND AUTHORIZING EARLY PAYMENT OF $45,000.00 TO ALDEN FOR RELOCATION EXPENSES PRIOR TO VACATION OF THE PREMISES. WHEREAS, Ann Alden("Alden") is the owner of a 10.0 acre parcel of land located at the north half of the west half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 11 South, Range 13 East, Pima County, Arizona; and WHEREAS, by Town Council Motion dated January 19, 2000, the Town entered into an Acquisition Agreement with Alden for the purchase of the land necessary for the extension of La Canada Drive; and WHEREAS, the Town agreed to purchase the land for $310,000.00 and pay an additional $45,000.00 upon the relocation of Alden's personal property and vacation of the premises; and WHEREAS, Alden has sold or relocated much of her personal property and is desirous of receiving her relocation expenses prior to vacation of the property; and WHEREAS, Town staff was directed/authorized to enter into an Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy for a period of time following the date of sale; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town for the Town Council to confirm the action of entry into the Continuation of Occupancy Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, by and between Ann Alden and the Town of Oro Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that the Agreement for the Continuation of Occupancy by and between Ann Alden and the Town of Oro Valley, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor, Town Manager, and any other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Agreement for the Continuation of Occupancy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the final payment of$45,000.00 to Alden for relocation expenses be released to Alden upon acknowledgement of receipt of final payment. Alden Agmt of Occupancy(6) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any previous actions taken by the Town which are not in conflict with the terms of the Continuation of Occupancy Agreement and this Resolution are hereby confirmed and approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 15th day of March , 2000. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Alden Agmt of Occupancy(6) EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF OCCUPANCY Alden Agmt of Occupancy(6) AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF OCCUPANCY This Agreement entered into by and between Ann Alden, an unmarried woman, hereinafter called Occupant, and The Town of Oro Valley, a body politic, hereinafter called Oro Valley, is for the use of the Premises located at 1373 West Sunkist Road, Tucson, Arizona, which is legally described as : The north half of the west half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 35 , Township 11 south, Range 13 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pima County, Arizona. This non-exclusive occupancy is resulting from acquisition by the Town of Oro Valley. Continuation of non-exclusive occupancy by the Occupant will provide interim security and protection of the Premises . Oro Valley and Occupant agree as follows that Occupant will occupy the Premises as resident until February 23, 2001 under the following terms and conditions . 1 . Payment of rent in the amount of $00 . 00 per month, for the first twelve (12) months of occupancy. Beginning the first month past the termination date any hold over rent will be at a rate of $1, 500 . 00 per month. 2 . This Agreement for use of the Premises by the Occupant is for term of twelve (12) months and shall end on February 23, 2001. Occupant agrees to and will vacate the Premises by the end of the above stated term. This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of the date of vacation or the end date of this Agreement. There shall be no extension of this Agreement or of the term stated in this Agreement, absent mutual consent . Oro Valley discloses and Occupant acknowledges the Premises use and access may be subject to intermittent use, restriction and control of access. Oro Valley shall not be liable on account of project activities nor shall Oro Valley modify or adapt its project, including construction, on account of the Occupants ' residence and use of the Premises . Where possible Occupant shall be notified 24 hours prior to Oro Valley, or their agents, entering the property. 3 . The Premises may be used as Occupant ' s residence and as therapeutic riding and horse boarding facilities for the twelve (12) month term of this Agreement . Ann Alden Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy 02/18/00 4 :00 p.m. Final Version 4 . Occupant is responsible for all utility costs (including water, electricity, septic, gas, television cable, and telephone) which are associated with occupancy of the Premises during the term of this Agreement . 5 . Occupant of the Premises discloses the following problem(s) and malfunction (s) with the condition of the buildings and equipment : Structure including foundation, footings, walls and roof- Doors and windows- Floor and floor coverings- Electrical system including fixtures, ceiling and exhaust fans- Plumbing, including water supply system, hot water heater, Exterior and interior faucets, toilet and bath fixtures, water softener (s) , garbage disposal sanitary drains and sewer lines, and septic tank (s) , including the leach field lines- Heating system, including furnace (s) or heating coils and electrical heating elements- Cooling lements-Cooling system, including evaporative cooler (s) , refrigeration unit (s) , compressor (s) or any cooling system component- Other, omponent-Other, including appliances, swimming pool and equipment, garage doors, fireplaces, gates- Occupant understands, agrees to and accepts the Premises and the fixtures therein are in an "as is" condition without warranty of any sort or nature . No inspection report has been made of the Premises . 6 . Occupant shall reside on the Premises and provide security, protection, minor repairs and cleaning maintenance for the Premises for the duration of this Agreement . 7 . Occupant shall not rent, assign, subordinate, sublease, or gift occupancy the Premises . The Occupant ' s guests or invitees shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy. 8 . Occupant shall water vegetation, trim and remove overgrowth/weeds, remove trash and rubbish at Occupant ' s expense, and maintain the Premises and environs reasonably neat, clean and safe from brushf ire . Ann Alden Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy 02/18/00 4 :00 p.m. Final Version 9 . Occupant shall refer and report hazards on the Premises to the Town Engineer of Oro Valley. If there is no danger to the Occupant, Occupant shall take necessary temporary action to ensure safety and security; for example, sweep up and dispose of glass, block or provide visible markers or barricades to safety hazards such as holes or erosion. 10 . Oro Valley reserves the right to enter the Premises, with two (2) days advance notice to Occupant, for repair or maintenance of the Premises, as deemed necessary by Oro Valley. Upon report of an emergency to Oro Valley, Oro Valley shall be given immediate entry and access to the Premises to resolve the cause of said emergency. 11. Only authorized vehicles or personnel are to use the facility. In the event of any trespass on the Premises, Occupant will use discretion to: a. Determine the purpose or reason of the entry or trespass; b. If entry is a trespass Call the Sheriff ' s Office at 740- 2810 . c . Occupant shall not place self in physical danger or risk. 12 . As Occupant, no monetary remuneration will be paid, no employee benefits will be conferred, nor in any other way will Occupant be considered an employee of Oro Valley. 13 . The residence shall be occupied by Occupant and her invited guests . 14 . Oro Valley assumes no liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from Occupant or Occupant ' s guests or invitees using the Premises during the term of this Agreement . 15 . Occupant' s personal property is not insured by Oro Valley, and any responsibility for loss, damage, theft, or destruction as a result of unforeseen cause (s) , whether by fire, flood, accident, vandalism, or Act of God is the Occupants' sole responsibility. Occupant ' s use of the premises shall be at Occupant ' s sole cost, risk and liability. Renter' s Insurance with Liability Coverage shall be the responsibility of the Occupant for personal loss and liabilities arising from Occupant ' s use of the premises . For Residential and business use, Occupant shall provide a certificate of insurance to Oro Valley for the full duration of this Agreement . 16 . Occup• s a e re and main . ' • • _ ' a. - - c(ci)( 0° Agreement, genera ' . • ' • urance, including automobile and 41- - • a injury, all of which sha • . • ' -- ' us ' e not gj Ann Alden Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy 02/18/00 4 :00 p.m. Final Version less that One Million Dollars ($1, 000 , 000) for injur' or damag received or sustained by any person •ersons or propert , as a result of any one occurrence ' incident. Oro Valley sha be named as an additi• insured under any 4( policy written ich is intende• o comply with the above requirement . Each •lacy s •- be endorsed by the insurance cancellation,specifying that c , non-renewal, or major change in the coverat- or li will be effective until after the expiration o a thirty (30) •:- period following written notice to Or. valley. A certified copy each policy intended to compl ""ith the above requirement shall •- •elivered to Oro Valle at the Office of the Town Attorney for h _ -view and ac -ptance. 17 . Repairs to Subject Property Oro Valley shall be responsible for major structural repair, roof replacement, major electrical including the main electrical service box, major plumbing including underground water supply, drain, waste and ventilation lines, and replacement of the heating and cooling system equipment . 18 . Untenantable Property Due to Damage In the event the improvements are partially damaged or totally destroyed by fire, flood, accident or acts of God, Oro Valley shall have the option to repair/rebuild said improvements, or to terminate this Agreement by delivering written Notice of Immediate Termination to Occupant. If this Agreement is terminated Occupant may elect to vacate the Premises and immediately notify Oro Valley of such vacation. If Oro Valley declines its option to repair/rebuild said improvements, Occupant shall have the option to repair/rebuild said improvements at its own expense and effort . 19 . Environmental Waste Indemnification by Occupant Occupant shall indemnify and hold harmless Oro Valley, its employees , and agents from and against any and all loss, damage, and expense (including but not limited to reasonable investigation, legal fees, and expenses) including, but not limited to, any claim or action for injury, liability, or damage to persons or property, and any and all claims or actions brought by any person, firm, governmental body, or other entity, alleging or resulting from or arising from or in connection with contamination of, or adverse effects on the environment, or violation of any environmental law or other statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, judgment, or order of any government of judicial entity, from and against any damages, liabilities, costs, and penalties assessed as a result of any activity or operation on the property by the Occupant during the term of this Agreement . Occupant ' s obligations and liabilities under this paragraph shall continue so long as Oro Valley bears any liability or Ann Alden Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy 02/18/00 4 :00 p.m. Final Version responsibility under the environmental laws for any action that occurred on the property during the term of this Agreement . Occupant ' s failure to abide by the terms of this paragraph shall be restrainable by injunction. 20 . By signing this Agreement and accepting the benefits thereof, Occupant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Oro Valley, its officers, departments, agents and employees from and against all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands or damages rising out of this agreement and/or Occupant ' s use and occupancy of the Premises . Occupant' s Agreement and Approval &/ o>i,L.- , Occupant Oro V- l l ey' s Agreemetlf and Approval / 4,6 Acknowledged this dayof -� 2000 . g by 4th C . 4/dem , Occupant . eg_.6deA Notary Public My Commission Expires : 4,„ ... ;-,�1 L EAL. +►sir. CATHERINE P . HAUSER APPROVED AS TO FORM: t. `` % NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA 4 `;• PIMA C O U N TY My Comm rxoires May? 2:03 . Art_A 4. A/7Y:// own orney Approved and accepted this day of , 2000 . Mayor of the Town of Oro Valley Paul Loomis ATTEST: Town Clerk Ann Alden Agreement for Continuation of Occupancy 02/18/00 4 :00 p.m. Final Version r 1HTOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15,2000 Isif TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Dennis Silva, Jr., Planner I SUBJECT: OV12-96-04B RAMS CANYON PHASE III FINAL PLAT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF ORACLE ROAD, AND APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTHEAST OF ALLIED SIGNAL BACKGROUND: David Evans and Associates, representing the property owners, requests Town Council approval of a Final Plat for a 5-lot residential development. The project site, is 9.1 acres in size, is located approximately '/4 mile east of Oracle Road and approximately '/2 mile northeast of Allied Signal. The proposed final plat is located within the northernmost portion of the La Reserve Planned Area Development. SUMMARY: The development standards for the proposed final plat are as follows: > Setbacks: front — 30 feet; side — 20 feet; and rear — 40 feet. General Note 8 must be revised to state these setbacks. L. > Average lot size is 47,188 square feet. > Maximum building height is 25 feet. The proposed final plat will be a custom home subdivision with grading limits of 10,000 square feet per lot. Areas outside the gradable areas will be designated as natural open space. Common Area "A" is located at the easternmost section of the proposed plat and will consist of 2.76 acres of open space. Endangered Species Act(ESA) The proposed final plat lies outside of the limits of critical habitat for the Cactus Ferriginous Pygmy Owl(CFPO), but within potential pygmy owl habitat as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife guidelines. A CFPO survey was not done for this property. However,the proposed development will be a custom home subdivision with 2.76 out of the 9.1 acres designated as open space. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: Staff finds that the Rams Canyon Phase III Final Plat is in conformance with the Town of Oro Valley General Plan. The proposed final plat promotes Policy 1.1 I, to "encourage the use of building envelopes...[where] the area outside the building envelope must be maintained in a natural state." TRAFFIC: This project is located on the eastern end of Broken Rock Drive. Oracle Road is accessed by Rams Canyon Pass, which Broken Rock Drive connects to approximately 450-ft east of Oracle Road. Traffic impact from this development to the surrounding area highway net work will be minimal. The five proposed lots will generate approximately 50 additional trips per day and about 5 trips per peak hour. EXHIBIT A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL OV 12-96-04B RAMS CANYON PHASE III FINAL PLAT 1. General Note 8 shall be revised to state that the setbacks are; front — 30 feet, side — 20 feet, and rear — 40 feet. 2. Provide access from Broken Rock Drive to the top of the bank on the east side of the drainageway. 3. A landscape plan will not be required for this project. However, screening should be provided between the homes and the trail on the top of the drainageway bank. Therefore, revise general note 19 to add the following: "Building envelopes shall be situated to preserve existing protected plants (as identified in the Native Plant Salvage Plan) to the maximum extent possible, and to provide a buffer between private yards and the public trail on the drainageway." i I mj ZzO m ZXD rCZ)N Ig )mo O �-iN ! °ocmo =DoIomm - °Om AO D � 2 Nc V,mmDi0000pZODCmOomm ii;X:irlti vm : ➢ ZD,r*x1 8 A 0 Z CIOttrWn1mh0Fm116r(T2,1-1g:giirl p NDN=A D �➢i, L-N-oZO0 DO z n �Ovar,4rmrn; rANmD OPLititri oo<iigtr, Z - �rC _ZA )m i i DC7� mr:!1_1113omm°mA0! Zz8 v n °3,1i �Q O v' N li 1<O1 4(�ioOOtS %.---,2,i,r(--APoi P`r.z41 ',I! 0nrG NZ N Dz :90',11.;0;! r�(_)ii!,� XOA-D, IxO� .i O ADOoOAf� p➢ OzmQ1Z r9c2V+g oCt DZT.t OOD D :mi. p,pm�m=pirm Z�Cm-O4t Dv,Xr�l TIo m m m o�°g mo ��m zZ rr ° ��ni-p)4ap6< �D < O0,m<=r�Z1 pcra ? c, to, i O! 11 n Nn mp Op�<rT=� 1° j m(ZxmDT�rZODZf�IU7Z.2 §h( ° t"06 gWm mfTImiQ-Ami A O 1 mmI nLZ-iZrZrZnxODmpZ�Omx2�rg ')4nm A �6<3 5ZAnmO O\ mi [ mC) 0 c C.�ZmnOOo°mNOS'lr59 OvDDp :_a_S 01 A1 * I qPrRiNgUi-VVI CmNi !D 08 N 1 - z0 m0?ZmnZr�r0 .8 ° vzOZ 1ro N -101 ➢1 m 01�,4 rA1� N 21I n flail rDn 1OOm� cl : ZO o'-?ii "Nrm' gWit!,r,!), Omm (Z) mtZim� mQAO1xM X -1";7'"! m� m -o< 121z2=__ --;,1-ii mn -o� X il--!)1 D,` Az !I n ° OoOrxitC,i cc,cc°, ONg mOC)WC- a c�n-G.,„ � v�O�"i orAgi ° O _nr.1N�Zt O Z . 0nL = Dn- "ID �mApD� v*'1O p0� ° p-ZAmor O 'z OC •U°C1 fr) r: rnm =. mp= 11 Z_Z OpOO ZZvr��ZSNC giZS�*1 ,;`1f�X�rD Z rn•-V ZN r�AD Z r9\A Z����p��,nDZ�! !>:!; U Z �n'�czp5nC D Zm0O 11 OA rC-4 V� �O 78 gUO memm •. _�. TOC A PT. <N zo v^ c i z1A0', 9<3'P' /''''74). ,'l4 �{%N 4 m� m) m-DUp CI ? 00irlf"--4 7=;r11- Z-� � I. °(BOX Oow. i;`CAN � m52 cry:, -�OCrO2 !� Pi ! oom ._ OoWp -N 0 1`:' A° 7A'� mio mo- ail \ � OA -Z =O pj AwA Fii D' op, 0 o Dpr 06 J nUA::::s3 p r p� , � m N i 0 -' ,x A--m�xDbrD§ ' Om AD m m UP W mpZ1mO' Cnr�D,c� r ➢r mOEo r_7 DO-Tm'nC� OA�DODC�i�iP'crmrnZWDg 2 °y' Dm'WOrnpvm - U 2rN •DAr0- ,1 .Z00 PO''' g iO��oWOi mevW: m�XAZOTIrrD1Z0Er�.1AN�''''mO�Om36c96 ;4cr�1^0 mfOiZZ .$.cg' �Z mDm•O13� ;Vig:oll !If ,g vm15� o ,C oNC fOA, �mrm -!--4�G X)7,1O�O-mZV1A L r`,'`-n, Z Z�S? AZ- gmAi O= Em0A0 'A-o; C FAim 14 Nv8Zsz,�^ZA0p ^i37�?N rC O"( UfN V mmm0r,88 -imZ O n'Or1C1 -4o_ZIA m��mm nS O \CC .1OpnN '�IoOrmmO3mZm#0 Oq mr °➢ DzA=iN m .) : _ti )ite.':',1, ;)-77§VA;(! ri'-:1-P;i'; AnrJjOpOp90 5Owr Nooip1O DON =ZSN "Pzm m5,',1 !II Ob$rzc AN p m�r n (O•oo5 D)DmH Som ➢ Cv=Pol 0N Z ;31;$ r '-r mx mDAN ��I ;;: 7(7NV➢mp mp1 )n0A vfNr�3CAZZ �mar* p O:pm � Zn �O ?cOA Zm�-DO � O0mm'iO NAr >pDO =vTZI qi = O -) mp ZRgA Oz oo i g CN , mm; A D vOm g8 1 ' CO 23 • > , Di 0 QOiZ ,5D x rn or X-Om m�W 8N z 0 Z • oOD � tai rx-,,,c,,, !,),- Z3 s1 o0 1Ni sR0 .b�OASDL01 S -OA,�N meCm Zil0 ® eNm11 1189=447 i i'4 'q'`','D1LOO1�� 5°� d h� \ ,,,,4v1 ie".i,,.$�mpOK2 � DD 341..- CWZOO� �V/® 55 _%'..› m�2 14Z R'- DT ��WArmTZA� �vDZ 8Nc�ac;� cOZ�mna0N4,,, n •NWom� O o Fma�/)y Z .. „ , .„, 3. CO Xg, I 4 30 Z)0' 30 qti m ran ITI em SCO wE. N040110'23'48"E _ .46' +. rn �N ;m z rn o -S wW C7 A O ... m �Z n _-' Qu =Z rte II m \ \ m ;v �a \ I .:---'5-','.:;,;::c." 'A\, 1 21 i� �yg OL�N col (n o NO'/'I� p L! p� .-vv aL o \ .0 cT /91 o •o i,� g0,11- Z V 1 o • z co ^ ho�^ !3 co° W N rn ( 2W�� 0 1 -+mom tit)\4' 6' Oym8. cT 1 Y,,..% I�OPO• <\\s N -�noo Oc3' , z t ' ,'1 6£061 �, 1 0� aoo ;`w A�� '� ? M Z,o ' o U I Z -c. O1 '0 w1 r 1 \\ QO�„/^OO cnZmD<co' INF T25! \ I o �r2 -Di I / m •O PR Pm ,; a4. . Pi�m� ::: :: m -p w 1,-- ,4c, to D N r-i -L8f:),A (al-a, � --� u A N W 6 o x P O '1,4 0, n '' W NNU�NOO m NY 2 I rn -P * rD�'' W rncnAw Do �sv? CP N ci-A N rn W O O�-'O O O C .a�ir�: iOD000000 N rn o 0 0 0 0 0 F `� z� �1 ril �O� mri/gypa� Yy� j �" in z-t y�6? �m ��, � m mrn W '..:1.1,1 � U1 II O O 6,\ c°/ w 0 r r r r r r r ,` cn.AwN� cnvrncnAw � � .1,�" '� W 4o O/„ ,E 44 r Z / o'' am_rj • _ z m O � v�N�j OD p)6: N N W N."-t0 N O)(T N Oj D / ,-n ZrT,0 (r-+W N V O(TOO-�-'OD O W(J\_� w.J i0 ioN rn:A O iZA�O <O.o m Om)-p 0 \ / 20',,,,,n :i'''' ,.\:i WI3 zzzzcnNzzcnzzzcncnz � N C7 rn N A A N N J CD p t0�t0(O�O;CZ y V;���O-• p A w W O w O A O O , N W V (Jt g O� -[p W g w Go \'\ ?N N A N O N N(T-` / V�W Ol V N w O�-:�l� V W fJ--: / ,,,,I,,,,....„:„.„," 1y, w ,,,, OL1 �AXin1 n? o �z v�, 1J.. -fig �_{ m� i—,rte trn z m D x *.� ��ion p r m �� '� k Z �A'mB of v,- a 0 U ''N 0 C' Z $ CO top� C0 0 -D+D'�ON =i= mm��cn�Z r� �O E z= 0 1. �'z o s N 0 r • sfI' ii';'-;',1"--- ri:1'Q�'O �0a , �Z (r� r '� 1. i4 II CSI= S 1 - 7,,',4 D� o Y��\ p / � � Z O D S�r`,0- 2,3,T, 0 4'�S -v x. � Q rn w �Dmo Z"ii a Nr z 0 0 2'' i G'�--O ,,1 � `� y r�Tt �� t•S, a �\nz� N w.j C/ cD y MI m O. mmzo .O I P-',11):n cT3 IR CO o c II A A Z i II GI rn�G �S z E § �� '� " zz m=a O • M - f'O J-t -O M c � N Li' m ElL,J M x z I \" a N00.26'59"E `` o m N I;U,I • 1320.75' S00'26'S9"W 150.55'-- V N No CO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2UNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Shaw, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (0). 00-07 , OV11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS R ANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWES¢ RNER OF ORO VALLEY(CONTINUED) BACKGROUND AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This item was continued from the February 2, 2000 Town Council hearing. It is a request to amend the General Plan for a portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 and is being made concurrently with a request to amend the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. The proposals under consideration were continued to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to review in detail the issues raised by the requests. Since the February meeting, staff has met with the applicant twice, a third meeting is scheduled for March 6th and the applicant will submit a revised plan on March 13th. A supplemental report with staff recommendation, suggested motion and ordinance will be issued to the Council by March 15th. Neighborhood 11 is located in the northwest portion of Rancho Vistoso, and is the northwest boundary of the Town. The entire northern portion of Neighborhood 11 is 1,298 acres in size, while the portion relevant to the amendment request is approximately 800 acres. The property is surrounded by state trust land to the west and north, designated as open space, and private property outside of the Town limits known as Neighborhood 12 to the east. Access is from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard onto Vistoso Highlands Drive. Tortolita Mountain Park, and planned expansion areas, is located to the northwest of this property. Honey Bee Canyon and its tributaries are to the northeast. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: Vistoso Partners is requesting to increase the buildable area in Neighborhood 11 by amending several portions of the General Plan. These changes would allow the applicant to build residential units in what is currently designated open space. Specifically, changing Parks/Open Space, with a backup designation of rural low density residential (0-0.3 DU/ac), to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 DU/ac) is proposed in the north section, and LDR 0.6-1.2DU/ac to LDR 1.3-2.0 DU/ac is proposed just south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Will be provided with a supplemental report. / SUGGESTED MOTION: Will be provided with a supplemental report. ,,i iA Planning'f oni Administrator / / ' /. Co - nity Developme me" Director - 14: - ./i, /► / Town Manager F:\OV\OV9\1998\0V9-98-2A\GP Amend\RV 11 General Plan Amend March 15 TC Rpt.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION — MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 3, 4t,6/A,t,zt,LJ 5"--3-(00 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Shaw, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (0)2000- ,...12y11-98-02 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORO VALLEY. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the February 2, 2000 Town Council public hearing, and was initiated in 1998 with a request to amend the General Plan for a portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11. The original proposal was made concurrently with a request to amend the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (the zoning) document. Three components to the General Plan amendment were requested: the "location of the resort site in Neighborhood 11, the use of land currently set aside as unbuildable open space, and an additional 9-hole golf course along the western boundary". On May 6, 1998 the Council adopted ordinance (0)98-13 to amend the General Plan for the resort and golf course changes. The open space configuration is the item now under consideration. At the February hearing, Council voted to continue the item to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to review in detail the issues raised by the proposed PAD and General Plan amendments. Staff and the applicant have met on site several times, and the applicant has consistently revised the plan, based on discussions and the technical comments provided in the PAD amendment report. Staff appreciates the efforts the applicant has made to improve the plan. Staff analysis of the major planning issues remains largely unchanged from the February report and is provided p below. A copy of the proposed plan will be distributed to Council during the hearing. SITE DESCRIPTION: Neighborhood 11 is located in the northwest portion of Rancho Vistoso, and is the northwest boundary of the Town. The entire northern portion of Neighborhood 11 is 1,298 acres in size, while the portion relevant to the amendment request is approximately 800 acres. The property is surrounded by state trust land, designated as open space, to the west and north, and private property outside of the Town limits known as Neighborhood 12 to the east. Access is from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard onto Vistoso Highlands Drive. Tortolita Mountain Park, along with planned expansion areas, is located to the northwest of this property. Honey Bee Canyon and its tributaries are to the northeast. Current development activity in the northern portion of Neighborhood 11 includes the Stone Canyon golf course (nearly complete) and the Stone Canyon I subdivision. The remainder of the land is in a natural, undisturbed state and as suggested by the name, the golf course and future planned residential subdivisions are located in an area of unique natural beauty. The site is characterized by a heavy concentration of steep "rock outcrops", with areas in-between relatively level uplands. Four major riparian areas also traverse the site. A wildlife habitat study completed by Harris Environmental in August, 1998, describes the biology, vegetative characteristics and habitat types in the area. A wide variety of plant species thrive in the riparian areas and rock outcrops. Interestingly, the outcrops are not only visually unique but are biologically important as wildlife habitats. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 8 LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: Vistoso Partners is requesting to increase the buildable area in Neighborhood 11 by amending several portions of the General Plan. These changes would allow the applicant to build residential units, in what is currently designated open space, on upland portions among the outcrops. As stated by the applicant, this request is based on new, more detailed topographical data that will correct slopes previously identified when the original PAD document was prepared and the open space areas were determined. Specifically, changing Parks/Open Space, with a backup designation of rural low density residential (0-0.3 DU/ac), to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 DU/ac) is proposed in the north section, and LDR 0.6-1.2DU/ac to LDR 1.3-2.0 DU/ac is proposed just south of this area. To compensate for the intrusion into designated open space, Vistoso Partners is proposing to provide 95 acres of new open space in Neighborhood 12 to the east, an existing park site in Neighborhood 5, and a 1-acre off-site trail head and approximately 5-acres of trail that would provide access into Tortolita Mountain Park. These areas, along with Honey Bee Canyon Wash and areas to the north in Neighborhood 11, would be dedicated to the public. The following table summarizes the proposal showing two ways to count the open space that illustrate the range of the proposal. Both are based on the approach of only counting non-fragmented open space as defined in note #1 below. By this approach, small areas of open space (both existing and proposed) between developed areas are not counted because their value as habitat is limited. (NOTE: as of 3/15/00, Table 1 has not been amended based on the revised plan.) TABLE 1 Summary of Non-Fragmented(1) Land Summary of Non-Fragmented') Land Acres Acres Current PAD Open Space 581 Current PAD Open Space 581 Proposed Open Space 434 Proposed Open Space 434 Proposed Open Space Affected by Road(2) NC Proposed Open Space Affected by Road(2) 54 Loss of Open Space 147 Loss of Open Space 93 Neighborhood 12 Proposed Dedicated Land Neighborhood 12 Proposed Dedicated Land total unbuildable NC total unbuildable 55 total buildable 40 total buildable 40 Trailhead 1 Trailhead 1 Trail (approximately 5 acres) NC Trail (approximately 5 acres) NC Honey Bee Canyon Park (62 acres) NC Honey Bee Canyon Park (62 acres) NC HBC and north in Neighborhood 11 (25 acre) NC HBC and north in Neighborhood 11 (25 acre) NC Gain of Open Space 41 Gain of Open Space 96 Net Gain in Non-Fragmented Open Space -106 Net Gain in Non-Fragmented Open Space 3 Notes: 1. This is land that has been defined by fitting a 300' diameter circle to the open space areas to eliminate areas that restrict wildlife movement to a corridor less than 300'. 2. This area has been cut off from the other open space by Tortolita Mountain Drive. However, given its size and with the provision of wildlife-friendly crossings it could still provide good habitat. 3. NC =Not Counted as these areas are already open space or could not be developed. However, even if these areas are not counted as open space,they provide a benefit to the Town and need to be considered in that regard. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 8 Thus, as shown in Table 1, the tally of the loss of non-fragmented open space varies depending on how it is counted. It ranges from a loss of 107 acres (based on a loss of 147 acres of fully non-fragmented open space balanced by a gain of 40 buildable acres dedicated in neighborhood 12) to a gain of a few acres (counting the road-affected open space and all of the dedicated areas in neighborhood 12). Neighborhood 12 is outside of the Town boundaries, and the southern portion is owned by Vistoso Partners (the 95 acres of proposed open space is owned by a separate party). In contrast to the open space in Neighborhood 11, the proposed Neighborhood 12 open space is relatively flat, and contains a large flood plain and riparian area. STIPULATIONS OF PRIOR TOWN COUNCIL HEARING: When the Council approved partial amendments to the General Plan on May 6, 1998, three stipulations regarding the open space component remained to be resolved. These are: 1) Due to the revision of open space, consideration shall be given to planning issues such as wildlife corridors, vegetation, viewsheds, Honey Bee Canyon, and buffering future park areas. The development shall be consistent with the policies of the Honey Bee Canyon Management Plan and shall include studies to determine, and mitigate, impacts on wildlife. Visual impact studies are also necessary; 2) Lower densities shall be provided adjacent to potential public park areas. Development around Tortolita Mountain Park is limited to a density of no more than 0.2 dwelling units per acre; and 3) Public dedications for trails and trailheads consistent with the POST Plan and the Tortolita Mountain Park Plan are required. The status of these stipulations is discussed below. PLANNING ISSUES: During the analysis of this request, several planning issues were identified and summarized below. Open Space and Design. The unique geology and topography of the amendment area require that building sites tightly fit into pockets among the outcrops. In order to reach into these areas, the roadway design meanders through the site. Restricted building envelopes are proposed on large lots. The overall result of both the meandering road and fitting building sites between the outcrops is fragmentation of open space and important biological linkages, or wildlife corridors. Fragmentation is disturbance due to roadways, utility corridors, golf cart paths, etc. and has been generally recognized by conservation biologists as an important issue to consider when designing for wildlife corridors. The Harris study recommended that "biological linkages be designed around the 4 riparian areas since these washes connect to other areas off-site". Another design issue with impact on linkages is the road to lot ratio. In this case, long roads and many short cul-de-sacs serve few lots, which also contributes to fragmentation of open space and corridors. Slopes. Staff has analyzed varying degree of slopes in the current open space area and how the proposal impacts slopes 25% and greater. These slopes are also associated with the rock outcroppings. Development of slopes 25% and greater is prohibited by the PAD. There are 314 acres of slope 25% and greater in the current open space, while under the new proposal there is an overall loss of 54 acres, due to fragmentation. There are specific areas of encroachment into these slopes that are of concern, and these are addressed in the recommendations. See Exhibit C. Impact on identified wildlife habitat. The wildlife habitat study prepared by Harris Environmental is the most current and thorough habitat information available for the project area. Based on habitat areas identified in the I TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 8 study, the proposed amendment negatively affects approximately 41 acres of identified habitat. As noted in the wildlife study, negative impacts can be mitigated "if an interconnected system comprised of the most valuable habitat is preserved...". The most important habitat types are: Honey Bee Canyon and its major tributaries; major riparian corridors, rock-out-croppings, and ragweed/brittlebush/mesquite association. To this end, specific conservation strategies for each habitat type are listed in the Harris study, and staff recommendations p g are based on the linkages identified on the Harris Wildlife Habitat Survey Composite Map. Neighborhood 12 proposed open space. This area contains a large riparian area of approximately 36 acres (the exact limits have not been defined) that is critical to the hydrology and ecology of Honey Bee Wash. There are large areas of dense mesquite bosque along the floodway; the upland areas have been degraded due to active cattle grazing. A biological inventory by Harris Environmental classifies this floodway as both high xeroriparian and intermediate xeroriparian habitat types. This area is important to preserve not only for the identified riparian habitat but because it is an important floodway with impacts on Honey Bee Canyon, and will provide a connection to Tortolita Mountain Park as well as having the potential to provide public access to the Park. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: Findings of Fact: The granting of a general plan amendment will be based on the following findings 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. As proposed, the amendment degrades portions of the current open space designated in the General Plan, due to open space fragmentation and encroachment into wildlife habitat. The landowners will financially benefit from the amendment as a result of market premiums charged for lots in this development. However, the amendment could be designed to improve the General Plan, if it meets the conditions discussed in detail in the PAD amendment report, and if the loss of open space is more than balanced by securing as public land the open space in Neighborhood 12. 2. That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan. The proposed amendment is analyzed for conformance with the Oro Valley General Plan Land Use Map, goals and policies. The Land Use Element states it will "project a residential/resort character...low-density development...sensitive to...Sonoran Desert". Clustering of development to protect environmentally sensitive areas is recommended in Policies 1.1B and C. Traditionally clustered development provides for smaller lots in order to conserve larger contiguous blocks of open space. The large lots proposed do not meet this traditional definition, but significant portions of the lots are shown as preserved open space. Building envelopes that are sited between rocks on the level portions of the site create a fragmented "pocket" design, again not true clustering. Due to the fragmentation and net decrease of open space the proposed amendment does not fully comply with the clustering policies. Lot 407 in the western portion, is an extreme example of this; lots 366 to 372 also demonstrate the effects of fragmentation. Policies 1.1D and H refer to slope treatment and the hillside development zone. In the Vistoso PAD, all areas of 25% and greater slope are set aside from development and called "non-build" areas. However, roadway and shared/common driveway access have been exempted from this requirement and in the past I TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 8 have been problematic. Also, all slopes 15% and greater should be reviewed for development compatibility. This has not been done in the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Policy 1.1K requires consideration of impacts on rolling terrain and emphasized low density development. Although the design incorporates low density development there are impacts including open space fragmentation and encroachment onto lesser slopes. Policies related to Goal 1.2, "promote a compatible mix of land uses throughout Oro Valley" refer to locating residential development to major transportation corridors and activity centers. These policies are not supported by the amendment. The proposal meets policies related to view protection and use of building envelopes. The Circulation/Transportation Element emphasizes "safe, convenient and efficient mobility" through construction of sidewalks, bicycle lanes and view protection through appropriate roadway design. It appears that the street will remain private; therefore, maintenance should not be an issue with the Town. Road cross-sections have not been shown and in order to comply with these policies pedestrian and bicycle facilities must be provided with those cross sections. In the Economic Development Element, financial stability through diversification of local revenue sources is emphasized along with the Town's residential/resort/recreation character. This custom, upscale development will support Oro Valley's economy by the addition of residents with income to support specialty retail. The Housing Element's goal to promote high quality residential neighborhoods is enhanced by this plan, although the goal to "ensure a jobs/housing balance" is not. The gap between Oro Valley's housing affordability and employment wages supported by the economy will continue to increase with this type of development. Public Facilities and Services Element strives to ensure adequate public facilities and services such as schools and infrastructure. Little adverse impact on public facilities is anticipated with this plan. "Parks, Open Space and Recreation, as an element, contributes perhaps more than any other to the p resort/residential image the Town wishes to maintain." Policies in this element require a comprehensive and connected system of parks, open space and trails and to protect environmentally sensitive open space areas. The trail alignment shown in the original PAD has been realigned in this proposal, and will provide an important link to regional trails and parks. Open space is defined in the General Plan as natural, undeveloped areas, 300 plus acres, for recreation, or preservation of environmentally sensitive land. Policy 6.2C, open space connection to and expansion of Tortolita Mountain Park, Policy 6.2B, open space preservation as a criterion in deciding land use proposals and Policy 6.2G, preserve and enhance open space areas are not supported, due to fragmentation to the environmentally sensitive habitat. Conversely, the proposed dedication of the Neighborhood 12 open space, the Neighborhood 5 recreation area and trail-head site, in combination with staff recommended changes to the proposed design (Exhibit B & C), and other conditions, work to balance some of the negative effects of fragmentation. Natural Resource Conservation Element. Policy 8.1B, "major natural washes are to be kept free from development...to maintain natural/riparian areas" would be weakened by the proposal. Several proposed TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 8 lots encroach into designated riparian/wildlife habitat. The proposal more narrowly defines the wildlife corridors and buffers than does the Harris study. Staff recommendations are based on the Harris study. Thep ublic dedication (and subsequent protection) of Honey Bee Canyon and areas north of it in Neighborhoods 11 and 12 does work to support this policy. Preservation of resources is required in the Cultural and Historic Resources Element. Archaeological completed were surveys for Rancho Vistoso when the PAD was developed. The survey did not identify an old adobe structure and other evidence of ranching found in the western portion of the site. These structures should be given preservation consideration. 3. That the eneral plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the g amendment. The General Plan map does provide other sites appropriate for low density residential development. However, the scale (overall acres) of the proposed plan is such that there is little property of sufficient size to accommodate this plan. Additionally, the proposed public dedication of the northern Honey Bee Canyon and related tributaries are unique and presents a singular opportunity for the Town. 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. As proposed, the amendment will adversely affect the environmental community in Neighborhood 11. With modification however, the plan could benefit the Town by being an environmentally sensitive development that results in an overall net gain of preserved significant open space. Compliance with Other Plan Designations: The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan identifies the designated space open in Neighborhood 12 as part of a larger preserve that will serve as a linkage from the Tortolita pg Mountain Park to Catalina State Park. The Tortolita Mountain Park Plan calls for a density of one dwelling unit/five acres adjacent to the Park boundary, and recommends alignment of the trail shown in the north of the PAD's open space. The same trail is documented in the Town's POST Plan. The Honey Bee Canyon p Management Plan recommends buffers to the wash and canyon, wildlife corridors and other specific recommendations. The habitat designations and recommendations of the Harris Environmental study compliment the HBCMP, and staff recommendations include re-design of the open space proposal, based on the Harris study. PUBLIC AND SECTOR BOARD NOTIFICATION: Public notification of the February hearing was published in the Daily Territorial and posted at Town Hall. The B Groupheld a meetingwith Sector Board 4 members on January 20th, and staff has received several WL inquiries from sector members. Since the February hearing staff has had several queries regarding the status of the case. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 7, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this proposal and recommended approval of relocating the resort and reconfiguring the golf course, and denial of the request to change the open space designation. As the Council voted to have the item return directly to Council, the Commission has not been presented a second time with the open space proposal. AM=MINIM IN I NM TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 7 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planningstaff acknowledges that the applicant has made positive revisions to the plan in that the design is more g sensitive to the environment. The areas of encroachment into open space reflects less severe topography than the PAD originially identified, and the building sites, shared driveways and road alignment take into account sensitive g y features such as rock outcrops and riparian corridors, with some exceptions. However, basic planning issues regarding the concept of clustered design and fragmentation remain unresolved. There are several ways to describe g g p the project,layout of the •ect, with the cental "core area", i.e., the looped road, being the focus, and the outlying "pods" y p the secondary areas. It is the outlying pods of lots that create fragmentation and sprawl, which is in conflict with the General Plan olicies previously cited that encourage the concept of clustered design. Although the lots are p clustered together, it is their outlying location, and the long roadways necessary to access the lots, that significantly alter the landsacpe and environment, reducing the integrity of the open space. Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed General Plan amendment. While there have been positive changes to the plan there are still areas of open space fragmentation, and staff does not find that the four findings of fact are met. In order to recommend approval, staff proposes that the following changes be made to the plan: elimination of 29 lots, including lots 304 — 312, 323 — 341 and 377 — 379. This recommendation is based on the Town receiving the donation of the open space in Neighborhood 12, dedication of the trail and trailhead to Tortolita Mountain Park; dedication of the 60-acre park in Neighborhood 5 to the Town; an endowment for maintenance of Honeybee Trail; approval of the supplemental water agreement; and meeting the conditions of the PAD amendment. We also recommend that changes to the General Plan open space boundary be identical to approved changes in the PAD open space boundary. Staff recommends that the plan be revised per the recommendations listed above, and the public hearing continued so that a revised plan may be submitted and evaluated by staff and Council for impacts on open space and benefits to the Town, and the General Plan map may be revised as well to reflect changes to the open space boundary, including the addition of open space in Neighborhood 12. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to continue Ordinance No. (0)2000- , Amendments to the 1996 General Plan changing the land use designation on the northern portion of a parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, located in the g ., northwest corner of Oro Valley, from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 Du/ac and 1.3-2.0 Du/ac), to the May3rd, 2000 Town Council hearing, with staff recommendations listed in Exhibit B. OR I move to adopt Ordinance No. (0)2000- , Amendments to the 1996 General Plan changing the land use designation on the northern portion of a parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, located in the northwest corner of Oro Valley, from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 Du/ac and 1.3-2.0 Dulac), following the staff recommendations listed in Exhibit B. OR I move to adopt Ordinance No. (0)2000- , Amendments to the 1996 General Plan changing the land use designation on the northern portion of a parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, located in the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 8 of 8 northwest corner of Oro Valley, from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 Du/ac and 1.3-2.0 Du/ac), following the conditions listed in Exhibit B, and the with the following amendments: . OR I move not to adopt the Amendments to the 1996 General Plan changing the land use designation on the northern a ortion of parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, located in the northwest corner of Oro p Valle from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential (0.6-1.2 Du/ac and 1.3-2.0 Du/ac), and to deny y� p p Ordinance No. (0)2000- , finding that: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)2000- 2. ,7 Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval for OV 11-98-02 Planni _ d Zo i g Administrator V if i jir Ali II Corn 'u r evelop •- D erector ANOri— ' i Town Manager F:\ov\ovII\1998\ov11-98-02\RV11 General Plan Amend March 15 TC supplemental Rpt.doc 1 ORDINANCE NO. (0)2000- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "FOCUS 2020: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN, JULY 1996"; FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF; AND REPEALING ANY OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley adopted a document known as the "Focus 2020: Town Of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996"; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to revise, amend and update this document due to a request for an alternate land use for approximately 840 acres located in Neighborhood 11 of Rancho Vistoso; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Town of Oro Valley General Plan relative to the appropriate land use designation for that property known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11; and having held a public hearing on said map P y amendment; and having made its recommendations to the Town Council to deny a change in the land use designation from Open Space to Low Density Residential 1.2 - 2.0 du/ac; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts a revised Land Use Map as a part of that certain document known as " Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996". Said map revision shall reflect a land use designation of Low Density Residential 0.6-1.2du/ac and 1.3-2.0 du/ac on that parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, as modified by Exhibit B. Three copies of the revised Land Use Map of said document are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. SECTION 2. The effective date of the revised Land Use Map shall be thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. SECTION 3. If anysection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the ordinance or any part of the Land Use Map invalid adopted herein is for any reason held to be or unconstitutional bythe decision of anycourt of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. ORDINANCE NO. (0)2000- PASSED AND ADOPTED Mayor bythe Ma or and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 15th day of March, 2000. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney EXHIBIT B OV11-98-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 shall be eliminated from the proposed plan, including lots 304—312, 323 —341 and 1. Twenty-nine (29) lots on copyreceived byPlanning and Zoning March 13, 2000), and a revised plan shall be 377 379 (based g submitted for review no later than March 31st, 2000. 2. New boundariesopenspace for General Plan s ace shall follow new boundaries of the PAD open space and buildable area. 3. The Town shall receive from the applicant the donation of the open space in Neighborhood 12, dedication of the trail and trailhead to Tortolita Mountain Park; dedication of the 60-acre park in Neighborhood 5; and an endowment for maintenance of Honeybee Trail (amount to be determined and agreed). 4. The supplemental water agreement shall be approved and accepted. 5. Completion of all conditions of the PAD amendment. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION____ MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Dennis Silva, Jr., Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE NO. (Q00-O8 OV9-9 -02A AMENDING THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOP1VM ENT (PADS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 11, RECONFIGURATION OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL REALIGNMENT LOCATED .. .—...,.w.�_ IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BACKGROUND: The above-referenced PAD amendment was continued by Town Council on February 2, 2000. The applicant has met with Staff on two occasions to relating to the environmentally sensitive areas which are a part of this proposal. We discussed the viability of certain lot cluster related to impacts on riparian habitat and rock outcroppings. Staff has scheduled more meetings for the week of March 6th to provide additional information to the Council on March 15th. RECOMMENDATION: To be provided with a supplemental report. SUGGESTED MOTION: To be provided with a supplemental report. Alliki . i i Planni WRI Zoning Administrator Ilir4(5/114.- Community Developme . Director / I g/,!4__ dffr._.... .t AI Town Manager F:\OV\OV9\1998\9-98-2A\PADAMDTC.RPT2.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING ING DATE: March 15,2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUBJECT:• PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)00- OV9-98-02A AMENDING THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 11, RECONFIGURATION OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL REALIGNMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BACKGROUND: re representing the developer, Vistoso Partners, requests a PAD amendment for Rancho The WLB Group, p g p Vistoso, Neighborhood 11. The applicant is proposing development in the northern portion of Neighborhood designated 11, which is currentlydesi nated as open space in the Rancho Vistoso PAD (hereafter PAD) andparks/open as ks/o en s ace in the Town's General Plan land use map. Neighborhood 11 is referredp p space located south and east of undisturbed lands owned by the State of Arizona (State Lands Department), Bureau of Land Management and Pima County Parks and Recreation (Tortolita Mountain Park), the existingRancho Vistoso golf course, and west of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 12, which is north of not currently in the Town's boundary. item was heard bythe Town Council on February 2, 2000 and was continued to this date to allow the This applicantinto and Staff to meet and resolve issues on the placement of lots and encroachment open space. that time, the applicant proposed to develop 133 lots in the open space area. Since that time the At pp applicantplan revised the and met with staff three times to present and discuss the revisions. The key revisions to thep lan are the elimination of some lots and the movement of others so that there are now no building pads in riparian areas or riparian buffers. SUMMARY: Changes Since February 2nd While the officialro osal before the Town Council tonight is the same as was presented in February, the p p applicant willprovide a revised plan which reflects the changes to lot configurations noted above. In the February 2nd report Exhibit C Staff indicated eight areas to be considered as additions to open space. Based on our meeting and a quick review of a portion of the new proposal, the applicant has made the following changes: Area A All of these lots have been eliminated due to encroachment in the riparian buffer. Area B Six lots have been eliminated due to encroachment in the riparian buffer. Area C Two lots have been eliminated, lots have been clustered better, and a shared driveway was provided to limit impacts on a rock outcrop. Area D Seven lots have been eliminated due to encroachment in the riparian buffer and lots have been clustered better. Area E All lots have been pulled back from the riparian buffer. Area F Not evaluated. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 Area G This lot may have been eliminated no plan was provided for this area. Area H Not evaluated. There is no count ofin the remaininglots openspace because we have not yet received all of the p revisions. There is also no revised calculation of fragmented open space. It is only safe to say that is it less than that presented in the first report—which was a loss of open space ranging from no loss to a loss of 100 acres. open Also the spacebeingproposed for dedication to the Town is primarily riparian areas g and mesquite bosque which should have a higher habitat value than the open space in the proposed core of the new development which is primarily upland vegetation. Other Comments The south boundary of the proposed dedication area in Neighborhood 12 is placed on the edge of the bluff into HoneyBee Wash. This is a good location for the boundary, it will allow the developer to that drops develop adjacent of the flatter areas ad'acent to the bluff, and still give the Town the ability to move buildings s back from the bluff if we determine that they may be visible from Honey Bee Wash. RECOMMENDATION: recommends continuance of this proposal until May 3, 2000 to allow the presentation and evaluation Staff p p of the revised proposal. If the Council wishes to act on this item tonight staff recommends approval of the osero d plan with the recent modifications and with the conditions in Exhibit A. p p SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: to approve Ordinance (0) No. 00- , OV9-99-02A Amending the Rancho Vistoso PAD for I move pp Neighborhood 11, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith. OR I move to approve Ordinance (0) No. 00- , OV9-99-02A Amending the Rancho Vistoso PAD for pp Neighborhood ei hborhood 11, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith and the following added conditions: ° OR I move to continue Ordinance (0) No. 00- OV9-99-02A Amending the Rancho Vistoso PAD for Neighborhood 11, finding that: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance (0)00- 2. Exhibit A—Conditions for Approval 3. Exhibit C—Map of Staff Recommended Addition to Open Space F:\Ov9\1998\9-98-2A\PADAMDTCRPTsupplementalreport.d®e / ( ‘‘-'44 1— )*,--)."L Plann J nd Zoning Administrator illatatjte-c,k.. Community Development Director 7 /( fey f,�' r'.e,-.� T ,,,, fr,;4C06;6"., Town Manager ORDINANCE NO. (0)2000- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT AND LAND USE MAP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 11, PROVIDING FOR A RECONFIGURATION OF OPEN SPACE TO VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PROVIDE A PUBLIC TRAIL WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valleyadopted a document known as the "Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Document"; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to revise, amend and update this document due to a request to amend natural open space areas and realignment of the Tortolita Mountain Park Trail located in Neighborhood 11 of Rancho Vistoso; and the Planningand Zoning Commission, having considered an WHEREAS, amendment to the Planned Area Development relative to the appropriate land use designation for property thatknown as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11; and having held a public hearing on said map amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts a revised Planned Area Development as a part of that certain document known as "Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development".. Said map revision shall be as presented on February 2, 2000 with the conditions established by Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The effective date of the revised PAD document shall be thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. SECTION 3. If anysection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the ordinance or any pof the Land Use Map amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of jurisdiction,com etent such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining p portions thereof. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. ORDINANCE NO. (0)2000- (Continued) PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 15th day of March, 2000. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney EXHIBIT A TOWN COUNCIL CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OV9-99-02A RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 PAD AMENDMENT 1. Revise the tentative development plan to eliminate problem areas that encroach into 25% slopes, encroach into riparian areas or their buffers, block wildlife corridors, do not buffer public lands, or extend in to open space so that they violate cluster policies. Specifically eliminate Areas A through G in Exhibit C.. 2. To connect the two large remaining open space areas the roadway will be designed to provide a wildlife- friendly crossing and there shall be at least one 300' connecting corridor consisting of natural (except for the road) open space. 3. The applicant shall provide a revised traffic analysis and drainage study in accordance with OVZCR sections 3-104A4e and 3-104A4j 4. Allp roposed lots must be at least 43,560 square feet, in compliance with the VLDR designation in the PAD. 5. Building pad locations are not finalized at this phase of the project. It will be subject to further review during the platting process. 6. The developer must dedicate a 2-acre site to the Town for water service in this area. 7. The Town's grading ordinance will apply to the proposed areas. 8. A valid pygmy owl survey shall be done prior to issuance of grading permits. 9. Road cross-sections must be submitted and must provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 10. All wash crossing will be designed to be wildlife-friendly using enlarged box culverts with sandy bottoms and enhanced vegetation as well as methods to alert motorists and reduce speeds. 11. There should be a 50-foot natural buffer around at least three sides of those rock outcroppings shown in the Harris study in order to preserve this habitat. 12. The Partners' holdings in Neighborhood 12 will be annexed into the Town. 13. The Neighborhood 12 Area owned by ITC will be secured by the Partners, annexed into, and dedicated to the Town. 14. In Neighborhood 11, the areas of Honey Bee Wash (including the floodplain and riparian areas) and to the north of the wash will dedicated to the public to be held as open space. 15. Dedicate an acceptable trailhead (2 acres) and trail for public access to the Tortolita Mountains. 16. Dedicate the 60-acre Honey Bee Canyon Park to the public. 17. Provide an acceptable endowment for implementation of the Honey Bee Canyon Management Plan and the installation and maintenance of the proposed trial and trailhead. 18. Provide an updated PAD map in digital and color, hard-copy formats. 19. There will be no additional density transfers into the areas considered in this amendment. 20. Provide all proposed changes to Exhibit B including the areas west of the resort site. 21. Provide an acceptable amendment to the supplemental agreement to address water rates. F:\OV\OV9\1998\9-98-2A\PADAMDTCRPT3.doc CU = 0 =.-... � a < r 0 �' - ' 0 m / c� — 1.cl`‹ moo@ iz -v --1 m— CD 73 0 o 0 43 o w �'. � ii v 0 o 08S �ij P1P III III CD = c n ) 2 (nom �ail 7,--. CD CD � DDS 0 = , awnIII . �: ..... CD ,,_ il) r.:,`-.._..--tii-i QIII-----_,4.__,L, c° a .e7,% V lairAflv It, 1 -0 CD 9a073 -17"1) -'' = Q- �' � Qom- oea O _ f1 E. 0 o _ _ _ o --,., -0 . CD I= \ED ti z CD - m 0 o = _ / I_ 1.1_ cn Cs ric - _ w 11! O - ‘ II 11 Illir 2 CJS O if, ', 0 cp 1 4‘0 1 ilinl-.1.40 4111 - Ai' _.�� ;.�il11111� :o. 0 torn>11330—ii 01 _ E. j _.„ :--t 14-.0ffor- 'nos..., ,:,,,L „._.-z,(i) ..., , 'EP, 1.13 (1) O1 .cl`‹ moo@ iz O �r .17 4D 1- CD k- -'11iII) CA �_- 41t• =fix 1cp \ Ui(M:1 _W. f.' 111111 r �.v s. u� 1111itp FEji i �x103):1111 --14,4)0 13k1)� /oO' d` Z69/U-CuY - March 14, 2000 • Vistoso capabilitiesdevelop responsibly i to are not an issue for me. I'm • developin sensitive areas responsibly - of course, the satisified that they will • ' ' still changed forever regardless of how responsibly the sensitive areas are sti g g development occurs. we should set aside the requirements of the General • The issue is whetheri Plan in exchange for other values. What's most important - maintaining strict priorities - or trading to a set of citizen those priorities for control over Honey Bee, an adjustment in water rates and additional property. IT SHALL BE THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE MEETS THE ... LISTED FINDINGS • g ua Lang e is unmistakable - all four findings must be met • They're not - clearly #1 & #3 are not, but consider #2 : Y THE VISION GOALS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN • ' = 100% that is, if the application fails one policy but meets 39 Consistent others, the application is in- consistent. • Applicatio n fails to meet Policies 6.2 G & B - Open Space Preservation • Application complies with Policies 6.1 A & B - Connectivity + Dedication • Fails Goal 8.1 - Complies with Goal 9.1 • Inconsistent. Denied ? Not Necessarily! In thep rivate sector exceptions to policy are NOT rare. know• that exceptions must be justified Executives and documentedp • Otherwise theexception is arbitrary, and policy credibility is destroyed Higher standards in Public Sector because of wider range of stakeholders impacted. • Excep tions should be rare and well justified and documented • best for the Town, but explain, justify and sell your decision Do what's p • override G.P. requirements & approve, justify your decision. If you q • If you override e the General Plan requirements - get $ - to complete the park land we alread own, but aren't willing, or able, to fund Y iivinvvv` .viv la 1? 1.3 Amendments to and Update of the General Plan Focus 2020: Oro Valley General Plan constitutes a land use policy statement that was created based upon prevailing needs, existing development pattern, underlying zoning classifications, considerations for man-made constraints, natural constraints, environmentally sensitive lands, opportunities for development, accepted planning practices, and considerable public input. Over a period of time, any of these variables are subject to change. Consequently, the general plan must periodically be reviewed and amended to ensure that it remains an effective policy guide. However, amendments to the plan should never be allowed to occur in a haphazard manner. Amendments to the general plan should only occur after careful review of the request, findings of facts in support of the revision, and public hearing(s) by the planning and zoning commission and town council. The statutory requirements as they pertain to the adoption of the general plan shall be followed for all amendments as they pertain to public hearings and otherwise. The term amendments shall apply to both text and map revisions. When a zoning change is proposed. staff determines its compliance with the general plan. If a proposed zoning change is not in compliance, the applicant will be required to amend the general plan prior to initiating a rezoning. Staff will also determine if a text amendment is required. The granting of a general plan amendment will be based on following findings of fact: • That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time. • That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan. • That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. • 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 processes. Amendments to the Focus 2020: Oro Valley General Plan may be initiated by the town or by a land owner. Such amendments must be in accordance with the procedures set forth in the state statutes and the Town of Oro Valley zoning ordinance. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that the change meets the above listed findings. The General Plan will be updated by the Town every five years using the current General Plan as a point of departure by evaluating the effectiveness of current General Plan in meeting all community goals and determining necessary modifications. Focus 2020: Oro Valley General Plan 1-3 -b--td 45-15-7:90, SANTA MONICA Pg Los ANGELES IRVINE Or March 15, 2000 P C R Town Council TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Re: Resolution of Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Connectivity Design Issues for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, Oro Valley Dear Council Members: been prepared byPCR Services Corporation (PCR) on behalf of our client, This letter has p p Vistoso Partners. It presents our analysis,l sis, recommendations and conclusions regarding wildlife y corridor and habitat connectivitydesignissues for the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 (Neighborhoodproject, located in the northwest corner of Oro Valley. 11) , Inc. prepared a wildlife habitat study for Harris Environmental Group,As you are aware the p the project in 1998 (Harrisp Environmental Group, Inc. 1998),1 hereafter referred to as the "Harris letter is not necessarilyto refute the findings and recommendations of Study". The purpose of this e the Harris Study. Rather, this analysis is intended to provide additional information based on case specific analysis and redesign literature review, lot p y efforts by the project engineer, the WLB Group, Inc. By providing this additional information,it is PCR's intent to address and resolve Town staff issues that have arisen before, duringand after the February 2, 2000 Public Hearing before the reviewingthe staff reports prepared for that hearing and meeting with Town Town Council. After p staff members, Bryant Nodine and Melissa Shaw, at the project site on March 6, 2000, PCR understands these issues to revolve around the loss and fragmentation of habitat (particularly rock 1 of potentiallyincompatible project design features. For purposes of discussion, outcrops) as a result p these issues may be broken down into the following component parts: 1. The direct loss of habitat; 2. Habitat buffers; 3. Corridor/linkage width; 4. Encroachments into corridors/linkages; and, 5. Site specific design features. PCR has adhered to a hierarchy of its own analysis of these components In conducting t y p common to current conservation biology thinking;that is,to first attempt to avoid impacts approaches to important resources; then to attempt to minimize impacts to important resources; and finally, attempt to preserve important resources as compensation for losses. PCR is well qualified and versed 1Harris Environmental Group, Inc. in association with Dr. William W. Shaw. 1998. Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 Wildlife Habitat Study. One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618-3328 INTERNET www.pernet.com TEL 949.753.7001 Fax 949.753.7002 , r.. p Town Council Town of Oro Valley March 15,2000-Page 2 bp nd we have attached a Summary Statement of Qualifications as background in the biological practice a A). That PCR is versed in the application of its practice to wildlife corridor material (Attachment P bythepartial list of projects PCR and its personnel have been involved with studies maybe evidenced provided in Attachment B. Following is our analysis. Direct Loss of Habitat staff reports the proposed project, as amended as of February 2, 2000, will ,� According to the p p p negatively affect (i.e. approximately41 acres of identified habitat. The staff report directly impact) .' negative impacts can be mitigated if an interconnected system comprised of the goes on to state that ga p � - _ valuable habitat is preserved. Presumably, the term "most valuable habitat" refers to major most riparian n corridors rock outcroppings and the ragweed/brittlebush/mesquite association.Interconnectivity issu1116 es will be addressed later in this letter. Notwithstanding,PCR understands that is prepared Partnersp ared to set aside 103 acres in the northern portions of its Neighborhood 12 projectopen space. PCR hasthisin the field and in our opinion its resources, as permanent seen area 1 ed and healthymesquite bosques is superior habitat to that proposed to be including well deve op q impacg impacted in Neighborhood 11. It is PCR's opinion that the linkage between habitat to remain in Neighborhood hborhood 11 after construction and the juxtaposition of the Neighborhood 12 reserve area to Mit 9 000 acres of open space will more than mitigate the loss of 41 acres of habitat. the adjacent 8,000 to p p Habitat Buffers Studyrecommended that disturbance of rock outcroppings and the adjacent The Harris 50-foot minimized. The staff report stated that there should be a 50-foot buffer around vegetation should be p preserve this habitat (interpreted to mean avoided altogether). In the hierarchy rock outcroppings toof conservation biology thinking, these are two different approaches. PCR is unaware of any "after amendments to the 1998 Harris Study and there may or may not have been publication" communications between Harris and Town staff since its publication. In either case,PCR believes the approach toguide project designis minimization of disturbance as originally most appropriate y recommended in the Harris study. Further, we believe minimization of disturbance to rock oft Upon has been achieved. U on our examination of the latest design iteration it is clear that ' ri of the rock outcrops, particularlythe largest ones, are within areas designated as open the majority p outcroppings, the maj ori are within designated lots, but are not affected by space. Of the smaller majority . minorportion of the smallest outcroppings appear to be "touched" by pad building pads. Only a deveopPCR's opinion, _ development. In this is an effective and successful consequence of the minimization approach. Corridor/Linkage Width of tryingto establish generalized rules and guidelines, a minimum corridor/linkage In terms width may, peps, rha be the most difficult component issue to reach consensus on, and therefore, Town Council Town of Oro Valley March 15,2000-Page 3 d recommended that linkages around washes should include the flood plain resolution. The Harris Study g _ meters on either side of the flood plain limits),or 300 feet (150 feet on either side plus 100 meters (50 plain limits. The Harris Studywent on to state that this was a minimum width Of the washes' flood p a . mule deer. The staff applied the standards outlined in the Honey Bee Canyon to ensure use by PP Management Plan which prescribes a corridor width of 150' either side of the centerline of the affected recommendation the Harris Studycited Mann and Plummer (1995)2 and wash. In support of their Simberloff et al. (1992)3 as sources supporting the notion that the size and shape of linkage is a mater of debate. However, the Harris Studycited Krausman4 to support a width of at least 100 meters (approximately 300 feet) to allow the passage of mule deer. In its own literature review,PCR came across a similar void in attempting to discover hard and fast rules as to minimum corridor widths. In the case of scientific literature such as Schaefer and 5 and Beier and Noss (1998) ;white papers such as Beier(1992),8 and Brown (1992) ,Budd et al. (1987) 10 9 Envicom (1993),h1Noss et al. (Date Unknown), Beier (Date Unknown), case studies such as 2Mann, C.C. and M.L. Plummer. 1995. Are Wildlife Corridors the Right Path? Science 270:1428-1430. 3Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox, and D. W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments? Conservation Biology 6:493-504. 4Krausman, Dr. P.R. The University of Arizona. Personal communication. 5 M.T.Brown. 1992. Designing and Protecting River Corridors for Wildlife. Schaefer,J.M.and gn g Rivers Vol. 3 No. 1:14-26. P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream Corridor Budd, W.W, Management: Determination of Stream Corridor Widths. Environmental Management Vol. 11 No. 5:587-597. 'Beier P. and R.F. Noss. 1998. Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity? Conservation Biology Vol. 12 No. 6:1241-1252. 8Beier, P. 1992. A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors. Unpublished. Noss. R.,P.Beier,and W. Shaw. Date Unknown. Evaluation of the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor. Unpublished. 'Beier,1 r,P. Date Unknown. Orange County Mountain Lion Study. Unpublished. 11Env icom Corporation. 1993. A Consideration of Wildlife Movements in the Santa Susana Mountains. Prepared for HMDI Incorporated, Los Angeles, California. Town Council Town of Oro Valley March 15,2000-Page 4 California State PolytechnicUniversity,Universi , Pomona (1997),12 and Edelman (199 1)13...all are mute on the subject of corridor width. In all the literature reviewed, however, one statement stood out which appears to be a truism in realityand that is, the issue here is not how wide an ideal corridor should be but whether d mited options that remain are adequate to provide a functional biological linkage (Noss, et al., Date the extremely�' p q Unknown). Remembering Neighborhood Nei hborhood 11 is in its planning and design stage and if the term . options" (implyinga ost construction condition) is removed,the statement would extremely limited p p 11 if it were rephrased to read "the issue is not how wide an ideal easily apply to NeighborhoodP . but whether o tions can be provided that are adequate to provide a biological corridor should be p Taking this thought further, the term "biological linkage" must be defined as applying to linkage." ag ouk g one s ecies as indicated in the Harris Study. It should be nterpreted to apply to more than justi p . species includinginsects, amphibians, reptiles, birds,and all types of mammals. Going even multiplep �� P � on one species such further, the term "adequate" should not apply only to a set width that is based p q . Itshould take into account: (1) the fact that low xeroriparian areas are not highly as the mule deer. distinct from surroundingupland vegetation and wildlife will move through an area that is 50 meters g drainage centerline on one side of a wash and 250 meters wide on the other; (2) the fact wide from the that intervenintopography, such as rock outcrops can effectively screen residences dences from passing . • (3) the fact that topographic relief over the area in general is not severe and upland areaswildlife,and are almost as easily negotiated by wildlife as the wash bottoms. It isfor these reasons PCR does not believe that a blanket policy of 300-foot wide corridors should be applied. To the credit of the WLB Group, the project engineer, after at least two iterations g of lotting anddesign withs input,pad PCR' iut, there are few cases where building pads encroach of awash centerline. In these cases,however,as well as others throughout the Rancho • within 300 feet Vistoso development, other factors must be considered in order to find the corridor/linkage adequate. This must be done on a site specific basis in order to make sense;and, in some connectionq cases fully functional corridors/linkages can be achieved in less than 300 feet. Encroachments Into Corridors/Linkages Encroachmentspg potentialPcorridors/linkages representing impediments to movement along take two forms in Neighborhood 11: One is roads, and the other is the golf course. As to roads, Mader 0 'California State Polytechnic University,Pomona. 1997. Puente Hills Corridor: Greenspace n ctivi for Wildlife and People. Prepared for the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority, Connectivity p P Whittier, California. 13Edelman P. 1991. Critical Wildlife Corridor/Habitat Linkage Areas Between the Santa Susana Mountains, Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California. 16, Town Council Town of Oro Valley March 15,2000 -Page 5 (1988)14p cites several components that can act as barriers to wildlife movement, including bare road surfaces,altered roadside habitats,traffic noise and headlight and streetlight illuminations. The effects of f each of these components will be,or can be alleviated to less than significant within Neighborhood 11. First,there is evidence to suggest that the widths proposed in Neighborhood 11 will not represent serious barriers in the firstplace. Oxleyet al. (1974)15 concluded that clearance between habitats on of a road was the most important factor inhibiting movement by animals. In their study, either side P white-footed mice and eastern chipmunks were found to cross roads with a clearance of up to 30 r (approximately90 of between patches of habitat. On the other hand, the metes feet) roadway authors observed that frequent crossings by medium-sized mammals such as woodchucks,eastern gray squirrels, and striped skunks occurred only on roads less than 62 feet wide. At only four locations roads with aP aved width of 20 feet cross corridors within Neighborhood 11. This would suggest we . in with a minor issue at best. In combination with these roads not exceeding the threshold are dealing widths suggested by Oxley et al. (1974), the project proposes the following: 1. g Revegetation of native vegetation upto the edge of paved surfaces at all corridor road crossings; 2. Minimal traffic noise and headlight illuminations due to a 15 mile per hour speed limit and overall rural residential traffic flows; 3. No street lighting, and, 4. Culverts under roads where they cross drainages identified as corridors. Consideringresults from research andproposed road design features,PCR believes roads will not pose a serious threat to wildlife movement to small and medium-sized animals, let alone larger animals and birds who will make surface crossings at will. With regard to golf course development,develo there is an interesting phenomenon that occurs in arid regions. Golf courses actuallytend to attract wildlife in desert environs because of the associated moisture. Whereas, it can be argued that this represents an unnatural condition, it nonetheless does notP revent wildlife movement through golf courses as part of a wider corridor area. In fact, as part ogY f the state and federal region-wide Natural Communities Conservation Plan programs adopted and being planned in semi-arid Southern California,golf courses are used as special linkages to supplement 14Mader H.J. 1998. Corridors and Barriers in Agro-ecosystems. In Proceedings of the VIII International P m SY osium on Problems in Landscape Ecological Research. Institute for Experimental Biology and Ecology, Czechoslovakia. 15OxleY, D. . M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. 1974. The Effects of Roads on Populations J of Small Mammals. Applied Ecology 25:1073-1087. Town Council Town of Oro Valley March 15,2000 -Page 6 Here again,PCR believes golf courses will not represent a serious barrier to wildlife reserve systems. ga movement if developed within corridors/linkages. Site Specific Design Features designfeatures relatingto buildingpad placement behind rock outcrops and Several general features have been outlined above. However,there are additional general and site specific design features when deliberatingtheproposed project. Most,if not all,of these appeared in the to be considered on P pose February 2, 2000 Townp . staff report. We have in turn discussed these with Vistoso Partners and they appear to acceptable, _ be as we understand it, in order to further mitigate for potential impacts to These features include: prohibitions on boundary fencing or walling outside the wildlife movement.immediate building pad area, the strict use of native plant landscaping materials; and, a homebuyers other materials to educate residents on the value of desert habitat and wildlife education pamphlet and . 'n these values (e.g., direct all house and yard lighting away from corridor areas). and how to susta.i Conclusion Based oy n the above analysis, s opinion is PCR' that the Neighborhood 11 project will have no significant effect og n wildlife movement through and about the area; connectivity will be provided between and among important ortant habitat areas; the deleterious effects of habitat fragmentation will not be realized;and, any loss of habitat will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. you hope helpful that this information is hel fl to in reaching a decision regarding the project. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION itd14.1 -1 teve G. Nelson Director of Biological Services cc: Richard Maes, Vistoso Partners Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group Attachment A PCR Services Corporation � Biological Services Summary Statement of Qualifications 1 1 1 1 t 1 ik 1 ' ff"i to !, $' `eb I i ..„,...,,,,..._ ., x 1 . I Sery e BoIogica1 1 IFICATIO ; *I NIENT OF Q-1-3 1 SUT'YINLAR11,-,,, „ „ ,,,,..„-_,..--.,,,,.., - - ,, „..,,,.,......„..,. .,,,,. ., ,.„. i .,,,,,,,,,, ,, , _,, „,.- c ,,, ,,.,,,,,i , - _ - , , ,_., „ ,,,,,, . c a: z ` N , g...., , _......,_.,, , , _ . :,„,,-...,,,,,,.,,„.„, ,.•,,:, ., _, „._.,.....„,,,,,...,,,,,,„.„,...,,,,, 2g i y 38 Y k k { r,, ' - +0 3: d >t p I ' ,0 ^# V ,pE , .., � ''' z ,,, r , , ook , , ,, ; ,, .. r ,It., i ' ,d,:.,,, ; ♦ �) ,wn 'fit ' � �, ,---... .,,,i.t.h< rf# e 4. 7',- ' ; �<� . - , . 1 , —,_ , - .. s.-_ \ 1:. w �FTJa`' '''''''''''''':::::-.':':','22-: �CG.6�PS { <<. '`:..,7...;,i,,:"!..,':,.‘,,,:,-, to a lit ::,....„,:::.;:; i r '-',:1::"g'":::';';',,,:,1:::::::::;:i'',. l,,.‘,44:?,:tii:,,,,,7,,ii,:::;:,:::.'‘, ''',:;,i,-..':;-::,-':-'s's:-'-:,-,--i''--2''.,-'-',-:--,„-,*:'''',,,c,:!:'-.:,-,,, a ''''.';'''''' - ,' , ,,-'-- .' iiiit '„golit%.til*.'_.,..— '11:".14 4-..,i......--..-. %,,,:lie:::,Fii..,?„,::,-,,,,,,,,,.......!,,,,,,,i,-,,,,-,....:,:'„,.: -._ -‘ r�"�5��"�{'ms ��,"� �°` a� �,rE �i a 1 ,, � �_ � e.,- �+1F• �. .) ., 1... ,-Agir-.4 .-41..--""-r--2,,,,..: 1111 "g�x � �x }r-^H€^l a �' x -' s ee a}w �`�'1' - .' w•r. � F„a 'r rY v , a -'a 1+ fs E m`ice` � FB��et��� f s �` � r � .t t .7-...4",.7.:7,-;,. .rn • s �r� t a x `s*r s � 's +� fpt�a�� �roK�} ����[ � + * , �',. �-"�{: ,* ' sl�► °`,ay.�M '���z� r- -p '�� �'i'�s I �6 J'L f” i'S i ; �.,�.ir' ...� 7..,,,,_ 3 �' ��' ��.� . : ? r- � �• s✓ '_ �_ "t`.�, z ... - .. { ..,,..., ..."" -. rare. .. . �a ��-w.t>._ ... ,� to r u . v r x.... ".�. ". . .'�... :ems�,. v,. x �. ,. .. .,_��...,. ,.-..:,... .....: �, :-.2,- o ... . .,...... .. --`„':''=„:,'-',.,:'!:;:i:-::..„7,' .. W. .. .� >. lv.. �. .... ...,_.�,tom.,.. �......:>. �'... "�. �. E,.k. s ., e r i3e..k.'s ,.,. £,,.._h;:iit:?:': K'2"-@1s',. s:.{. &� .3:. "' i.,1;' ''':':, ' �. r '.ate`. - '�x 'I''''''''!'i ,..-,.. ..., :-. ,.':,-$:- .., ,....M...,.. J�p.>�..<<.,.',...;,:-.1. r +^..z ..,7,"._ .. .,,.. ,tk s-:::_,I,,s g� ', . ^.s§ ''a'' n ... ..: g,,. ..,,.Y3,I A3r ,.....azar -- s...�,... .,,; .-.., ," � ,' 0,.. _..'.f £.'ter: �r..,...., . d, ...,; -..,,. ...,' ` €" .��> ..: . ..ms:.... ..,;���.', ,�... . �' .�`<..... :,. 3z ,t. �.: ,.,.,... Vit;„, ., .. .,:., -,..: �,. .,.... ... .._ ,.. .tee: °Y- .. N, .a..:F F.., e �,.e 3 ..... < ...�. .., .._.. , ._" g,. _ a.a" s..,,.._ . � .. :..`x., � ,:..s, $tea 1::i.;:ili,,':-::::f;',;;Itif,',,i,,,,-;;:ii;:,,,-:-Ii.;:::::-.,:!:;‘,.--;„,'-,':','''''-,.-1::::-',,'::.'''":,.,<:—.,,J;7';'''''''''.:,;';,,-: : -:',. ' ' z- aEa n a,::,,,,,:- --'.,e -...:--`: - --- , lilli 1111111111 r.' -rh- t".0 te; r r:';'::-...:::°:".''4:1fl',-4.‘'.3':::''.—,::,:::-.,:::' m3$ � ::::::f-::::1-1:::',.:':,..2.-'' . x'3`` ' , c a _ III '',..t!'',4:i.,,:iififi::,:,',,,,:;,-,:i.:,:-;::::',.!:'‘‘..,-,-',..-,,,,.,,,,----":,-,,,,,,---' ,;',,',.",,,', ,:,,,,-, -' s�D:� At,,^4O r �4 'h "z � � t1K'3 to,,- i f `V 3• {. „� ,,, �zr ��F o. x ; 1�4 - T k- s ,'y z , 4 F ' ' ' -* - '--- ' CORPORA 3 z' e h '' , , .,, „ p _ - TI°N ''''' ' ' , . ', ' , , , , ' CR °ER f. rsjc-ar sa'- Y C viCES _ ,,.. ....,..„, ,, ., , , ,,., _ ,.. , ,.,„„,_,..„,,...„ , ... , , , , , ., . , , , . _,,, _,,.-,- -,-,_, ,- -- . . _ ,. ,...., „,,,,,„.„„. ,i,...:, , ...,. ,. ,... , ...., I I I 11111111111lliii, I PCR ,____,-..--,--..-.,j I .a I I � Man-made changes in environments everywhere have been ongoing I rY throughout history. However, the pace of such change, as well as progress in understanding its consequences, have accelerated in recent decades. ii Environmental interest and policy now influence, and occasionally C determine, political reality in many parts of the world. As a result, entities that utilize or regulate land and related resources are increasingly Ichallengedby these forces and their associated constraints, often at the very time that their contributions are more and more vital to local, � I national and worldwide economies. I Services Corporation, by and practice, is seeking to PCR p objective recon cile and define the balance between the environmental and ism economic priorities that will shape our future. We invite you to review the following capabilities and to contact us when you require assistance and solutions to environmental issues faced in your business, industry, institution or jurisdiction. . , i Biological Services In recent years, federal, state and local environmental regulatory agencies have significantly increased their jurisdictional activities, and the listing of endangered species grows daily. Wetlands and other biologicalresources are • important considerations for public and private decision-makers as they affect p project feasibility and design. PCR's Biological Services Division offers complete resource management planning,nin from initial issue identification and biological survey work to final entitlement through per- mitrocessin , development of restoration plans and mitigation monitoring. p g =a : 'l fr . . jects forward,while preserving the • Mitigation and Monitoring inte integrity of develo ment goals and the Program Development;and .. .`�. ..h:. , • g ty P g :r �: = � um- : :: :•. = � :.;:t, :r : Whatever the circ ..�yjj � ,.:.: .;�ti' {. environment. Revegetation and Restoration Plans. f Vr :::•I' • j?-:: ;i:i; � -:. = *•'�� stance PCR provides analysis and media- .1:_ •• `• •.{{ ;;l;r .,.•{:: LLL;.:I:' .• �}L ,•;:•::• 7 :;: :.ti;:i;;:,.•~':$}::;:�til'�!��}��ivti�~{��':i}:.Yy{'�::•.;• '�••' •}-• LCL'':{ :O j:•� ..••\'' :•*::::}. ti:LSN', •:'..tiM tion to effectively address the most corn- _'' '{ �`" \ � Environmental ±Regulatory }.;:';fS•' ;.<'r titi•ti}. .}r.;; ti vtiti{•:;:;::tiv:tiff :i-•• -- '-�'`. A : :: :. • .:•• - :LL•: '::� lex of natural resource planning needs- -:,•,..:` �� °rti�:Z:��ti�: .�titi}�.•:{.�a�ba .{.,�ti;�• �ti Lam,�.�¢ti: p Compliance --IiinaiiSe ...:kie.:::1:''..iiiiii .. ~ ;*- :t :.�ti::�':i.::: Biological Assessment Services L ;If:::]: ,. Y PCR facilitates all necessary consultation :: :& ;:7:$.; i:•: {.: :t i :i};k. :• _{�:h- AAP L : .T .; :..'j � L SA^• with resource agency personnel and `�� ':�'��� Successful environmental compliance-: - Y ..**6.* :,f •:� guides clients through permit application V: • f f '` �: • begins with a thorough knowledge of the L��-�y���ti��f4' �:�' �`j•�; — :— processes,while providing the necessary �.:6, :: =.:;'� -:7-.:j ecology and natural processes. PCR ��•�ff^ `�f� �'°��'`'�•''�~ supporting documentation pursuant to ogists and botanists are experienced in the The PCR Biological Services Division is performance of comprehensive and CEQA,NEPA and other statutes and reg- p g J reg- comprised of a diverse team of experi- focused biological resource surveys on ulations. PCR is experienced in the devel- 0, enced and accredited resource manage- large and small sites throughout the west- opment of technical reports,mitigation ment specialists. These individuals offer a plans and Memoranda of Understanding P ern United States. PCR staff members wide array of expertise including wildlife are ermitted bythe California Depart- in consultation with resource agencies. P P PCR has successfully,waters planning, and Wildlife Service to perform protocol biology,botany,wetlands ecology,soil sci- ment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish Additionally, imple- ence, restoration lannin watershed mented numerous mitigation plans and management and regulatory permitting. surveys,for a wide array P of species. The has performed construction and mitiga- Its greatest strengths lie in its ability to Division's Biological Assessment Services tion monitoring including: successfully integrate highly technical include: data into , regulatory and • Federal and State Endangered Species P g Act(ESA); resource management processes in ways • General Biological Assessments; that advance solid decision-makin • Sections 7 & 10 Consultation & g' • ▪ Habitat Evaluations; Through in-depth knowledge of land Permits; • Focused Surveys for Endangered and development,the natural environment4. Threatened Species; • Habitat Conservation Plans(HCPs); and regulatory processes, PCR's services • Oak Tree Surveys; • Construction/Mitigation Monitoring; are defined by state-of-the-art technical and and management assistance to usherro- • Vegetation Mapping;No • P CEQA/NEPA Documentation. a p i. Biological Services Who to Contact: WetlandsCalifornia ali fo rni a Fish and Game Code d e Str�` .0 ;1.: ivi Section 1601/1603 Agreements ,:1p lls Q 0 0 110.01...t..i •....;. : .... .. ...•:.•: : ::::::i::::.::::.:: iii.iiitigliglRilliPPI!:1.:."7:7777i „„7: :i7::„::::::: Wetland regulationu 1ation i n CaliforniaC alp fo rn 'ai s co m- U SAr Army Corps P s of Engineers gin eer sC Clean Qo plex dynamic.namic. Activities in wetlands, Wat Water Act t (CW A) -Section 4 04 streams,and other water bodies are ov- • Perm its 1�C) N•h'f tr�P S B §P C,• Jr eg+.0 :•:�:�.1:. ......: ..:�:. .:.1.� • erred bythe federal Clean Water Act, 1ii. 1:i:ii:�::;::: ;5:::0: :o:':.: 3:: iiii ii :' . .,.:1:::;. • P1ansandMitia •� ..•.• � administered bythe U.S.ArmyCorPsofWetlandMitigation •� ��� ��111 .::::'• ;.,�"%••ir. . ;1-• ;� :oi.�.... . .• 1:� : Engineers(Cors` However,state and tion Banking Agreements ;-•, .,. :.I / � ..,;• ' %.•::•711(,•if;J ....g...-.'.:A::' : :� :'� >localagencses�such as the California Wetland Functional Assessments . .•: : 1 ;1 � :�::' # .;..•: {' : •;.•• .� _ : 1111.::`a' _ :::.;<,....:::.,:-.......:..:. �"; � t , .Department of Fish and Game,the Cali- • 01 Certifca- gi':::::;i:tx:#1:',:::,:,iii..,...i..4..:.:..i.. ; . ;,Clean Water Act Section 4 fornia Coastal Commission and individ- r:x�oJ J• . tions and Water Quality Management I J▪ ""'. ual municipalities,may also regulate wet- ♦4 :: " Plans .' ,'f ::'1:, lands and establish jurisdiction separate r ..: :' ` ' PCRr71.g, •�:•. • •�▪.,�:from federal regulatory authority. GIS :p>... �; .�>:.::'�::mation Services - � �i•��::.. % �. ecolo ists,soil scientists,and botanists are Geographic I :.�,. : . ;, wetland delineators,familiar :r: «: ti• qualified ': ;. 1t •. `: 1111 :%: 11;1• , PCR offers expert Geographic Informa ;` ., with all applicable regulations,possesse....,:....:..-..:.:7::::,.p::.,:it, :„.,.,.:;.. �•�:'.have extensive tion S stems(GIS)and cartographic ser- ::. :;: • ..... .... Corps-certifiedtraining, Y field experience in a broad range of vices to augment analytical and planning strengths are grounded in the ability to coastal and inland environments,and are processes related to natural resources and integrate highly technical biological data skilled in the subtleties of performing other disciplines. GIS encompass a range into multi-disciplinary planning processes delineations in southern California's semi- of data input,manipulation,analytical, and use creative thinking to resolve issues. grid climate. PCR professionals are expe- and map making capabilities that facili- As a result of our problem-solving orien- tate in a broad suite of wetland evalu- tate precise,quantifiable impact analysis includingtation,approach to assignments,and ation and planning processes, and enable the production of superior t and application of wetland timely execution of project deliverables, re- development pp graphic products for documentation,pre- unctional assessment models,water ual- CR's GIS our distinguished clients attest to the con- t qual- or publication. P itymanagementplans,mitigation and fidence PCR Biological Services has ag g Services,together with the Graphics monitoringplans,mitigation banking earned by awarding repeat business time Department,support environmental d oc- agreements,and resource management and time again. umentation,presentation graphics,per- plans. PCR is also one of the few firms mining applications,and mitigation in the country to accurately perform monitoring programs. PCR uses functional assessments of aquatic ArcView®software and extensions,as resources. well as Vector Works®CAD software,for r.: .: their broad application spectrum and **;. i compatibility with other platforms. '''.E.-..::r6'"' ii..`=•,ti, Additionally,PCR provides extremely �•::.:-1111.. ::: �;f 1111:. y. ••• .:�•.:•• =: - '` : •. collection through % Y �� .f%�:::%r ::: • accurate spatial data co g 1:L/K.:;tilliirteillil*:::.:...,..."1:1.11,::."44:i 'i'iliki•41 '1 :- X::qac:1•'•:•1::•1•::::::.• : ..•:::4:',: %r,.-•,:y'',`: }; % : � the use of state-of-the-art Trimble® {{mo�i:::::::ti::4::•1111• %: •r{y.::: .•. -f. : .:' 'onin S stems GPS e ui:� •:;;�;.::: :....•.,:•�: . Global Posits g y ( ) 9 P;; . •' :: ti� :f:�:%1�: V�; •,Y •1111:••:: •: •.77�.'.'' . 11 ' '''':: ::;:::.:.,,.......'...:1::::::::‘4::::::0440# mens. PCR uses the combination of GIS • '�of J�Y{?... .f.., �• •' 11. :: '•. ..) i.i 11.1:;; .;•:+%�.}, ''%j,•.>,•�'`ti�,•• 4i:•:::. ••J�.irj• •�'':{;:r ' •` 1111 {;1111:�;:•. �'�S y:. 1, :%f: : ::: ': Y,:::.,...iti,;:. GPS data and field biology :. •: • :��•�� •. '•' Y'.:�•i I...fi andgenerated ' �C%ti:;:; ;:<p`, :�.<• '<!1en 1.11• ':"�::it�•`;�:�:}?{C:�' ':y.. .. 11.11:Ogi u,;: .;:.{.;.: s : ,,.Y,`1 1111:,.;•.�:.' J'YI••:}•;��•. •.. { ` :J f f. a '`� :.:....•. :�, to produce accurate,interactive CD- : ti f f ig :0 111: tilt•J. J • 1.11:: ' /��,:}.�':: r 1111:.Jf.::a::;:•..• :�•ti:f: 1:!?C•: .�.••.'.:.':.:q/'•••'•••.•••.,.••.�::{:r;;:'• •;:;.1;.r 1111••:�•�:,:.: • : -f:''• ^.•::. :u :• • based resources management tools to '.orf;: � . �f:.:��.:.::.:.:i:..•y17:;'.•::..::.$::r..: •'. g .���• � : ��•c�::�.::.?�:::::::::�1111:::�•: �:{:. :f;.:s� � ::,s�..::k::.s••::1111.: :;.r.1� � greatest <= f ::u = •'•.•J' '•:::fi���� i•. clients needs. PCRs : �•: ;�:...:�:•.::f.;:•r. {��11.1: meet our .:'�'.�::'v'.::%sirs.....'%i4::. �:y�:.....'��:.........--•..tessi;:iJ•.•.• 1111:::x:.: f'. me Project Experience South Orange County Aquatic Resources ) Mission Viejo Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)Rancho CLIENT PROJECT PCR was retained by Rancho Mission Viejo for both technical :-eg r �. • and administrative/coordination roles in the South Orange �� � � .? q t Counry SAMP The overall goal of the effort is to analyze the x „ t dD pF �w }fT + -4,41:4740"4::.se .. Vi rx ,r functional condition of the aquatic resources in two South :� • y�~�a. • j,,. r , M t_ Orange Countywatersheds and use this information to develop a �` w �, ^<, '¢ ��� ,•�`,:�'V144' Q g : x °, A »d long-term strategy to balance development and resource manage- iLk•;',11.-ti:' ° x ment goals. ;* F '� • ateo watersheds are currentl •U`A � �z,� " •� _ , •, � ' ' � The San Juan and upper San M y x rx v ' being investigated for development of an NCCP program (to address impacts to endangered,threatened,and sensitive species) x Y ' • x and a local entitlement process for buildout of the area. To com- `y �.-tl '� E plement these efforts, the main landowners have also embarked ; on development of an aquatic resource Special Area Management - °. _< : ` Plan (SAMP) with the Corps of Engineers. These three efforts will enable future land use plans in this area to be comprehen- sive) evaluated. Existingresources are being investigated to iden- playing a critical role in the analysis of alternatives and develop- Y ti discrete areas where future development can occur in a way mens of mitigation and management plans. PCR will be part of that minimizes impacts on aquatic and upland resources. The a multi-disciplinary team that will develop a comprehensive long- product will be an identification of development bubbles,reserve e term aquatic resources management plan. This plan willformthe areas, linkag es, and restoration areas. The development bubbles basis for the development and processing of programmatic autho- will include design criteria to minimize impacts on aquatic autho- rizations under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and g resources within the bubbles. The reserve areas will include long- 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. term management plans. The outcome will be programmatic per- mits from the Corps,FWS,and CDFG for future impacts to wet- lands and sensitive species PCR is coordinating the evaluation of aquatic resources and devel- opment of the SAMP for this effort. PCR is working with the Corps to perform a planning level delineation and landscape-scale functional assessment of aquatic resources in the two study water- sheds(total study area is around 50,000 acres). This task involves evaluation of remotely sensed data,ground truthing,development of assessment models, development of restoration and manage- ment plans,and GIS analysis. PCR is also assuming the lead role in coordinating related hydrology, sediment transport, and other studies required by NEPA and CEQA(subcontractors will do the analysis, while PCR will coordinate the overall effort). PCR is �I_ Project Experience Wetland Creation Project Planning, Design, and Monitoring for Orangecrest Project, Communities Southwest City of Riverside, California CLIENT PROJECT PCR provided comprehensive wetland delineation, regulatory, and mitigation design and monitoring services for the 1,300 unit, 500 acre Orangecrest residential subdivision in Riverside County, �$ >w evaluation was complicated bya historyof . California. Initial site p ..�� ,,, :• -, extensive agricultural activities on the site,which obscured much �r of the natural geomorphic and biologic features of the site. The Project involved impacts to aquatic resources that required • om r compensatory mitigation. PCR ecologists coordinated with the client and the agencies to develop several mitigation opportunities °r' « ` for theY1,,ro osed action that were consistent with the Arm CorpsP P - ,. .. of Engineers Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines. A Mitigation and Monitoring lan was developed that addressed k mitigation requirements, monitoring guidelines, and long-term x� a ,y N�`1 1�, b��.�,� • M�. r ; '�. .yam management of the mitigation areas.Mitigation planning includ- �" s � - '"' ed an evaluation of site suitability, turnishing recommendations _ k:F for site preparation, identification of necessary hydrology, development of the plant palette and installation protocol, the design of a monitoring plan including acceptable performance standards/success criteria,and the development of a management plan. PCR was responsible for coordinating final design and installation of the required wetland mitigation. This work involved field identification of grading limits, recommendations for final elevation within the wetland creation area,planting time lines and coordination with the landscapers, identification of plant sources, and coordination with the grading contractor on any design changes to the mitigation area. I I I Project Experience Site Suitability Analysis and Stream Restoration Design for Ephemeral Tributary to Tierra Data Systems San Mateo Creek, Camp Pendleton, California CLIENT PROJECT PCR has been retained to provide design services for the .../.4 restoration of 600 feet of stream on Marine Corps Base Camp ';':;,,,,,-, } ,,,/,,, :,,,,,;:,,, hPendleton. Past land use decisions have resulted in the r' '"1'k° ti, �" �� destruction of a reach of an ephemeral stream in the area # 4 4 dAtl t 0 ":,-,::''•-:-44; ;; targeted for restoration. The hydrological connection from the °-.: r"'+'„'-',,,.,-;•,,:,- ;:i',„,„,,,-:.:00,,,,...S ' „ ,,:-. d ix ,,, 4 ,r:. stream headwaters to the confluence with San Mateo Creek was <s 1t .4,:f4-71:".:1'— ',,,,,:':':':A..".:44,:,' �""1 "T r �� 4 APFwr��'a c.. _�,� * e ��� 16,• .',4:,'3.:,t Q`'S a �., �y lost as a result of changes in topography and human-induced ''',,,,')::,,t,4:14;,,,, ., ,:,;441-04--•:,..... . 4 ,A disturbance. Stream plan form was practically decimated in the ,�: ,.M: , ,• w 9 . l'" . .,,‘.1.../A.:' 4• lower reaches of studyarea. The project involves an initial site - F: 111,-.,- ,`. ,/,'-:74‘, �; ' _ A1C a. e" assessment of hydrology, channel geometry, topography, and ,` 0,- `;. . - •' .-;',',411410"-:' : '0 - ... , l:`� # y, M; environmental constraints to determine the feasibility and �:� Y `° a ��:"> ..-4.,. ....:,..r4,—,. `�,,., ,r,�*� ; �f^�, suitability for stream restoration within the targeted reach. PCR • : •- -x, '°� -'" � S analyzed historical aerial photographs past and present site .K� ., .,',:r.',,,'-' 1�, - . *. da A 9 yz � n •" ...# ,t--:',......., ��` ,��; �`� � „L,17,..,',:..*; hydrology, and local analog streams to aid in the design for the ' ` e. .xi: `', , 4-'...,.. ..ii ,-4:-,..4.y..,;,1,4:;,.> 1 Cross sections andpebble counts s' 1' '7' }y"6 4 i...11.;1,11, 'M• �. � •.d� .. re-creation of the stream reach. �� �"� =��`"`�:�,�':R��'� ��� � Y� - ' � �� ` �' �'� were taken both within the undisturbed reaches of the stream under study, and along the analog stream. Measurements were taken to estimate sinuosity, channel forming flow, and other hydrogeomorphic parameters,and applied towards the redesign of the channel. Working drawings are being developed for the Navy engineers that depict typical channel cross sections, stream geometry guidelines, site grading and contour changes, bioengineering and bank stabilization techniques, and other key stream restoration components. �'gsfl•"Y.. Y•rA0J1a"'",""h.4'k;Ay4 1:.-.y„�'N`3' :{."d"T<'(1."'R.' v::Rt•'arzw� .M/5 .7` $i? i. .,- _ It ti, ' MI 4 . ' ',,,' *---:;...,-, . „.*.s 4,1,,,,,,ik..,,,,;;;:,:itik.;1:',;4',' 4 s,..-4. ' 11:41t4. 24.'VP:i:,,,,, M x i4 R . W f4> Y yifryItA . W. � M ' /,.^ '';#4;;;11;7`44:::_Ii;471:11,,'"'''. It:':.,,,',r,',-, '';','', ' , , , t* 4,:'''''.:$44,:',141,41-4-' ' '' Project Experience Characterization Et Functional Assessment of Aquatic Resources in S'7._ci.und?. Talega Associates Deshecha on the Taiega Project site CLIENT PROJECT PCR was retained by Talega Associates to characterize and ry, evaluate the functional capacity of the perennial portion of Segunda Deshecha on the Talega project site relative to "- regionally extant wetlands of the same subclass. The evaluation was conducted using theconceptual approach of the Corp of PP Engineers Hydrogeomorphic method (HGM) for wetlands Qw • ''tt X" w X' Y functional assessment. Because a regional HGM model has not a PCR Bevel- yet been developed for the proposed project area, x ° oped a reference data set specific to the proposed project. This p P P P data set was used to provide a quantitative evaluation of the expected functional capacity of the wetlands on the project site. �" yYY . �, The project met the following objectives: A �a,F • �t 'Y ! ,{ -, yam,, 44 ▪ Define and characterize the wetlands found in lower Se unda � d i:'„P',xYbn�,` rce a"'�'g x �F a i Deshecha on the project site; -a ,*sv. y,� t .++�y 3»� »r T`,�y.`•9' +�C""<� 4" ,kri�. . ''t ,, ..' Yy.S ^{�/♦l+�W,� 2� a 5 s,,r t g�.r bsf 4 ..� �.. �� ✓� '.a.w � > ��� n6 .r'�".,.rr.;'°fit� R' r .w...+ p''*' 'ode \; �k`�.� S "�"�°' ' pM+:`�4✓ .,^�N ▪ Evaluate the regional distribution of wetlands similar to those ~�a�. yf �✓ .. ^. r->.,y'�,''a+�' C Y t\.'S yE�,.'.c t�V6s"'✓R :�' '� y„A<b '�, y ��; i w found in Segunda Deshecha to determine how unique or rare qy..-:: f y v .S.v. � K'irx��,�2„p' s 6 *."♦♦.t ,p�,:tN� r!^��'�t' a the on-site wetlands are t ,� r u �w yea. • • +�' • $.r .� "'�:. ��v f � x '�cYx'1�?i x_�! '� � .'tea 1 r 7,"�Y'i✓ .Y:���1.aMP^'� ..�«s'.dt.,.. . Assess the functional condition of Segunda Deshecha;and .. - �1f . Provide conclusions and recommendation as to how the was developed, it was used to assess the current functional functional condition of Segunda Deshecha may be affected by condition of Segunda Deshecha and to predict the expected g impact of proposed development on the aquatic resources therein. development of the Talega project and identify considerations for restoration or recreation of a system comparable to the existing Segunda Deshecha. Completion of the project consisted of several tasks;investigation and documentation of streams similar to Segunda Deshecha, development and scaling of an assessment model for the Segunda Deshecha system, and evaluation of the existing functional condition using the assessment model. Development of the assessment model involved collecting data on the structure and • composition of thirteen sites in south Orange County and using this information to help identify functions important for consideration and to scale variables that were predictive of the capacity of each site to perform the functions. Once the model Project Experience Lake Hills - Biological Services, t LLC ► Riverside County,Lake H�Iis Cres , , California CLIENT PROJECT PCR provided a full suite of biological services to Lake Hills Crest, °sw a o LLC to support their 800-acre residential development project in Riverside County,California. PCR biologists performed a biolog- ical assessment, conducted focused sensitive species surveys, per- K ti t ° formed a wetland delineation,completed a GIS-based impact min- �` ; T imization analysis,assisted with obtaining.authorizations under the aa � ter" Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Fish and Game ,: Code,and prepared a comprehensive wetland and upland mitiga- <, tion and management plan. By working with the property owner . and State and Federal agencies,PCR was able to help develop a bal- , . anced development plan that allowed the landowner to obtain all necessary authorizations to build a viable project, while ensuring owner, PCR scientists were able to overlay alternative project protection of over 90%of the sensitive upland habitat and 87%of designs in order to investigate project modifications that mini- the sensitive aquatic resources and wetlands on the project site. mized environmental impacts, while preserving project viability. Use of GIS-based mapping and analysis allowed for more accurate Biological Assessment, Sensitive Species Surveys, and more cost effective mapping of the complex biology of the and Wetland Delineation site,and allowed for more responsive investigation of project alter- natives during agency discussions. PCR biologists conducted a complete plant community and habi- tat mapping for the 800-acre project site.The mapping included Permit Assistance an analysis and subclassification based on habitat quality to assist in subsequent mapping of endangered species locations. Focused PCR assisted the property owner with obtaining all necessary surveys were conducted for the Federally-listed endangered or State and Federal environmental permits,including a Section 404 threatened least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and Permit from the Corps of Engineers,completing a formal Section quino checkerspot butterfly. Using a combination of vegetation 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section analysis and field observations,PCR biologists were able to define 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quali- approximate territories for the vireo and gnatcatcher. This ty Control Board, and Section 1603 and 2081 permits from the allowed project design to accommodate the locations of the sensi- California Department of Fish and Game. PCR biologists pre- tive species and facilitated obtaining necessary State and Federal pared all necessary documents, applications, and assessments and Permits. Finally, PCR biologists performed a comprehensive maintained ongoing communication with agency staff through- delineation of Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and out the permit process. Extensive pre-application coordination • Game jurisdiction, including streams, wetlands, and riparian was conducted with the agencies to allow for design changes that habitats. Aquatic resources were classified based on flow charac- accommodated environmental concerns and helped facilitate teristics,plant communities, and degree of disturbance. timely processing of permits. GIS-Based Analysis Wetland and Upland Mitigation and Management Planning Given the size and topographic complexity of the project site, To assist the property owner in meeting the requirements of the PCR scientists used a combination of remote GIS and on-the- Corps of Engineers,Regional Water Board,Fish and Wildlife Ser- w ground GPS analysis to assist in the wetland delineation and bio- vice and Department of Fish and Game. PCR biologists prepared logical assessment. Digital topographic maps and aerial photos a combined wetland and upland mitigation and management were used to develop a preliminary map of streams and wetlands. plan. This document addressed design features for all the on-site The precise boundaries of wetlands and the headwater extent of restoration areas, included instructions for grading,plant installa- streams were ground-truthed and mapped using differentially-cor- tion, maintenance measures, and a monitoring protocol. The rected GPS that provided sub-meter accuracy. Locations of sensi- document included function-based performance standards and a tive species and habitats were digitized and overlaid on the site comprehensive management and contingency plan that will map to provide a comprehensive biological resources inventory for ensure that the property owner meets all permit conditions for the the site. Working with the project engineer and the property project. 6 PCR Biography Steven G. N e i so n, Prin C1J8 , DIRECTOR OF BIOLOGICAL SERVICES Professional History biological studies, ranging from assessments throughout the state of • M.B.A., California State Polytechnic technical wildlife and vegetation California. University, Pomona, California, assessments to regionwide biodiversity 1993P lanning. His broad education and Threatened And Endangered Species. rofessional experience in biology and Steve has served as the Senior Biological P • M.A., Biology, University of business administration have given him Manager for numerous informal and California, Riverside, California, a unique insight into resource formal consultations with the U.S. Fish 1975 identification,evaluation,planning,and and Wildlife Service on 27 listed species management.As a result of his problem- as part of Endangered Species Act • B.S.,Biology, University of Sections 7 and 10(a)compliance. In solving orientation and approach to California, Riverside, California, the course of these consultations he has assignments,Steve is commonly sought 1973 out by public agencies, become very familiar with the Habitat • Director of Resources Management, landowners/developers,attorneys, Conservation Plan and Natural engineers and planners alike. Community Conservation Program Michael Brandman Associates, processes,including the application of Irvine, California, 1994- 1996 P Experience Special Rule 4(d). • Vice President, CB Commercial Regional Resource Planning. Steve was co-author of the 1976 Los Angeles Regulatory Compliance/Habitat Real Estate Group, City of Industry, Restoration. Steve has been the director California, 1983- 1994 County Significant Ecological Area Stud for the County's General Plan for U.S. Clean Water Act Section 404 y ri 1 FIrvine, U date and has since been involved in and California Fish and Game Code • Principal, �.D�AV�, Inc.,In.. ..P California, 1979- 1983 several other regional resource planning Sections 1600-3 wetlands regulatory efforts throughout southern California. compliance for multiple projects • Project Manager, PBR,Newport throughout Southern California, and Beach, California, 1976- 1979 Biological Assessments. Steve was the the director for oak woodland, riparian, Senior Biological Manager for technical vernal pool and coastal sage scrub • Principal, England&Nelson, studies within the 10,000-acre study restoration plans. Environmental Consultants, area for the Foothill Transportation Riverside, California, 1974- 1976Corridor-South Natural Environment Construction/Mitigation Monitoring. Steve served as the biological monitor Study in southern Orange County, Expertise which included the oversight of 29 for the Eastside Park construction in Steve Nelson is a biologist with Yorba Linda, Orange County, and the biologists investigating 84 sensitive expertise in the areas of wildlife biology, species and jurisdictional wetlands. He Director for mitigation/revegetation botany, and freshwater ecology. He has has also been responsible for the monitoring at three development sites been a professional consultant for more completion of over 650 biological in Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County. than 26 years. During that time, he has been responsible for a wide variety of PCR Biography Eric Step n Dr. Env. PRINCIPAL ECOLOGISTS REGULATORY SPECIALIST Professional History physiological ecology, multimedia Sanctuaries Act. Eric's regulatory ■ Dr. Env., Environmental Science distribution of environmental experience includes numerous projects and Engineering, University of contaminants,human health risk and on military installations,flood control California, Los Angeles, 1995. exposure assessment, and most recently projects, residential and commercial landscape ecology,cumulative impact development, aggregate mining,and ■ B.S., Biology, University of assessment, and spatial analysis of golf courses. Eric has performed over California, Los Angeles, 1987 wetland impacts. He has experience in 150 wetland delineations and waters of permitting,wetland delineation, design the U.S.jurisdictional determinations, • Biologist/Senior Project Manager, of restoration projects, establishment of including riparian woodlands, Regulatory Branch, US Army Corps mitigation banks,and wetland ephemeral washes,vernal pools,and of Engineers,Los Angeles District, functional assessment. tidal wetlands. He has completed over 1993-1998. 10 formal and informal Section 7 Experience consultations with the U.S. Fish and • Adjunct Associate Professor, Ecological Assessment And Research. Eric Wildlife Service, provided guidance on California State University, Los has done research on functional ,the development omitigation plans, Angeles, 1998. assessment of aquatic ecosystems,q sy and has overseen establishment of six ■ Graduate Researcher, UCLA cumulative impact assessment, and wetland mitigation banks and in-lieu fee Environmental Science and spatial impact analysis. Eric has worked mitigation programs. on interdisciplinary teams developing Engineering Program, Los Angeles, California, 1991-1993. methodologies for hydrogeomorphic Environmental Impact assessment of wetland functions for Reports/Statements. Eric has prepared • Biology Teacher,Alhambra High riverine wetlands and for vernal pools. Environmental Assessments and School, 1988-1991 He developed a rapid assessment participated in management of method for assigning mitigation ratios Environmental Impact Statements Expertise for use in mitigation banks within the pursuant to the National Environmental Eric Stein is a biologist and Los Angeles District Corps of Policy Act,and has reviewed and environmental engineer with five years Engineers. Eric continues to work on provided comment for EIRs pursuant to of regulatory experience with the U.S. regional watershed planning and the California Environmental Quality Army Corps of Engineers as well as landscape-scale assessment protocols. Act. Eric has coordinated with state extensive experience in scientific and federal agencies in order to ensure research, environmental policy, and Regulatory Experience. Eric has compliance with all applicable laws, planning. He has expertise in a evaluated over 200 permit applications including the Endangered Species Act, diversity of scientific fields and has been pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean National Historical Preservation act, engaged in research activities for the Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and and Coastal Zone Management Act. past 13 years, including intestinal Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the nutrient transport kinetics, Marine Research Protection and PCR Biography Ruben R a m i rez, PRINCIPAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST!GIS SPECIALIST Professional History f ssional strengths lie in the areas of federally for Camp Pendleton and FTC-South • M.S., Biological Sciences, California designated and endangered flora and and San Bernardino Kangaroo rat State Polytechnic University, fauna and Geographic Information within Lytle and Cajon Creeks. He also Pomona, California, In Progress Systems. conducted focused surveys for threatened and endangered plant species • B.A., Biological Sciences, California Experience at Viejo Substation, Upper Chiquita, State University, Fullerton, Biological Assessments. As a wildlife FTC-South,North Peak in Riverside California, 1993 Biologist, Ruben conducted focused County and Daley Ranch in San Diego surveys for sensitive species within the County. He is authorized to collect state • Wildlife Biologist/Geographic 10,000-acre study area for the Foothill designated endangered,threatened,and Information Systems Specialist, Transportation Corridor-South(FTC) rare plants-CDFG. Michael Brandman Associates, Natural Environmental Study in Irvine, California, 1994- 1996 southern Orange County, including GIS Geographic Information System Ruben development and analysis of natural continues to manage several GIS • Wildlife Biologist, U.S.D.A Forest resources,wetland delineation, projects including input,manipulation, Service,Angeles National Forest, aesthetics, hazardous waste materials, analysis and map production in the Arcadia, California, 1992- 1994 hydrology, noise and land use. Ruben is areas of sensitive plants and animals, Expertise assisting Southern California Edison in vegetation communities, noise impacts, developing Conservation Banks in geotechnical,wildlife movement Ruben Ramirez has seven years Orange County and is also currently the corridor,wetland delineation,hazardous experience as a biologist in the principal investigator conducting materials and socioeconomic. Projects consulting industry and a government upland habitat characterization and have included Transportation Corridor agency. His knowledge encompasses wildlife biology,botany, freshwater restoration research for the federally Agencies-Foothill Transportation ecologyand endangered Arroyo toad throughout Corridor, Black Star Conservation ecology,terrestrial Southern California. Bank, and Puente Hills/Tonner Canyon Geographic Information Systems. a CA. Wildlife Biologist for the Angeles Threatened And Endangered Species. National Forest, Mr. Ramirez was Ruben performed focused surveys for Permits: USFWS—California responsible for conducting sensitive the federally threatened California Gnatcatcher, Pacific Little Pocket species surveys and developing databases gnatcatcher in Orange, San Diego,Los Mouse,San Bernardino Kangaroo rat, of the biological research results. He has Angeles and Ventura Counties, and he Southwestern Arroyo Toad PTT tagg ng, experience in constraints analysis and also conducted focused surveys for the pitfall and telemetry, California Red- conducting,writing and managing federally endangered least Bell's vireo. legged frog, Fairy Shrimp, CDFG- biological assessments, including He conducted focused trapping efforts Scientific Collector's Permit. identification of all plants,plant and assessments for the Federally communities,amphibians,reptiles, endangered pacific little pocket mouse birds, fish and mammals. His greatest I I II PCR Biography P i J u lie E. Fontaine, SENIOR RESTORATION ECOLOGIST Professional History delineations, preparation of conceptual Performance Criteria Development For • M.S. Soil Science/Forestry- mitigation and monitoring plans, Restoration.As part of her Master's Restoration Ecology Program,North development of performance criteria, research Julie developed a performance Carolina State University, 1998 preparation of plans and specification criteria methodology for assessment of for wetland and erosion control wetland restoration success. Based ■ B.S. Environmental Studies/Biology, projects, soil mapping, and engineering upon her research, she was able to St. Lawrence University, 1991 cost estimates. develop a new statistical method that demonstrates the equivalency of a ■ Wetland Restoration Consultant, Experience p natural and restored wetlands. KCI Technologies, Raleigh,NC Restoration Design Services.Julie has 1997-1999 managed several large and small scale Erosion Control Services.Julie has restoration projects on both the East worked on several erosion control • Board of Directors- Coastal Plain and West Coast. Her work projects for military installations in Chapter of Society for Ecological encompassed wetland delineations, soil fragile environments. She performed Restoration 1997-1999 mapping, development of conceptual the hydrological analysis,engineering • ■ Wildlife Field Technician, EG&G mitigation plan documents,preparation calculations, specification preparation, Ener Measurements,Las Vegas, of plans and specifications,performance design,and cost estimates under very gy NV, 1992, 1994 criteria and monitoring plan tight schedules. development,biological and • Field Surveys And Research.Julie has ■ Conservation Biologist, Miguel Lillo construction monitoring, and Foundation/US Peace Corps, engineering cost estimates. She has participated in numerous ecological Tucuman,Argentina, 1992-1994 taken restoration projects from start to studies in both North and South finish, including conceptual plan America. Her work has ranged from IExpertise development to bid document avian conservation on the St. Lawrence Julie Fontaine has over 8 years ofpreparation and construction oversight. River, to biodiversity studies of the experience in wetland and terrestrial Chaco ecosystem in Northern 1. biology. Her knowledge encompasses a Wetland/Stream Restoration Site Argentina,to plant production and wide range of expertise including Identification And Assessment. Julie has biomass studies in the Mojave desert. restoration ecology,soil science, identified over 300 potential wetland watershed planning, erosion control, and stream restoration sites using GIS and technology, GPS, andground truthing wetland and plant ecology, g conservation biology. For the past four in 3 watersheds. She has been years Julie has managed large and small responsible for the assessment of over IP scale restoration projects. Her recent 20 sites to determine the feasibility for work has included performing wetland restoration. site feasibility studies,wetland I PCR Biography Kenneth J. Ha l ma, Ph.D., SENIOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST I Professional History • Wildlife Biologist,USFWS Patuxent amassed and analyzed cloud-coverage • Ph.D., Biology,University of Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, data from U.S.Weather Service California Riverside, California, Maryland, 1983 publications,for a project studying the 1998 effects of human-induced cloud Expertise formation on global temperatures. He ■ M.S., Environmental Sciences, Ken Halama is a biologist with more was assistant scientist on a project University of Virginia, than 17 years experience in the areas of studying the influence of sulfur- Charlottesville,Virginia, 1989 evolutionary biology, ecology, reducing bacteria on alleviating the environmental consulting, and• adverse effects of acid mine drainage in ■ B.S.,Biology, Pennsylvania State statistical analyses. His knowledge g artificial wetlands. University, University Park, includes the biology of Southern Pennsylvania, 1983 California terrestrial vertebrates. He also Population Biology. As a wildlife has experience assessing the impact of biologist for the National Zoo, Ken ■ Wildlife Biologist,Statistician, PCR human activities on sensitive habitats. assisted in studies involving the Services Corp. 1998-present His expertise includes analyzing physiology, population biology and ■ Wildlife Biologist, EARTH TECH, complex data sets and the identification community ecology of medium-sized Inc., Colton, California, 1997 and classification of vertebrates found omnivorous mammals in the forests of in Southern California. northern Virginia. He also assisted Zoo „+, • Biological Monitor, Enviro-Plus biologists in research on the population Consulting, Ridgecrest, California, Experience biology and behavioral ecology of 1991 Scientific Assessment. Ken has conducted California sea otters along the central extensive statistical analyses on projects California coast. He conceived and ■ Statistician,Virginia State comparing the physical and biological conducted a research project on the Climatology Office,The University parameters among wetlands in southern influence of habitat variation on the of Virginia, Charlottesville,Virginia and central California. He has population dynamics of white-footed 1989-1990 conducted numerous general plant and mice and a four-year study on the wildlife surveys throughout southern influence of morphological variation on ■ Research Assistant, Rocky Mountain California. He served as a wildlife locomotor performance and habitat Biological Laboratory, Gothic, biologist on several projects in the selection among individuals within OR Colorado, 1989- 1990 Mojave Desert including an assessment western fence lizard populations in of impacts caused by off-road vehicles • Wildlife Biologist,National southern California. Ken studied the to sensitive desert tortoise habitat at effects of soil nutrient availability on Zoological Park,Washington,D.C., 1983- 1985 Edwards Air Force Base and as a life-history traits in scarlet gilia, a iii biological monitor on the Kern River wildflower and assisted in studies on the Pipeline project. While working for the ecology and physiology of marine IVirginia State Climatology Office, Ken angiosperms in Florida Bay. W 0 PCR Biography Marc B I a i n, SENIOR WILDLIFE BLOLOGLST Professional History Experience to conduct California gnatcatcher • M.S.,Applied Ecology and Biological Assessment. Marc performed surveys and is in the process of Conservation Biology, Frostburg Biological resource surveys and obtaining a southwestern willow State University, Frostburg, vegetation classification for project sites flycatcher permit. Maryland, 1997 in Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,San Diego, Orange, Kern, Habitat Evaluation. Marc applied • B.S., Environmental Biology, and San Luis Obispo counties. He has vegetation classifications systems and California State University, applied his expertise in a wide range of standard field vegetation sampling Northridge, California, 1994upland, riparian and wetland habitats protocols pursuant to identification of throughout the Santa Ana Mountains, habitat type and percentage of • Herbarium Manager/Assistant vegetative cover in a varietyof Southern San Gabriel Mountains, and inland g Curator, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, valleys. Marc contributed to biological California plant communities. He has Brooklyn, New York, 1996- 1997 performed numerous habitat evaluations assessments of Black Star Canyon Technician, Southern (Orange County), Porter Ranch (Los to determine the potential for sensitive • Biological e California Edison,San Clemente, Angeles County), and Coal Canyon species occupation. Marc is currently California, 19931 4 (Orange County) and participated in managing the Los Angeles County - 99 bird counts in the Mid-Atlantic region Significant Ecological Area Update • Laboratory Instructor/Avian for Audubon national bird surveys. Study evaluating much of the Curator, Frostburg State University, unincorporated areas of the county. Frostburg, Maryland, 1994- 1996 Sensitive Species Evaluations. Marc conducted and assisted in focused Plant Community Analysis. Marc served Expertise protocol surveys for endangered, as field biologist for Brooklyn Botanic Marc Blain is a biologist with training threatened,and sensitive floral and Garden where his responsibilities and field experience in a variety of faunal species throughout southern included the identification and Southern California habitats. His California. Faunal species for focused measuring of plants and abiotic site knowledge includes wildlife,marine, protocol surveys included the federally- conditions in Black Rock Forest. and invertebrate biology as well as threatened California gnatcatcher, the Marine Resources Monitoring. As botany. Mr. Blain is also experienced in federally endangered least Bell's vireo, biological technician for the San Onofre rare plant and bird surveying and has southwestern willow flycatcher, quino Nuclear Generating Station for conducted research for the Maryland checkerspot butterfly, and the San Southern California Edison, Marc's Department of Natural Resources to Bernardino kangaroo rat. He responsibilities included identification, determine the taxonomic status of rare conducted field and laboratory research sorting,measuring,weighing, and species. His expertise is in to determine the taxonomic status of sexing fish during heat treatments to identification and classification of the the rare Harned's Swamp lily of the compile data for the Nuclear Regulatory Wildlife,plants,and plant communities Allegheny Mountain Range in Western Commission and NPDES permits. of Southern California. Maryland. Marc holds a federal permit PCR Biography M i ke KI i n efe I te r, SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST Professional History Experience ■ M.S.,Soil Science, University of Geographic Information Systems. Mike California at Riverside, CA 1998 has experience integrating data from a variety of sources for mapping and ■ B.S., Environmental Science, analysis of impacts relating to biological University of California at Riverside, constraints.Additionally, he has CA experience using GIS for hydrologic modeling applications. He is an ■ GIS Instructor,University of adjunct faculty at several universities California at Riverside, CA 1998- i999 and community colleges where he teaches introductory GIS courses and ■ GIS Instructor,University of GIS software applications courses. He California at San Diego, La Jolla, has been authorized by ESRI as an CA 1998 instructor for ArcView GIS software. Mike served as a consultant to the U.S. ■ GIS Consultant, United States Geological Survey's Southern California Geographical Survey Southern Arial Mapping Project(SCAMP). California Arial Mapping Project, Riverside, CA 1988-1999 Regulatory Experience. Mike's experience in wetlands regulation Expertise - includes permitting,wetland delineation, and design of mitigation Mike Klinefelter specializes in the use of and restoration projects. He has Geographic Information Systems (GIS) successfully processed Army Corps and Global Positioning System(GPS) Individual and Nationwide permits, for mapping and analysis of natural RWQCB 401 Certifications, and resources. He has experience in the use CDFG Streambed Alteration of GIS for hydrologic modeling and Agreements. Mike has experience in environmental applications. He is an wetlands delineation on projects ESRI Authorized Instructor for ArcView ranging in size from several acres to GIS and has taught GIS courses at several thousand acres. several universities. Additionally,he has expertise in permitting,wetland delineation, and design of restoration projects. PCR Biography Kristin Szabo WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST Professional History habitat type and percentage of • B.S., Ecology/Environmental vegetative cover. She applied protocols Biology, California State University, within a range of central and southern Long Beach, California, 1997 California plant communities with emphasis on coastal sage scrub, native • Wildlife Biologist, PCR, Irvine, grasslands,and riparian forests. California, 1998 Threatened And Endangered Species. Expertise Kristin is permitted through the Kristin Szabo is an environmental USFWS to perform focused protocol biologist with experience in the areas of surveys for the coastal California wildlife biology,particularly gnatcatcher. She has participated in ornithology,botany,and ecology. She habitat assessments and focused surveys has knowledge of the flora and fauna of for other sensitive species including the southern California,including sensitive Quino checkerspot butterfly and least species, and has experience in the Bell's vireo. identification and classification of wildlife, plants,and plant communities Regulatory Experience. Kristin has in this region. Additionally,Ms. Szabo performed several wetland delineations has experience with regulatory and processed permits under Sections compliance and permitting procedures 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act including field delineations under and Section 1603 of the California Fish Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and and Game Code. Kristin completed Section 1603 of the State Fish and Pre-Construction Notifications (PCN) Game Code. and Biological Assessments for permits imp with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Experience ' Biological Assessment. Kristin assisted in Client Contact. Kristin has worked the completion of technical biological closely with clients throughout project assessments for large, complex, multi- implementation including coordination disciplinary projects including Black of project plans,contract Star Canyon, Cypress Canyon, and administration, and correspondence. Newport Banning Ranch. Permits. CDFG Scientific Collector's Habitat Assessment. Kristin applied Permit number 801186-03, USFWS various vegetation classification systems California gnatcatcher permit number and standard field vegetation sampling TE016487-0. or protocols pursuant to identification of o n t PCR Biography Michelle C. Lee, ECOLOGIST Professional History functional based assessment. She has Department of Fish and Game ■ B.S., Biology/Ecology, University of been involved in various wetland and Applications for Streambed Alteration. California at San Diego, CA upland habitat mitigation and monitoring projects and her skills Resource Management. Michelle has ■ Scientific Technician,Washingtoninclude restoration/creation techniques. worked with a broad range of upland, Department of Fish &Wildlife riparian,and wetland habitats Service(WADFWS), Point Whitney Experience throughout San Diego, Riverside and Shellfish Laboratory,WA 1998 Biological Assessment/Habitat Evaluation. Orange Counties, California. She has Michelle has performed wetland organized and supervised restoration • Natural Reserves Assistant delineations, HGM data collection and projects at Scripps Coastal Reserve and Coordinator,University of � mapping s anal siGIS/GPSand assisted Kendall-Frost Salt Marsh for the Y California at San Diego, CA in habitat analysis and focused surveys University of California at San Diego (UCNRS)1996-1998 for the federally threatened California (UCSD)Natural Reserves System. Gnatcatcher and federally endangered Michelle is currently working with • Research Assistant,Scripps Institute Quino Checkerspot butterfly. While senior biologists in the development of of Oceanography, University of working for the UCNRS Michelle management plans used in habitat California at San Diego, CA 1996- assisted in the evaluation of the four creation and restoration. 1998 reserves for experiments, restoration ■ Science Instructor, Community projects, maintenance and other management practices.At PCR,she has Achievement Services, San Diego, CA 1997-1998 worked with senior biologists to complete mitigation monitoring plans Expertise for the creation and restoration of Michelle Lee is an ecologist with wetlands,riparian and sage scrub experience in habitat monitoring and habitats. analysis, resource management, and laboratory research. At PCR,Michelle Regulatory Experience. Michelle has has focused her attention on wetland helped in the completion of regulatory issues including regulatory compliance applications necessary for the such as wetland delineations under development of public and private land Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and holdings. These include Nationwide Section 1603 of the State Fish and and Individual permits with the U.S. Game Code. In addition,Michelle has Army Corps of Engineers, Certification acquired a working knowledge of HGM with the Regional Water Quality data collection and analysis used by the Control Board and California Army Corps of Engineers for wetland PCR Biography Jason Be r kl oy f WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST Professional History biology. Jason's expertise encompasses assessing manmade disaster impacts on • B.S.,Zoology/Biology, California ornithology,herpetology, ichthyology, the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, State Polytechnic University, mammalogy, and wildlife ecology. He both the east and west forks of the San Pomona, CA 1995 has experience working with various Gabriel River, and Ballona Creek and its government agencies dealing with adjacent wetlands. • Wildlife Assistant II,Arizona threatened and endangered species. Department of Game and Fish, Jason has also been a co-instructor of a Permits. Scientific Collector's Permit Phoenix,AZ 1998workshop for herpetofauna (CDFG)#801008-01, Federal Bird identification for the California Marking and Salvage Sub-Permit • Field Researcher, USDA Forest (USDI/USGS)#09267-G. Service,An eles/Cleveland/Los Department of Fish and Game g Fisheries' biologists. Padres National Forests, California Permits In Progress. Southwestern 1997-1999Experience Willow Flycatcher(USFWS). Threatened And Endangered Species. • Field Researcher,San Marino Jason performed focused protocol Environmental Associates,San surveys for the federally endangered Marino, CA, 1993-1998 southwestern willow flycatcher in • Field Naturalist/Teacher, Inside the Apache, Pinal,and Mohave Counties in Outdoors, Orange County Arizona. He has also conducted focused Department of Education, Costa surveys for least Bells vireo in Southern Mesa, CA 1995-1998 California, as well as assisting focused surveys for southwestern arroyo toad, • Field Researcher, Kellogg red-legged frog,mountain yellow-legged Foundation, California State frog, unarmored three-spine stickleback, Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Santa Ana sucker, California 1995-1999 gnatcatcher,and Quino checkerspot butterfly. • Field Researcher, Camp Pendleton Amphibian and Reptile Survey, Aquatic Monitoring.Jason has Camp Pendleton/Fallbrook, CA experience seining and electro-shocking 1995-1997 in both freshwater and marine environments. He is capable of using Expertise electroshock units for both land (by Jason Berkley is a biologist with seven foot)and water(by boat). His years of experience, throughout college responsibilities include identification, and beyond, in terrestrial and aquatic population impacts due to sluicing, and PCR Biography Jen n i J. K. Snibbe, ECOLOGIST Professional History plant ecology,soil science,biochemistry, Research.Jenni has performed technical • B.S., Ecology and Systematic and conservation biology. She has assignments as part of long-term Biology, California Polytechnic State conducted long-term research projects research projects. Her work University,San Luis Obispo, CA, including data analysis and encompassed identifying and selecting 1995. documentation. tree species for specific physiological, morphological, and microsite attributes. • Biological Field Technician,USDA Experience She also trained and supervised other Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Habitat Assessment.Jenni has applied technicians,assisted in setting up Research Station, Riverside, CA, standardized vegetation sampling maintaining and operating 1995-1999. techniques and classification such as meteorological stations, collected identification of community types, tabulated and analyzed data,performed • Field Botanist,USDA Forest individual species,ecotones,biological P g library and database searches, and Service, Sierra National Forest, CA, diversity,and percent cover. standardized laboratory chemical and 1995' physical analysis of soil,plant, and Biological Evaluation/Assessment. Based • Research Technician I,US Army water samples. upon her feld studies,Jenniassse Land Condition-Trend Analysis, the completion of biological evaluation Coastal Sage Scrub Genetics Research. Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, 1995. document for the NEPA process. She Jenni has provided biological support also assisted in the completion of work using standardized laboratory and • Laboratory Assistant/Senior Project, technical biological assessment reports. field ecology practices. Her work San Luis Obispo Creek Project, California Polytechnic State Field Surveys.Jenni has participated in encompassed identification of coastal J sage scrub species throughout University, CA, 1992-1995. numerous ecological studies throughout California. She has been responsible for California and Arizona habitats. Her +r ■ Laboratory Technician I, Fruit writing and applying protocols for work included inventory and Growers Laboratory Environmental, monitoring field study plants, tabulate monitoring of project sites for species Santa Clara, CA, 1992-1993. composition, including rare and and maintain project records, and assisted in set up of field plots utilizing Expertise endangered native plant species. She has a prescribed experimental design. She Jenni J. K. Snibbe has over 5 years of gathered plant ecology data for co-authored a poster presentation at the experience in field ecology,botany, proposed grazing, timber, and special P gy y annual meeting of the society for the terrestrial biology and laboratory use permits, extensively used study of evolution, 1998. techniques and research. Her topographical maps, aerial photos, GIS knowledge encompasses a wide range of maps, used GPS equipment,mapped experience including knowledge of the and summarize field data, and collected flora and fauna of California, including and filed plant specimens for an sensitive species, and has experience in herbarium. PCR Biography Claudia E. Man r iq u e, GIS SPECIALIST Professional History and managing all GIS and relational ■ M.A., Geography, California State database projects. University Long Beach, CA, In Progress. GIS computer skills include ArcView, Arclnfo,Spatial Analysis, 3D Analysis, • B.A., Geography, California State Trimble GPS and Pathfinder software. University Fullerton, CA. 1993 Research.As part of Claudia's graduate • GIS Associate Intern, Equilon work, she has completed GIS projects Pipeline Company LLC. 1998- for the cities of Lakewood and Culver 1999 City. Expertise Both projects included use of city parcel map data,collecting field data and Claudia Manrique specializes in internet research. Current research for Geographic Information Systems (GAS). her thesis project involves the use of Claudia has experience in using GIS for GIS in natural resources management pipeline and transportation modeling as and conservation of the sturgeon well as environmental applications. population in the Caspian Sea Region. Experience Geographic Information Systems. Claudia is responsible for GIS projects including input, manipulation, analysis Imo and map production for projects related to sensitive plants and animals, vegetation communities, GPS tree surveys, wildlife movement corridors, wetland delineations and socioeconomic issues. GIS projects have included work on Santiago, Brea Canyon, Corona Hills and Lincoln Ranch. Claudia worked on developing and implementing Equilon Pipeline's GIS system. She was responsible for digitizing, data conversion,coordinating L References s George Malone Pat Hayes Et Brian Austin Richard Broming Peter McDonald Los Angeles County Talega Associates Rancho Mission Viejo Tierra Data Systems Department of Regional 951 Calle Negocio,Suite D 28811 Ortega Highway 10110 West Lilac Road Planning San Clemente, CA 92673 P.O. Box 9 Escondido,CA 92026 320 West Temple Street, Telephone: (949)-498-1366 San Juan Capistrano, Telephone: (760)749-2247 Room 1383 CA 92693 Los Angeles, California 90012 Mary Rauschenburg Telephone: (949)-240-3363 Telephone: (213)974-6427 Communities Southwest 181 Old Springs Road Anaheim, CA 92808 Telephone: (714)279-6555 Attachment A PCR Services Corporation Biological Services Summary Statement of Qualifications 1 _ i Partial List of Wildlife Corridor Studies Los Angeles County General Plan Update, Significant Ecological Area Study; Los Angeles County, California. 2,500 square miles; Attempting to delineate and link large ecologically significant habitat blocks. Ongoing. Two adjacent properties in the Puente Hills,Los Angeles County, California. 3,600 acres;Designing linkages in response to a state and local government Joint Powers Authority region-wide wildlife corridor conservation program. Ongoing. Saddle Creek/Saddle Crest Planned Development, Orange County, California. 1,300 acres;Providing design and mitigation recommendations in response to area-wide Specific Plan guidelines. Ongoing. Silverhawk Planned Community, Murrieta, California. 1,300 acres; Participated in linkage design as part of a region-wide multi-species habitat conservation planning effort. 1999. Coal Canyon Planned Development, Anaheim, California. 400 acres;Designed a corridor linking the Santa Ana Mountains with the Chino Hills. 1998. Various Newhall Land and Farming Co. projects along the Santa Clara River,Santa Clarita, California. 2,500 acres. Designed buffer setbacks for a major river riparian movement corridor. 1998. Foothill Transportation Corridor—South,Orange County,California. 10,000 acres;Studies identified and provided recommendations for the maintenance of subregional wildlife movement/habitat linkages. 1995. IRVINE One Venture Suite 150 Irvine,CA 92618 TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 EMAIL info@pernet.com PCR SANTA C aX- Wilshire Boulevard 233 Suite 130 Santa Monica,CA 90401 TEL 310.451.4488 FAX 310.451.5279 EMAIL info@pernet.com .:t a `� a�',� .3 g e€-��§� t �ry � A •g �,tom �..r .k �.,�.��- MR 11141 PCR KOTIN .18 12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1050 .� Los Angeles,CA 90025 TEL 310.820.0900 FAX 310.820.1703 r EMAIL info@pernet.com 111111111111111111, PCItawl TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager SUBJ: Rancho Vistoso Supplemental Agreement SUMMARY: There have been no significant negotiations between the Town and Vistoso Partners regarding amendments to the Rancho Vistoso Supplemental Agreement since the posting of the February 2, 2000 regular agenda. I don't anticipate meaningful negotiations on the Supplemental Agreement until on site visits on the PAD Amendment have been completed between March 6 - March 13. Attachments: None Recommendations: None Suggested Motion: None - "LeL411A Town Manager TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 5 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager SUBJ: Appointment to Water Utility Commission SUMMARY: In August 1999 an interview panel consisting of the Town Manager, the Council Liaison to the Water Utility Commission and the Water Utility Director conducted nine interviews for three vacancies on the Water Utility Commission. In November 1999 the Town Council appointed Messrs. Leo Leonhart, John Dohogne & Patrick Coughlin to fill those vacancies. Shortly thereafter, one of the appointees, Mr. Patrick Coughlin accepted employment out of state and resigned from the Commission. As a result, there currently exists one vacancy on the Water Utility Commission. One of the individuals interviewed in November, Ms. LaQuita Stec was not appointed to the Water Utility Commission but has regularly attended their meetings and was subsequently appointed to serve on several of the Commissions sub-committees. As a result, based on Ms. Stec's qualifications and continued interest in the Water Utility Commission, Council Member Bryant is recommending that the Council appoint her to fill the vacancy and serve the unexpired term of Mr. Patrick Coughlin. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resume of Ms. LaQuita Stec SUGGESTED MOTION: I make a motion to appoint Ms. LaQuita Stec to the Oro Valley Water Utility Commission with her term expiring on June 30, 2002. .I Town Manager wgt, e."1 @OM VtZ 'MX)"9: it ,\: 11111 \red `..1 'A cm- o I ��tak Ot04.64 .10 • — AP'91100411 PLICATION S '14 VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION APPLIC cal -061/4. fr ref - Oro Valley Water Commission Members: Thank you for your interest in the water planning and service activities of the Valley Water Utility Commission. The volunteers who are appointed to the Commission will be joining a group of citizens dedicated to assuring a permanent supply of the best quality water available for present and future generations. The Commission and its subcommittees will meet once or twice a month dealing with the basic fundamental issues including those in the checklist below. Please complete this application and return to the Town Clerk's Office, 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, 85737-7015. Name 3TEC LQ L� (y) • Last } First Middle Home Address )-( Business Address r Home Phone Business Phone FAX Number of Years in Oro Valley A atgsh. egnature ate Please check the Water Utility Commission activities in which you would be most interested and a short statement of why below the checklist. r Water Utility Commission Capital Improvement Program Budget Review and Recommendations Revenue Requirements and Rate Adjustments System Development Water Resource Development Information and Education State & Federal Legislation Regional Water Issues \ CUAQ a- (.04,4a./(1 aNAL de• 4airto- ri ()hewn d L%.1.--ev. —Ck .."_1)!C 0 _JO,Q/ • LL • vt`' ALA C)' + . 6 AA.41 ,1' ♦l -tW wcodmod.app16.96 T T -d I29 - 28-02S R4 T I T 4n Jalem Ra I I erg opo di7S =170 00 82 q�� ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION APPLICATION 2 Please list other community, civic, professional, social, educational. cultural or athletic organizations you have been affiliated with, length of time, any office held, and any achievement in those organizations you feel are noteworthy. • 111 44 c - _ cam. C.h cur on a.4 1 (r,0 Q e le h P e, a . ,.. , ,► . , r_ .,t,m I A.. ! rP e_ • ifvx‘ • • VI CA: 0 ULNA • • (irk.Ls " GA 1.- .. --�n�n C���.,� ..• ..,•; .`� �,, ' ' rv�rn� '�t- J h e- . G . P ,)rR _Crtfcrit‘-5 ar c Ok•G r �1u �, e gad S •�a it for .� 1 -S+O'a ; • cy. t 0(.6 t. mew, er car ec}o v * pa( :Pk.' c c v (cc-k.c'er -9 Liirs - wr e i,loey. What do you consider your highest responsibility, skill or achievement; P Y rofessionall and/or personally, and why? roS.-esstoar,Q.1�. AA_ VIP At es kb L ,. et cx. 4vv, 4 • t'YNt\ (xve Yeseceechmok ifLA,n-k-vV .0c:s‘r__Lirkek. OL . ' a • O. ` Yl�S� L�1�1 1C o\A mv-d vkn.�-vvt •r6 e L ev, a pc. .0 ct/s - • o APx- 6 (ecx ` ham, . V • ' `� • t • a h • SIA res Yks k b.11 - .o,V;te_. e n-ve, has bee v\ cays'Q, -C-C) be T03, *0* \ wcodmod.appi6.96 21d I9 - 28-O2S R4 T I t qn Jagem Ra I T erg oJo di7S =tr0 00 82 clad ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION APPLICATION 3 EMPLOYMENT Please list previous employment. List your last or present employment first: Dates of Employment Company Name &. Address 1. , a.v‘ qUiLV\ `tom 5Qte / coro - 2. ... a e: -r •y\ 11‘re - co a 3. cam — tcj�.!_ �.�n .- _ : .. ala, . '. . : u l� • 4 , Aiba,,`,\, a 4. 1912) - i �!7`� 1-.u.�e Cc,�.►,� �P►anh � lb• a � . } r ' �7 p► Q'l3ai 5. 1c116— l� �� \-\1xY;GvlCA' .u,b.WcrKS .4. 913oi List Position & Job Description in numbered order as listed above. 1, Ros & h°``A reE,Aovea hS �r (Do -kxv,hou$e of- aid 0.0v-A-vac Myr lC dor CitktocSeCcer-Sor La."A. 1aw-.e r �0.8159,tQSCc__Er af,�Qrorr�p�rt�,. .•' - . 4!` • - . • n.r.k.►,, A 6YYt0.l\ G.�� p00 �k). . Secre�cuck.\-tC "D‘re o-c De .t 5ce :,�v.i..-.rC�em, eYv-jscd Steypor+_5 . De4oc !IT 1)-42 p4 6..„. e,cy-Q.: 9 4, k _ a. • a • , IL'• a it . # wCodmod.spp/6.96 ET 'd iZ9b-SZS-OZS R4jit4n Jalem Batten opo dSS =+70 00 82 qac ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION APPLICATION 4 EDUCATION Briefly describe your educational background: Institution/School Degree Received nk'V.LviLL, L3 atev-K (.4, 41 rr 131.6aex‘cd CottP0,e_ In& or.1 - c e Cev-ehck MYrvAivk: 6 ' e • , • 440 lROsek,3Lkv-D\ 1 VL l k paiinCk../ Area of Study in numbered order as listed above: Other fields of study, professional institutes, training program, etc.: _ - s= & • . h , Etl - e) 6 • it CjaPAIripX1/4:, C {t e e - Y1 a. • c 1. • NA Ckr Cot- can R4 !nom v.A. \.) • -- a • 44. 191C1 IF DESIRED, FURTHER INFORMATION MAY BE ATTACHED wcodmod.appr6.96 I 'd 129t7-S28-02S Rq t T t qn Jagem Ra t j er\ °JO dSS =170 00 82 gad 6 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager SUBJECT: Appointment of members of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System—Oro Valley Local Board. Resolution No. (R)00-28 SUMMARY: A.R.S. § 38-841 provides for the creation of a local Board for the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System to carry out business on behalf of the local members as specified in statute. The local board may be required to act on questions involving enrollment eligibility, etc. All prior Board appointments have expired. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor (for an indefinite term) and Town Manager - as a citizen member (four year term) - be reappointed to the local board. Staff further recommends that Sergeant Trujillo (four-year term) and Sergeant Buvik (two-year term) be appointed as participant Anembers. In conclusion, staff recommends that Mr. Rutt be appointed as the other citizen member for a two year term. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. (R) 00-28 , appointing members of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes. i/II, dF.A.L huck Sweet, wn Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 00-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD. WHEREAS, the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 38, Chapter 5, Article 4 and related statutes have established a Public Safety Personnel Retirement System; and WHEREAS, Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-841 et seq. provides for the creation of a local Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board and vests in said board the powers and duties necessary therefore; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley hereby ratifies the appointment of the members to the Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System as listed below and hereby declares that each shall serve the term of office provided for by A.R.S. § 38-847(B); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1. That the following appointments to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board for the Town of Oro Valley are hereby ratified and the terms shall commence on September 9, 1993, and shall continue for the terms set forth below: A. Mayor of the Town of Oro Valley Indefinite B. Sgt. Chuck Trujillo, Oro Valley Police Dept. Four (4) year term C. Sgt. Tom Buvik, Oro Valley Police Dept. Two (2) year term D. Chuck Sweet, Citizen Member Four (4) year term E. Herb Rutt, Citizen Member Two (2) year term 2. That said board members are duly approved to perform such duties as provided by law, and 3. That each board member shall serve the terms of office as provided above, which terms shall be deemed to commence from the date of approval by the Town Council of the Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board. PASSED, ADO 'TED AND RATIFIED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, thislsth day of March , 2000. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Date: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Shirley Seng, Acting Water Utility Director SUBJ: PUBLIC HEARING — Ordinance (0)00- 11 Amending the Oro Valley Town Code Article 15-17-5 and Article 15-17-10 and related provisions as to Water Utility Connection Fees/Development Impact Fees SUMMARY: At the Town Council meeting on February 2, 2000 the Town Council adopted Resolution (R) 00-06 which provided a Notice of Intent to increase potable water system development impact fees for the Oro Valley Water Utility. This same Resolution also established a public hearing regarding this proposed action for the regular meeting of March 15, 2000. Attached to this council communication is the report in support of the modifications to the development impact fees that was placed on file for public review. In 1996 and 1997 the original water development impact fees were adopted separately for the former Rancho Vistoso & Canada Hills Water Companies service areas following the town's purchase of these private water companies. Therefore, it is necessary to include in the new ordinance for your consideration an amendment to the town code which will consolidate the town code water connection fees for the water utility. Therefore, this ordinance is currently being prepared by outside counsel and should be available either aty our upcoming Study Session on March 6th or on the evening of March 8, when the Council meets for the annual employee forum. Attachments: 1. Report in support of the modifications to the development impact fees 2. Ordinance (0)00- 11 Amending the Oro Valley Town Code Article 15-17-5 and Article 15-17-10 and related provisions as to Water Utility Connection Fees/Development Impact Fees 7' . ./661, © "ir 7b1,S 77 (Nc rs 16: ACI7.s• Water Uti .ty Direct. Tow Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 00 - 36 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY WHEREAS, ORO VALLEY has the requisite statutory authority to acquire, own, and maintain a water utility for the benefit of the landowners within and without the Town's corporate boundaries pursuant to the provision of Arizona Revised Statute 48-571 et. seq.; WHEREAS, ORO VALLEY is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, and pursuant to Article 13, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, is vested with all the rights, privileges, and benefits entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivision under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, ORO VALLEY now finds it necessary to consider raising potable water system development impact fees for the Oro Valley Water Utility in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute 9-511.01; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: 1. That Notice of Intent to Increase Potable Water Connection Fees is hereby given for the Oro Valley Water Utility. 2. That a public hearing be held on the proposed increases at a regular meeting of the Mayor and Council at 7:00 PM on March 15, 2000 I the Council Chambers of the Town of Oro Valley, Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona. 3. That Exhibit "A" attached hereto be made available to the public in the office of the Town Clerk for review and comment prior to the public hearing. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona this o2 day of , 2000. BY: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /4/1- --- j f Kathry E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town 'I. • ney C WINDOWSNTE P RESOLUTIONfornodoeotintentOoc ►t EXHIBIT "A" POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Prepared for: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT Aismi" Prepared by: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF David Hook, P.E., Water Utility Director David Andrews, Finance Director Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Jeff Weir. C.E.D., Economic Development Administrator WESTLAND RESOURCES. INC. Mark Taylor, P.E., Principal Thom Martinez, P.E., Senior Project Engineer GUST ROSENFELD, P.L.C. Frank Cassidy, Attorney at Law Thomas Burke, Attorney at Law PEACOCK, HISLOP,STALEY& GIVEN, INC. Jim Stricklin, Managing Director Mark Reader, Managing Director Bryan Lunberg, Assistant Vice President FEBRUARY 2,2000 t r TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODOLOGY 3 III. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE IV. WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 6 Step I - Total Infrastructure Requirement Cost 6 Step 2 - Develop Standard Water Usage Based Upon Categories 6 Step 3 - Develop and Tabulate EDUs 7 Step 4 - Develop Standard Cost per EDU 7 Step 5 —Cost of Financing 7 Step 6— Determine Method for Allocating Development Fees 8 Step 7 — Water System Development Impact Fee Calculations 8 Step 8— Multi-family System Development Impact Fees 9 Step 9 - Turf System Development Impact Fee 9 Step 10— Fire-clow System Development Impact Fee 9 Appendix A— Financial Analysis and Requirements t , I. INTRODUCTION The Town of Oro Valley has recently adopted a Potable Water System Master Plan (PWMP). The PWMP projects existing land uses, future populations, water system demands, and infrastructure requirements for the potable water system. The infrastructure requirements were separated into two distinct categories: existing and future infrastructure requirements based upon population and land use projections. The existing system requirements were developed based upon the existing units currently being served and the existing platted lots not yet connected to the system. The existing connections and platted units were considered existing demand, and the analysis of the infrastructure requirements for these facilities were determined based upon a higher level of water service to customers. The cost burden of these facilities will be recovered from existing rate payers, with two exceptions. The first exception is the infrastructure facilities required to serve the existing golf courses. To meet the new water system design criteria proposed in the PWMP, these additional facilities will be funded as existing system upgrades. It is anticipated that the existing golf courses will be transferred to alternative water resources within the next five years. The facilities previously used to supply the golf courses will be available to serve future growth. The cost of these facilities, minus depreciation, will be for the benefit of future customers and are included in the system development impact fees. The second exception is a portion of the existing platted lots which will eventually be developed after the new system development impact fees are adopted. It is anticipated that potable water system development impact fees will be in effect beginning June 2000. It is anticipated that approximately 1,000 platted, undeveloped lots will be connected to the system after this date. The 1,000 lots and corresponding infrastructure cost will be transferred to future development and are included in the water system impact fee calculations. In accordance with Table 17 of the Water Master Plan, Future System Buildout Summary, it is anticipated that there will be approximately 15,135 additional single-family units, 5,064 additional multi-family units, and 1,546 additional acres of commercial/industrial facilities. As developed within the PWMP, infrastructure requirements for these facilities are estimated to cost approximately $27.25 million and be built within the next 20 years to accommodate projected growth. The Oro Valley Water Utility (OVWU) has maintained a policy that growth pays for itself In order to maintain this policy, the potable iter system development impact fee has been developed in accordance with the philosophy that growth pays for itself and the cost burden for infrastructure required by future development be placed upon future development. The development impact fees have been developed so the cost allocations are distributed proportionally to the required facilities attributed to the development. Proportionality of the costs are generally based upon assessing standard water usages for single-family \WINDOWS\TEMP\impact tee report uoc residential units, multi-family residential units, commercial/industrial, irrigation, and turf users. The impacts fees will be collected based upon typical water usages for these categories. The design of the potable water system is based upon the anticipated water usages for different categories of development. The hiuher the water usage of a facility, the higher the cost will be to serve such facilities, hence a higher impact fee for larger users. k. \�I'.DUWSVrEMP\impact tee recx,n out fl. METHODOLOGY The method selected for allocating water system costs between different types of users is to develop equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). EDUs standardize water usage types based upon the average consumption of equivalent residential units. This method of standardization is based upon average daily demand for single-family units, multi-family units, commercial/industrial facilities, irrigation, and turf users. This allocation method includes the following steps: 1. Determine the total infrastructure requirement costs due to future growth to be repaid by water system development impact fees. Develop separate categories of usage and estimate the average daily usage per unit based upon historic usage and/or general planning numbers. 3. Develop and tabulate EDUs for each water usage type and sum the total EDUs required for the system at buildout. 4. Develop a standard cost per EDU based upon the total cost divided by the total EDUs served. 5. Add debt service, cost of issuance, and underwriting fees to base infrastructure fees to develop total water system costs for development of an impact fee schedule. 6. Determine a method for allocating costs to future customers (i.e., charge impact fees based upon user types - the fees can be based upon meter size, acreage of development, per unit, or per fixture unit). The method for assessing standard development fees should be based upon factors such as: closely related to use and demand, easily understood by customers, and ease of implementation. 7. For fees based upon meter size (i.e., single-family residential, commercial/industrial, and irrigation [non-turf' fees) determine the typical water usage differences between user types for each meter size. The usages are based on historic water usage for different type users using the same meter size. Develop meter ratios based upon typical water usage within the same class of customer for different meter sizes. K. Develop multi-family hook-up fees based upon a multiplier of multi-family usage to the standard usage of a single-family EnU to develop a cost per unit. 9. Develop a turf system development impact fee based upon standard usage of turf as a factor of EDUs. Convert the cost to a fee per acre of turf. \VlNDOWS,TEMP\,impact tee report tioc 10. Develop a fire-flow system development impact fee for commercial/industrial and multi-family units to allocate larger reservoir capacity for fire flows greater than the standard 1,000 gallons per minute ( pm) for residential development. Fire-flow system development fees should be allocated based upon the fire-flow requirements of the facility. Fire-flow requirements above those generally provided for residential unit facilities range from 1,500 to 2,500 gpm within the Oro Valley system. \VINDOWS\TEMP\imoact tee report uoc 4 The bonds will be repaid primarily from revenues collected from system development fees. The cost per EDU must be adjusted to include financing costs (i.e., legal fees, underwriting fees, and interest). The cost per EDU, increased from S1,120 per EDU to $2,022 per EDU due to financing costs. The cost of fire flow infrastructure, increased from $1.18 million to $2.51 million due to financing costs (see Appendix A). STEP 6 — DETERMINE METHOD FOR ALLOCATING DEVELOPMENT FEES Based upon historic water usage within the OVWU, a system development hook-up fee based upon meter size for single-family residential, commercial/industrial, and irrigation (non-turf) fees is considered appropriate and proportional to actual usage. The fees will be charged based upon meter size and usage type for these categories. Multi-family hook-up fees will be based upon a per-unit cost for multi-family, condos, and master-metered facilities. This is due to multi-family facilities generally served by a master- metered system and a per-meter hook-up fee would not be applicable to usage. Turf system development fees will be based upon standard water usage in accordance with ADWR requirements for acreage and turf areas. Fire-flow system development fees are estimated based upon a per-meter hook-up and varying with the fire-flow requirement as dictated by the appropriate fire protection agency. STEP 7 —WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS The single-family residential fee is based upon the EDU costs previously calculated. Based upon historic water usage for different type of users using the same meter size, commercial/industrial water usages are typically 2.3 times higher than the water usage for the same size, single-family residential meter. In addition, irrigation (non-turf) users typical comsumption is approximately 1.8 times higher than the consumption of standard single-family residential users for the same meter size. These factors were developed to properly proportion the cost for commercial/industrial and irrigation fees. The increase in all categories, based upon meter size, is developed from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual No. 6 for meter ratios. The ratios are standard increases based upon standard meter capacities and typical usage for the meter sizes. 1 T Irrigation AWWA M6 S.F. Residential Comm/Ind Fees (non-turf) Fees Meter Size Meter Ratio Fees(1.0 factor) ( (2.3 factor) (1.8 factor) 5-8 1.0 52.022 S4.650 53.639 1 2.5 $5,055 S11,625 S9,097 1 1;'2" 5.0 4 1 S10,110 $23,250 S18,195 2" 8.0 j 516.176 S37,200 f S29,112 3 16.0 ---- S74,400 i S58,224 4'' 25.0 ---- $116,250 j $90,975 6" 50.0 ---- S232,500 $181,950 8" 100.00 ---- S465,000 $363,900 i''�1'INDOWS\TEMP\.Impact tee report aoc STEP 8 — MULTI-FAMILY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Multi-family hook-up fees are based upon a multiplier of multi-family usage to the standard usage of a single-family EDU. Multi-family = 0.47 x $1022 = $950 / unit STEP 9 - TURF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE The turf system development fee is based upon the typical turf usage for an 18-hole golf course in accordance with ADWR requirements of 430 acre-feet per year. Using 90 acres of turf within a standard golf course, a typical water usage of 1,411 EDUs was developed per golf course. Golf course storage g requirements are 1/5 of the storage requirement of a single-family home. The EDUs for golf courses were, therefore, reduced by this portion of the storage requirements. Reservoirs account for approximately 42.5 percent of the total cost. Reducing this amount by 4/5 of the storage requirement for golf courses, a 34 percent reduction in EDUs is required for turf usage. The final g sy stem development fee will be based upon a cost per acre of turf. Turf usage(ADWR requirements) =430 acre feet/yr for 18 holes (90 acre-turf) 383,819 gallons per day(gpd)/272 gpud = 1,411 EDUs/90 acre turf Golf Course Based upon Golf Course Storage Requirement = 0.25 Average Daily Demand (ADD) (1.25 ADD for other users) Reservoir Cost account for 42.5% of total x 4/5 reduction = 34% reduction 1411 EDUs x 0.66 (reduction in storage requirement) = 931 EDU 90-AC Golf Course = 931 EDU x $2,022 /EDU = $1,882,482/Golf Course $1,882,482 /90-AC turf = $20,916/acre turf STEP 10 — FIRE-FLOW SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE A fire-flow system development impact fee for commercial/industrial and multi-family users is based upon fire-flow requirements for each project. The system development impact fee is based on the affected number of meters for a project with tire-flows greater than 1.000 gpm. Historic data for the Town of Oro Valley reflect approximately one metered hook-up for every three acres of commercial/industrial or multi-family facilities. Based upon approximately 1 54 p pp _ 6 acres of commercial/industrial and 400 acres of multi-family residential development, a total of 1,946 acres of additional facilities are expected. This equates to approximately 452 hook-ups with fire flows greater than 1,000 gpm at buildout. Based upon the estimated distribution of fire-flow requirements on a percentage of new meter hook-ups, the following table provides system development impact fees that were established. \VV.DOWS\TEMP\impact tee report aoc Fire-flow % of Hook-ups r System Development Requirement Cost of Facilities above 1,000 gpm Impact Fee 1,001 - 1,500 Qpm $1.46 M 85% $3.230/ meter hook-up 1,501 —2,000 Qpm $0.79 M 10% $14,847 /meter hook-up 2.001 —2,500 gpm i $0.26 M 5% S26,151 /meter hook-up TOTAL $2.51 M 100% C WINDOWS\TEMP\impact tee report doc 10 APPENDIX A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Summary of Financing Assumptions in Connection with the Issuance of Water System Development Fee Revenue Bonds -- Based on projected system demands, tax-exempt revenue bonds are assumed to be issued in four installments that are approximately five years apart. The first two sales are expected on or around July 1, 2000. Future sales are expected as follows; Debt Bond Total Engineer's Service Underwriting Project Bond Project Cost Reserve and Issuance Amortization Interest Phase Size Estimate Fund* Costs Period Rate Series 2000 Sale 59,025,000 $7,240,000 S902,500 5882,500 10 Years 7.0% Series 2005 Sale 6,850,000 6,300,000 - 550,000 15 Years 8.5% Series 2010 Sale 7,625,000 7,000,000 - 625,000 15 Years 8.5% Series 2015 Sale 6,525.000 6.000,000 - 525,000 15 Years 8.5% Total 530.025,000 526.540,000 5902.500 52.582,500 * The debt service reserve fund is equal to 10%of the principal amount of the Series 2000 Bonds and will be transferred to subsequent sales. Interest earnings on the debt service reserve fund are used to reduce gross annual debt service requirements. -- The bonds will be secured and repaid primarily through the collection of Water System Development Fees. Additionally, the bonds will have a subordinate pledge of net water system revenues: -- The bonds are structured such that those who benefit from the infrastructure will assume all related costs; - The Water System Development Fee methodology is based on the projected total costs of the infrastructure, including financing costs, divided by the number of projected EDU's. (See Westland Resources, Inc. engineering report and the schedule herein titled "Calculation of System Development Fee".); -- Historical residential building permits issued by the Town are as follows: 1999/00 projected 1.061 1998;99 1,020 1997%98 851 5-year average 756 10-year average 756 -- Bond debt service is structured based on the projected Water System Development Fee revenues which is driven by the historical building permit activity; -. Bond debt service is structured for maximum flexibility based on building permit demand and related Water System Developme Fee revenues, however: * The Town must make, at a minimum,scheduled principal and interest payments, and * The Town can accelerate principal payments based on system development fee revenue without penalty. Prepared by: Peacock Hislop 1/28/2000 O C O C O C C C O C O O O O O O O O O O C C C O C C O in O rJ (N rr C CO N H O O v) O, C O C CO N C M M N M co4 EA 9=t 60,1i C C C 0 0 C_. O O O C `n C O O 00 O N O O O O O VI Ln C Ln in cA U (N1 CI V) O nVI tr) 6g 609 45 69 z C Cl: O O O 1 C O C O O O O w o C 0 0 0 0 O C O OC O O tr, krc C w v,y o 4D N > r- r .„„ W 63 EA 609 6R = = 64.4 la.O C I 0 0 . W O O C O O p L•- C O O = C O c OW E" ONO O O O mi ,L Z 0 0 in L 0C 0 0 til C- VW •i 00 00 O M kr1 00 •U .E O CO 4p604 ,a664 45 • U�" = • ar o a a. O p o O O 0000to- Cd . - LO C oW O o C o 0 o O O C O C > Co) 0 O 0 0 0 0 in 0 . 0 LIN WN to encl eq C N N •U O O N 00 O v) C .4. y 7,-',ti 604 604 L" r- Z _ .�' •" E.• E Cl) G. O >,,,rC. ed � cc! 0.4• CA r-, Titi C C4 . cz ';. U ccl p v) Q .= bp = t) -p cn a O -- •- 34~ 2 O .~ w.► O y 'L 'vO Be 0 3 0 a a.) ct y L.I. > EA L cn "' a. •- L L 't7 U O 4-. TA O 4) U U cn -� a O E7, v ,, ti c'3 O U v) J o` v = (/) U M v) U U U v) = = O .. j C!D C CA -fl v o G6. U ca a. 0 C L r., C+. . V, C C en , C C v, V, V, C V, C C v1 ` ^ N rl O v, r r- v, C N N r C r- C C N C \D v, N oo rn r Co -- -- oo v, 0c 4 O CT, !t C. v-, a C o r rr J N x x rr C --r .^. C 00 ' .^J.-- % r o0 0o a c 0o oo r a r- x a r oo v-, .0 - :a e2 _ 7-3 r r r- r r- r r- r- r r r- r r r r C r •- ^ _ , .A 00 - < ^ - 0 O is, M w v, ccv1 v, O C v, v, v, O v, ^ C ,n C �' r, C v1 r r in O N N r C r C C N C �•. n v1 , N 00 M r O - 00 ri 00 C C •D un CP v 00 R v, •r0 vi r- oo.0 ri r•, rn x C a - - N v, to .n •TrtQrrr; re: en r, r, - - N Cc i C.) C C _ _ o C_ C C C C C -5 .. = , C- v, O vi o vi c C en vi v,o v, vi v,, N V, r ^_ N V, r 0 V, r N r ;� r C. C C -- - 1. N V, V, N r - �n r V1 C C, -.- r r, .0 oo C C r r, r c C r - N r ._ - ,-, ' , - C ,0 N N N .^j vi.,r r^ N r! r 1Tr _. N el N N - - N - N aSC'a a • • C' rivi C :75 - t 1/4... .n N r v� n < en 6A y C•a v O (1, o o V, V, C ^ C v, 0 O c o ,n o r l v �, v1 1 N r C ,n r v, c c ,n v r,l , r! C1/ i..... :7 `^ - r- N .0 oo O C r r r C C r - r! �r O x oo-r a- - o •D r r N .p v, a oo N CO y N 1.L r� .r N a r K. - r r 0, , O v, a M r rte, O.) • 4., .. L Cy CC000 = - 0::-.. o C o o,. CA i 000cocC OO" 00000 o r _ ..... ., o v, C v, c o v, vi o C 0 v, v, o v, J r C,. r! v, r o r r, v'. C v, N r- v, rJ _ N M M r; M .r -r `r ri ri .0 .p r r- 00 v 4/1 Z ' g N o q ^ o � oo �, OC � oC ^ o �n O r, en v, N v, v, N v, v, C O O, vC, j N 0 .D N r -N N - r N , v', N r V'1 �+ - ri,D ri 4.en:•C0, o 4 x .0 a 00 en'ri r, N r- ig A A = y 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r- E00 o F. H 00 O -- "' W In e OO Y,0ov, C0Y, 00 000 OO N v, V, N v,v, N v,v, 0 O v, v, N ON O •O N r -N N-r N V, v,N f. .O N - ry r 00-Cr, QV, . CO00 . 0, 00 M M 00 . rte. 00 .D r+; -00 .O N a V, - r N r N •D N v 1 V 1 v, V'1 Q Q -a M r, r, N N - - v, low WI 3 'L - 4u o o C o 0 o O O C C C o 0 0 0 0 O CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC .O . O C.C O C o 0 0 CC c C C O C o ^/ �' o vi�,o vi vi o vi vi o o C o C 0 O Li ~ v,r r- C N r- O N r- C v, C kr, O r, v, O _ N N N en enr .T v, .n .^ ..0 r r- 00 6. H •0 1►. N9 :s C C� v, v, v, v, vv V, , v, v,v, , N N r N r N r N N rl kr. NT M •0^. •D 00 00 •O 00v1 a ri•n.D - •D r+v `�, ..; a v, 00.7 r M. N 0o r r- r r .0 r .0 'D rte, N�O 00 CO • Z - v 1 •��• J 7 n .o .n v, v1 •n ��, ,n v1 v, v, 0 C Vi 0' ri N N N r, r`,rV N r! en v1 Cl) e3 C o •D r CA y ti= H 4., CelL. ,0 -7 v -w! O C o ^ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 y v, v, c. v, C v, C en v, v, N r r C r,C r C r^N N N - - • e7 i r e -r N N en OO - N O a /1 d D _ N r, N N N N r, N N - O �J ._ ,� r,I r; O Lr .. < ^ y, ...' N Qn CO C o _ ^ C O C C C C •... v-. ,n ��. C ,n O v, v-, v1 ,LC 00 .p �. �.. o r r `• r- 0. r 0 r N r! .. 'n `O N N N •O . C •- .. 00 00 r^, .D Q 00 00 v' N W '� - .0 vx, vim0., v 4 en r.,N rol- N ,► C N C .J �! `A EI. t ri _ , N H'1 C 'A .. `-' EA 9- i .n 1C C C O O O C C C n - N p (--1v, , •n vvi v, o C vi n 7C , 1 n - nt r- v1 Or F., J r v1 f., J .�. .: `, .; r r- 00 0o O• C a C 7 CLQ -t N T t N O O Cr' bA -r >, c. S r_J :J r• - - N r` ...► v, .p r oo a O -r,,r, K ,r, r 00 0, O - N M K V, r 00 C O ` "J i. ... ... �. C .. .r _ �. N N r l N N N N N N r 1 r "J ,.. :J - C O C C O O C O C C c 2 L en ^. }' ,C - rt N N N N ,rl N N N N N N N N N r1 r, N N N, N N N N N N N N - ^ 'J cn D . U ti '7' c— C O -- t•r) - q) N 00 ON N (V C N (A r, in 00 M in M 00 cN 1 (/) y -71• r7' Q` C C to^_ MM U U Th W C C .< I) `o O c1, ,4) 00 y M vi Cr 1 - N � CON rr ...+ p L r_ ^ •_ = — I. fi 0 ca il< c4 Z V > > > C04 W O C p `° p •- > ›. ;ix., ..., O O O O O v� ° •� L y. Z 4� t— rt N N- C (n " "� Q) A 00 .--• u, 7t- (-NI o >, �' Cl) w C N �O 0o O C/) = 'ZS ccs T y 0) U r La N 00 O ,O(N (N (N C U i O 0 CZ CZ > Cl. 4.. CL) cti C crag O r- cn �U/ C/ c� Ca O v _ i. r_l r i.+.�l rt N 00 ,- -0.:10 y U cu "� r^ •• i.. O CP. V ca VD h Lc) `C kr1O rn .r cc) = 2 .... . ) .1), lifte cs (NU V [" �+ n, `..J c,:3 , .- =r C Cd C cn c«-' = 4) 'Z? O O a) U CO N N N N17 U = U - cn Q v� q oG m Q m U C Ri -.c) ) tl. O . •7,-; T ..t J O U :[S J C TJ C L C RS •: =.. oc L C� C. -- V 1.) LO C O C O C v4� •,•••••.;O C C CO C ....• O r C O O O O C C 0 • �, c9 O C) C C C C C C CI).• 4) .`.. ` l r �1n '/•�r n ,/fin /fin ,/fir .. - r� C ( 1 L ! C; k/1 C 1 .."' C y '-n I- (-1 oO I- r- c - - �0 Ci. chi in r M V 0 ._ Cli L c.. O �-- •r / te o .� 3 0 -� OCI © ° � � �' O 4, CN Jy N0 Z ;#) ..1.- i;..7 •=,, >N � � � �. L :n O QCI) � U f o O L•' W `' cA Z c = o C >, 0-1 C 'L F 3 a.) cn m a, C > CA Z Cwl Cti c, m CI C L V, C = Q W W CZ) ..aoC •- > c.) N 2 Z O •- a C 4. EA L L czt :4 > Z ---, p W = _ 0 •_ C /-• ° r ` A i- t""'" n r 7 .` O r- p v crs �] �� L -� -' C.. o c Litl W J — ,— C O C v •— — = �_ vz cr- > C — Ce . .:.: L .= 0 3 0 �, yvi a) — t.1...t.1... p 4 4, 0 c 3 �.: 4, c o C C •A V ,n ._ u -0 C ..... U C) O O > 4) L -. �.. y O O (, •O •O pG C/) CA Cl) VI V C/? = _tu 4) cn 4) CJ J C. a.L = Q a • o 7 T 1 V V C3 v >, C - C L C C... cc "J f r� i �' COCCCOCCOOCCco0CC000CCCCN 0000000 'O •`- CC \C00 CCC� o0NNcC t0000 � \CccccCCC ^ r`J000 ccr' c ONC '1 .) — 0 Coo •--- 0, -- NNN --- OT --- N — C�CO` el0000OOr- r' (`1 c E ,v) v', vl v-, vl kr) kr) kr) kr) k'i kr) v7 kr) kr) kr) kr) kr) kr, kr; i kr) vr', Lel en M . _ _ LL' 1.) 69 6A 0000000000000000 ^ 0 ^ 0000000 ^ 0000 C C C \C oo vC C C ,.0 oo N (1 1 o0 00 ,0 .0 o0 0o C .0 C ('1 00 00 0o N '0 .0 (-1 C rr ,..., 7, C � — .O -- 'CCr') 'C ' c�lc�J J — C' '0rJoo - - 'cc 'i looen kr) kr) -s � oot^! .� C `O 1nv.) l7 � cnrnC,J -- 0CQ, 00c� `p �tcn ( CCNI� kr, rn -- oO 'C 0NenN O ^ @) ' '1 ' f 'l• - ' MMMMMMMMNNNNN ^ - --- p0 O �' C' el - N 4 v _ C C C o 0 0 0 0 C O o C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 C C C O o 0000000CCCCCOOCCCCCCCCOOCOOOOOO '� ca Cv) CvlCv> OvIkn000kn0Ooknknv) ov, knkn0Oknknkno �, o %) •- vltn 'O 'CNN0000C' o — N (N - ccc NccCNr 'ccNC (N NC i r- ,r) 24 Q 6A CN N N N N M M M M ,-4-rr 'D N t v1 I aVI C C O O C O O C O O O C �J V vl kr) vl C C kr) 'n kr) vl O N ''" �J 3 .> 00 \o r`00 O` ON 00 t� „..... _ Q v ¢ V 3 LL 0 oW •„„ a.V = CCCCCCCCCC O 'ti cz = = G• v1vl � � tovlv1v) k) v1 O r--- '•:::: s-- til en MMM (VI en en en fn 00 (N Tue v C C o .0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C COOkrkr) kr) v) 0000kc „•, � o � ,o -4- C' 0 -- kr) kr) :4l � `� Iii i (�1O� O - N (�JoOr1N �0 N = 4) 0CTCCCCC' CCN CT 00 C Q _- ° � C C Z C O N L CCC .€1kr) CCOOvI 0 O' kr) ,C A •O r CT,r)- ts- NooenN ^. O oo v1 ' C .., C °' 4 rn o o vl 69 F- l ri 4, E' ,N v, -o tie C4 CCCCCCCCCC o o N rte, C C O C C O C O C C C N "...6O O O O O O C O O O C m \D �t p v 0Cvlov;000v)"vl kr) o ' o ,4r CL, kr) v1 kr) ' '0 C ,0 N N 00 00 �. U N O C\ C 69 ON 4, el 403 1.1 •v O. '. O W CL _o w N • O 'c7 ^ -- Nr1 � v1 'CN cG' O — 1rnrt � 'Ot� 000 C — 1 r 'cc 'CNccC' O U;� � .= >,, 000000CCC 0oCCVV Q� 00000000000000C00000o0o00O i _- Li. us >.- N (N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 25 > E - ; v JvpZWc a m 1! L r. 7 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Shirley Seng, Interim Utility Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. (0)00-11 Amending the Development Impact Fee Relating to the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Potable Water System; And Amending Sections 15-17-5 and 15-17-10 of the Oro Valley Water Code SUMMARY: On February 2, 2000, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. (R)00-06 which provided notice of intent to increase potable water system development impact fees for the Oro Valley Water Utility. This same Resolution also established a public hearing date regarding the proposed action for the regular meeting of March 15, 2000. The potable water system master plan that was adopted by Council in January identified infrastructure requirements for system expansion. In order to meet the growth related demand, these facilities need to be in place prior to future customers connecting to the water system. However, the statutory requirements for collection of impact fees do not allow the utility to collect the fees in advance but rather they are collected, at the earliest, with issuance of a building permit. Therefore, the fees were designed using the assumption that the utility would finance the cost of infrastructure using the impact fees to repay the debt. As a result, the proposed impact fees are comprised of three components: costs to construct the infrastructure; costs affiliated with infrastructure needs to meet existing system demands placed on the system by golf courses; and the costs that would be incurred to finance the construction of the facilities. Staff strongly supports the inclusion of the golf course related infrastructure costs as a component of the fee. The existing system is in need of improvements to meet the demands of existing customers. When the golf courses are removed from groundwater, excess capacity will be available for future customers. Therefore, it is appropriate that these costs be included in the fees and recovered through impact fees assessed to future customers. During the public review period, staff received comments on the design of the impact fees. While working though sensitivity analyses, staff arrived at four different possible fee scenarios in addition to the one identified in the original report. The infrastructure costs remained the same; however, assumptions in projected interest rates and the proposed build-out periods varied. A brief summarization of the fee scenarios has been provided in the last page of the attachments. If the Council adopts Ordinance No. (0)00-11 this evening, the modified impact fees will take effect in 90 days or on June 15, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed increase in development impact fees will provide the revenue necessary for the utility to build infrastructure to meet the needs of future customers. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff respectfully recommends that Mayor and Council approve Ordinance No. (0)00-11 amending the development impact fees as detailed in Attachment # 5 containing the fee structure titled Case 3B which includes the golf course related infrastructure cost component. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)00-11 Amending the development impact fee relating to the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility potable water system and amending sections 15-17-5 and 15-17-10 of the Oro Valley Water Code as originally submitted and detailed in Attachment # 1. Or I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)00-11 Amending the development impact fee relating to the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility potable water system and amending sections 15-17-5 and 15-17-10 of the Oro Valley Water Code as indicated in Attachment # which includes the fee structure titled Case ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. (0)00-11 Attachment # 1 which includes the fee structure as originally submitted Attachment # 2 which includes the fee structure titled Case 1 Attachment # 3 which includes the fee structure titled Case 2 Attachment # 4 which includes the fee structure titled Case 3 Attachment # 5 which includes the fee structure titled Case 3B Summary of fee scenarios 4414 1. ilk I Interim Water U �lity I rec or /Li / 414 Town Manager ORDINANCE NO. (0) 00- 11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE RELATING TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY POTABLE WATER SYSTEM; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 15-17-5 AND 15-17-10 OF THE ORO VALLEY WATER CODE. WHEREAS, the Town adopted a"hook-up fee" (also sometimes referred to as a"connection fee") as a development impact fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-463.05 on November 6, 1996, by Ordinance No. (0) 96-44, codified in the Town Code (Water Code) at Sections 15-17-5 and 15-17-10; and WHEREAS, the Town believes the so-called"hook-up fee" or"connection fee" would be more accurately referred to as the"Potable Water System Development Fee"; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2000, the Town completed a comprehensive study of the Town's potable water system infrastructure and adopted a Potable Water System Master Plan by Resolution No. (R)00-05; and WI--IEREAS, the existing Potable Water System Development Fee is not adequate to cover the Town's costs of constructing the Town's potable water system infrastructure as identified in the Potable Water System Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2000, the Town adopted Resolution No. (R)00-06, providing public notice of its intent to increase the Potable Water System Development Fee and setting a March 15, 2000 public hearing to consider the increased fee; and WHEREAS, at all times since February 2, 2000, a report entitled "POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES", which explains the basis of the proposed increased fee, has been on file with the Town and available for public review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Town held a March 15, 2000 public hearing on the proposed increase in the Potable Water System Development Fee; and WHEREAS, the Potable Water System Development Fee adopted pursuant to this Ordinance has been determined after giving due consideration to proposed modifications and adjustments suggested and proposed through the public hearing process. Now, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, that the Potable Water System Development Fee is amended and incorporated into the Town Code(Water Code) of the Town of Oro Valley as follows: Section 1: Oro Valley Town Code (Water Code) Section 15-17-10 is amended by striking that section. Section 2: Oro Valley Town Code (Water Code) Section 15-17-5 is amended by striking that section and inserting the following: (See Attachments 1 — 5) Section 3: The various Town officers and employees are authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary or desire to give effect to this Ordinance and to make interpretations of it. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 5: In accordance with A.R.S. § 9-463.05, this Ordinance shall not be effective until 90 days after the date set forth below. Section 6: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1346, the governing body of each county, city, town, or other political subdivision shall maintain efficient record management for local public records and it has been determined that this Ordinance is a public record and three copies of said Ordinance are to remain on file with the Town Clerk of Oro Valley. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY THIS 15 DAY OF March , 2000• TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT NO. 1 AS-SUBMITTED Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $2,022 $4,650 $3,639 1" $5,055 $11,625 $9,097 1 1/2" $10,110 $23,250 $18,195 2" $16,176 $37,200 $29,112 3" $74,400 $58,224 4" ---_ $116,250 $90,975 6" _--_ $232,500 $181,950 8" _--- $465,000 $363,900 Master-metered multi-family/condo fee is $950 per unit for the meter component* Turf usage fee is $20,916 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and multi- family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow(based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CASE 1 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,935 $4,450 $3,483 1" $4,838 $11,125 $8,708 1 1/2" $9,675 $22,250 $17,415 2" $15,480 $35,600 $27,864 3" ---- $71,200 $55,728 4" ---- $111,250 $87,075 6" ---- $222,500 $174,150 8" ---- $445,000 $348,300 Master-metered multi-family/condo fee is $909 per unit for the meter component* Turf usage fee is $20,017 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and multi- family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow(based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CASE 2 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,585 $3,645 $2,853 1" $3,963 $9,113 $7,133 1 1/2" $7,925 $18,225 $14,265 2" $12,680 $29,160 $22,824 3" ---- $58,320 $45,648 4" ---- $91,125 $71,325 6" ---- $182,250 $142,650 8" ---- $364,500 $285,300 Master-metered multi-family/condo fee is $745 per unit for the meter component* Turf usage fee is $16,396 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and multi- family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CASE 3 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,737 $3,995 $3,126 1" $4,343 $9,988 $7,815 1 1/2" $8,685 $19,975 $15,630 2" $13,896 $31,960 $25,008 3" ---- $63,920 $50,016 4" ---- $99,875 $78,150 6" ---- $199,750 $156,300 8" ---- $399,500 $312,600 Master-metered multi-family/condo fee is $816 per unit for the meter component* Turf usage fee is $17,968 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and multi- family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow(based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CASE 3B Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,774 $4,080 $3,193 1" $4,435 $10,200 $7,983 1 1/2" $8,870 $20,400 $15,965 2" $14,192 $32,640 $25,544 3" ---- $65,280 $51,088 4" ---- $102,000 $79,825 6" ---- $204,000 $159,650 8" ---- $408,000 $319,300 Master-metered multi-family/condo fee is $834 per unit for the meter component* Turf usage fee is $18,351 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and multi- family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SUMMARY OF FEE SCENARIOS (Fees relative to typical single family residential meter— 5/8" x 3/4") Scenario Build-Out Interest EDU G.C. Total Period Rates Fee Fee Fee Report as Submitted 49 years 7.0/8.5 $1,934 $88 $2,022 Case 1 49 years 7.0/7.5 $1,847 $88 $1,935 Case 2 22 years 7.0/7.5 $1,497 $88 $1,585 Case 3 34 years 7.0/7.5 $1,649 $88 $1,737 Case 3B 34 years 7.0/7.5 $1,686 $88 $1,774 i,4Q )0-7,16,___ .i--7--.ervt,-if- ,,, 'Pei& inn'. frcifoo ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Loomis and Council Members FROM: Shirley Seng, Interim Utility D. for VIA: Chuck Sweet,Town Manager DATE: March 13,2000 SUBJECT: Amended Attachments to the Development Impact Fees Relating to Multi-Family Units To address Mayor Loomis' concerns regarding the fees to be assessed to multi-family units, attached are amended fee schedules that will be brought forward at the Council meeting on March 15`h. The amended information consists of text changes only and has been highlighted in yellow. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 AS-SUBMITTED Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $2,022 $4,650 $3,639 1" $5,055 $11,625 $9,097 1 1/2" $10,110 $23,250 $18,195 2" $16,176 $37,200 $29,112 3" ---- $74,400 $58,224 4" ---- $116,250 $90,975 6" ---- $232,500 $181,950 8" ---- $465,000 $363,900 The meter component of the fee for master-metered residential uses is the higher of$950 per unit or the single-family residential fee(s) for the master meter(s)few Individually metered residential units shall pay the single-family residential fee for each meter. Turf usage fee is $20,916 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and master- metered residential uses nde is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1.001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CASE 1 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,935 $4,450 $3,483 1" $4,838 $11,125 $8,708 1 1/2" $9,675 $22,250 $17,415 2" $15,480 $35,600 $27,864 3" ---- $71,200 $55,728 4" ---- $111,250 $87,075 6" ---- $222,500 $174,150 8" ---- $445,000 $348,300 The meter component of the fee for master-metered residential uses is the higher of $909 per unit or the single-family residential fee(s) for the master meter(s)for * Individually metered residential units shall pay the single-family residential fee for each meter. Turf usage fee is $20,017 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and master- metered residential uses multi-family/evade is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3.230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CASE 2 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size - Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,585 $3,645 $2,853 1" $3,963 $9,113 $7,133 1 1/2" $7,925 $18,225 $14,265 2" $12,680 $29,160 $22,824 3" ---- $58,320 $45,648 4" $91,125 $71,325 6" $182,250 $142,650 8" $364,500 $285,300 The meter component of the fee for master-metered residential uses is the higher of$745 per unit or the single-family residential fee(s) for the master meter(s)few Individually metered residential units shall pay the single-family residential fee for each meter. Turf usage fee is $16,396 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and master- metered residential uses is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Re'uirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CASE 3 Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,737 $3,995 $3,126 1" $4,343 $9,988 $7,815 1 1/2" $8,685 $19,975 $15,630 2" $13,896 $31,960 $25,008 3" ---- $63,920 $50,016 4" ---- $99,875 $78,150 6" ---- $199,750 $156,300 8" ---- $399,500 $312,600 The meter component of the fee for master-metered residential uses is the higher of$816 per unit or the single-family residential fee(s) for the master meter(s)fef Individually metered residential units hall pay the single-family residential fee for each meter. Turf usage fee is $17,968 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and master- metered residential uses multiis the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Requirement - SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CASE 3B Potable Water System Development Impact Fee Schedule Single-Family *Commercial/ Irrigation(non-turf) Meter Size Residential Fees Industrial Fees Meter Fees 5/8" $1,774 $4,080 $3,193 1" $4,435 $10,200 $7,983 1 1/2" $8,870 $20,400 $15,965 2" $14,192 $32,640 $25,544 3" ---- $65,280 $51,088 4" ---- $102,000 $79,825 6" ---- $204,000 $159,650 8" ---- $408,000 $319,300 The meter component of the fee for master-metered residential uses is the higher of$834 per unit or the single-family residential fee(s) for the master meter(s)for Individually metered residential units shall pay the single-family residential fee for each meter. Turf usage fee is $18,351 per acre of turf * The total Potable Water System Development Fee for commercial/industrial and master- metered residential uses multi-family/condo is the sum of the meter component set forth above and the following supplemental fee based on fire flow for uses requiring more than 1,000 gpm of fire flow (based on the total area of development and the fire flow requirement as determined by the Fire Department): Fire-Flow Rei uirement SDIFs 1,001 - 1,500 gpm $3,230/meter 1,501 -2,000 gpm $14,847/meter 2,001 -2,500 gpm $26,151 /meter For residential uses, this fee shall be paid when construction permits are issued. For all other uses, this fee shall be paid when a water meter is obtained. If water system enhancements are required in order to have sufficient capacity to provide water to a development which will be served pursuant to a line extension agreement, the line extension agreement may provide either that the developer pay the full fee provided by this section at the time of entering into the line extension agreement or that the develop construct all system enhancements needed to serve the development which is the subject of the line extension agreement. Revised 3/8/00 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Shirley Seng, Interim Water Utility Director SUBJECT: Radon Status Report SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not currently regulate radon in drinking water. However, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, calls for the establishment of both a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and an Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level (AMCL) for radon in an effort to reduce health risks associated with radon. Generally, the EPA regulates water quality by establishing an absolute MCL for a given contaminant. Should the detected level of a contaminant exceed an established MCL, the water provider would be in violation of the SDWA and would have to take corrective action. Given the EPA's proposed MCL for radon, water sources that detected levels greater than 300 picoCuries per liter (pC/L) would require treatment. Oro Valley Water Utility performed radon testing on the wells within the distribution system. The test results indicated that all wells exceeded the proposed MCL of 300 pC/L. Infrastructure costs to treat water to meet this MCL have been estimated at $6.4 million and were identified in the Radon Assessment Study prepared by WestLand Resources. Treatment would reduce the level of radon in the water thus diminishing potential health risk. Although radon is certainly a health risk, 98% of radon exposure comes from indoor air, not tap water. At concentration levels below 4,000 pC/L the risk to human health posed by radon from tap water is relatively minor. The proposed AMCL for radon is 4,000 pC/L accompanied by a multimedia mitigation (MMM) program. The MMM program is a concept to reduce exposure to radon in air in homes. This approach would allow flexibility for cost containment and is briefly described in the Assessment Study. Generally this type of program would be implemented at the state level. At the time of this writing, no guidelines for inclusion into the MMM program have been published. There are numerous issues regarding a report prepared by the National Academy of Science from which the EPA based their proposed MCL and AMCL for radon. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of comments submitted to the EPA by the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency that addresses these issues. Also attached as Exhibit B are notes from a radon presentation on 2-23-00 sponsored by the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and the Western Regional Radon Training Center. The EPA's final MCL and AMCL for radon are anticipated to be published in August 2000. ADEQ's final rule would be effective in 2002. However, if the State establishes the AMCL with an MMM program, the implementation date would be in 2005. The Radon Assessment Study prepared by WestLand Resources was submitted to the Water Utility Commission at their regular meeting on 2-15-00. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the Town will depend on the EPA's final MCL and AMCL and how the State establishes their final ruling. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Water Utility Commission recommended that staff be directed to follow through on the Suggested Actions detailed in Article 6.0 of the Radon Assessment Study and implement a program to inform the public about radon issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff concurs with the Commission recommendations. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that staff be directed to follow through on the Suggested Actions detailed in Article 6.0 of the Radon Assessment Study and implement a program to inform the public about radon issues. Or I move to ATTACHMENTS: A. Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency Comments to EPA on Radon B. Radon Presentation Notes r 1 ' 1� / 111 In' ater Util'ty Directo 0,I Town Manager •• Jane Dee Hull - !►1, Governor RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY Aubrey V. Godwin Director 4814 South 40th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040-2940 (602) 255-4845 Fax (602) 437-0705 January 24, 2000 Radon-222, W-99-08 Comments Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Sirs, As requested, please find three copies of our comments enclosed. All references cited in the comments were from the same references used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the proposed regulations. Based upon the comments submitted concerning the lack of morbidity evidence, low Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), wrong risk assessment model, high costs vs. benefits, sample collection/analysis problems, and enforceability; we request that you withdraw the proposed rule. We would support the rule in the future if at a later time the risk model can be verified with morbidity evidence stemming from the ingestion of radon in drinking water and a proper decisive MCL determined. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these rules. Sincerely, Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Attachment GSF:AVG:gf ATTACHMENT Comments A. Radon Occurrence This proposal states that the radon from groundwater should be mitigated to the 300 pCi/liter level to reduce the inhalation hazard posed by radon in our homes. When we examined the USEPA Radon Zone Maps for Indoor Air and compared it to the National Inorganics and Radionuclides (NIRS) report for groundwater we found there are discrepancies with regard to the correlation "high groundwater concentrations indicate high air concentrations indoors". The Radon Zone Map indicates that Arizona is a Zone 2 or has an average indoor radon concentration of 2-4 pCi/liter in our homes, but, according to the NIRS groundwater map Arizona's average radon concentration in groundwater is 300-450 pCi/liter which, according to this proposal should place AZ in a Zone 1 category. In short, there appears to be no correlation of the water radon levels and the indoor air radon levels found around the country. There are known anomalies for radon in indoor air throughout the state, as we are sure, for every state, but, must these anomalies drive the drinking water and indoor air programs for the entire state?, nation? If the USEPA hadn't selected a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) less than Mother Nature provides in ambient air, there would be very few programs throughout the country. Perhaps, the USEPA should push for a mandatory radon in indoor air program on its own merits and not ride the coattails of the Safe Drinking Water Act to force states into an unnecessary expensive program. B. Radon Exposure and Health Effects According to the National Academy of Science (NAS) Risk Assessment of Radon in DrinkingWater, the cancer mortalityrisk associated with lifetime ingestion of Rn222 at a -3 g -1 concentration of 1 Bq m in drinking water is 1.9 E-09, or, 7.0 E-08 per pCi liter-1. The NAS did not quote a cancer study that specifically reported on radon caused morbidity. Instead, they arrived at this risk factor based upon calculations derived from the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan and then applied them to the U.S. population. It is not clear that there is a relationship for the exposure of the atomic bomb victims and those who may be exposed to radon in drinking water. For example, how does the risk from acute exposure to neutrons and exposure to gamma ray emitters and beta particle emitters of the atomic bombings in Japan compare to the exposure of alpha emitters of radon and its daughters? It is unclear from the proposal and the comments of the NAS that the correct risk factors were chosen. For example, are there any documented cases of radon caused stomach cancers? Without such cases how can one calculate a risk Again, even if the risk factors are correct for lifetime ingestion of R11.222 in drinking water, the risks associated for the proposed MCL of 300 pCi/liter is 2.1 E-05 and 2.8 E-04 for the Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level (AMCL) of 4000 pCi/liter. Allowing the increased risk would raise the supposed annual radon in drinking water cancer deaths from 81 to 1080. In stating that the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is zero but allowing the increased risk and body count sends out conflicting messages. Perhaps we could actually count the radon in drinking water related cancer deaths from that risk factor, or, finally determine that the risk model used for the radon in drinking water risk assessment was wrong. Adding insult to injury, the proposal states that to save these 81 persons a year from radon in drinking water related cancer deaths would cost the U.S. citizens a whopping $180 million a year or $2.23 million per person saved C. Maximum Contaminant Level The proposal refers to the National Academy of Science (NAS) 9/15/98 report concerning radon in drinking water as a basis for their selection of the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The NAS report states that radon is an indoor air problem or inhalation problem and not an ingestion or water problem. When you reduce the entire proposed rules down to its very essence the biggest unanswered question is this: "If 4,000 pCi/liter is safe, where did 300 pCi/liter come from and why do we have to contend with it?" The 4,000 pCi/liter appears to come from the 10,000:1 transfer ratio for radon in water to air. The average ambient radon concentration in outside air in the United States is approximately 0.4 pCi/liter or equivalent to the transfer from 4,000 pCi/liter of water to air. That sounds simple enough but what about this 300 pCi/liter? If the real threat to the U.S. citizens from radon is from air and not water, and the ambient outside air concentration transfer equivalent is 4,000 pCi/liter, then why isn't the USEPA concerned about this "deadly"radon from ambient air entering our houses. The USEPA should be promoting cleaner outside air from Mother Nature and imposing rules with regard to sealing up our homes and mitigating by adding airlocks to our entry points to minimize the radon gas in our homes? No, this proposal decides to impose this 300 pCi/liter MCL in drinking water relating to a radon in air transfer of 0.03 pCi/liter. It's easy to see that the ambient air(0.40 pCi/liter) would be a much greater contribution to the radon in air concentration as a whole than any drinking water at the MCL (0.03 pCi/liter). Clearly, there should not be an optional indecisive Alternate Maximum Contaminant Level (AMCL)but perhaps a MCL of 4,000 pCi/liter instead. An MCL of 4,000 pCi/liter would limit water transfers to indoor air at the levels currently provided by Mother Nature in the U.S. ambient air. If the USEPA did this they could not force states to develop and fund indoor radon programs since very few of the nations water systems would be affected as indicated in the 1985 National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) for radon in groundwater presented as table 3-2 in the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA). It should also be noted that the current radon in air sampling and measurement methods lack the sensitivity to distinguish air concentrations in the 0.03pCi/liter to 0.40 pCi/liter range. D. Sampling/Compliance Monitoring Problems There will be approved methods for the analysis of radon in drinking water but will there be approved methods for sample collection? The laboratory can not analyze what the sample collector did not capture. There are several problems associated with collecting a gas in an aqueous solution, first, any drop in pressure will cause the gases to come out of solution, therefore, particular care must be exercised when"extracting the sample" since a negative pressure difference would be required, secondly, the sample would be extremely temperature dependent, as with the negative pressure problem, any increase in temperature without a corresponding increase in pressure upon the sample will cause the gases to come out of solution, and lastly, the diligence and integrity of the sample collector will come into play since to say the very least, if you don't want to find radon, you don't have to, all you have to do is shake up and vent the sample before it arrives to the laboratory. The radon will vanish with the first venting and therefore render the sample absent of any radon. This also makes this rule totally unenforceable, in that, the regulated will be required to be a willing partner. You will only find radon in water if they allow you to control the sampling. Also, there is a four day maximum holding period for each sample since the radon has a relatively short half-life and the laboratory's detection and measurement capabilities is dependent upon radioactivity present at the time of analysis and not at the time of collection. In effect, if you hold the sample a week, the laboratory may find itself incapable of detecting or measuring the radon to any statistical certainty. E. Analytical Concerns The initial implementation of this rule will inundate laboratories with samples that require a very short holding time. Laboratories must also use their equipment to analyze for other contaminants and can not devote their entire laboratory capability to one contaminant. Laboratories will require additional equipment and personnel. The analytical equipment is expensive and the personnel must be highly trained to operate and maintain the equipment to meet the demand. There are only three laboratories in Arizona capable of analyzing drinking water for radon at this time. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standards are currently unavailable. A radon in drinking water cross check or performance testing program does not exist. When we say there are only three laboratories in Arizona known to be capable of this analysis, We mean, three laboratories know how to perform the analysis but may come up with three totally different answers until NIST traceable standards are available and a cross check or performance program implemented. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) does not have an adequate program to assure the accurate analysis of radionuclides by laboratories participating in their accreditation process. During the first year of implementation of this rule, each of Arizona's 1,000 community water systems will require the additional testing for this new radon contaminant. This rule applies to each point of entry for each of the 1,000 community water systems. Each of the community water systems will have multiple water wells to • r be tested. The sample load alone will inundate the laboratories. Add the short holding times and the required quality assurance (QA) for the new analyte and you will create quite a chaotic mess. Water systems will be faced with the inability to have their samples analyzed in a timely fashion to meet the new requirements. Holding times will be exceeded and laboratories will not be able to analyze the samples. Will the water systems have to suspend water delivery from these wells until the analyses are completed? At a time when the USEPA has dropped its laboratory certification program, the state will need to attract a new laboratory industry and certify the laboratories. Currently, there is no radon in water standards available to consistently calibrate laboratory equipment and provide a crosscheck program for the nation's radon in drinking water laboratories. Inconsistencies in laboratory analysis between different laboratories will be the norm since NIST standards are not available. Most laboratories that analyze for radon in drinking water will have to use a radium-226 standard solutions and manufacture their own radon progeny standards under controlled environmental conditions to keep the radon in solution and calibrate their liquid scintillation counting equipment. F. Costs It appears that the annual costs per household by community water system size are disproportionate. The larger systems enjoy a cheaper per person cost than the smaller systems. Arizona has approximately 1,000 public water systems throughout the state. All of the water systems use some groundwater. Most of the population reside in the larger metropolitan areas such as Phoenix, Tucson, or Mesa, where the implementation of this rule to the least restrictive or 4,000 pCi/liter AMCL, may only cost the average family $10 more per year, but, in the rural areas or the remainder of the state, water systems will have to share expenses with its community at a annual cost of$250 per family. Many of the state's citizens can not endure this hardship, particularly with the very limited benefits gained. RADON PRESENTATION NOTES February 23, 2000 The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and the Western Regional Radon Training Center, under contract to the EPA,provided the Radon presentation. The topic of the presentation was largely Radon control systems in new buildings. The purpose of the program was two-fold: to describe the health hazards of Radon as an indoor pollutant, and,to describe methods for planning and installing cost-effective features to control Radon during the construction of new buildings. Overall,health concerns and remediation direction were best summarized in this phrase, "Test the air first,if there is no problem in air then there is probably no problem with water." The EPA Radon limits and programs attempt to reflect that thought. These notes provide fact bullets about Radon and home remediation methods. The Water Utility collected all of the materials available at the presentation and has them for review. Because the focus is on Radon control in new buildings, staff associated with construction review and codes should review the materials. The Water Utility will continue to monitor the development of Radon rules and programs. Regulations Radon maximum contaminant levels are complex because most health-based effects are from air ingestion. The most important point of contact for Radon contamination risk is the air within homes. EPA presently does not have authority over the environment in homes. Therefore,the EPA has developed a hybrid program based on risk in the home environment. While the proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) for radon in water is 300 pC/L, an alternative maximum contaminant level (AMCL)of 4,000 pC/L is proposed. The AMCL intent is programmatically equal to 300 pCi/L by diminishing the risk of air contamination within homes. A rule of thumb has been developed that 10,000 pCi/L of Radon in water yields 1 pCi/L in air after dilution. Given that the average Radon concentration in outside or ambient air is 0.4 pCi/L, the water MCL of 300 pCi/L yields 0.03 pCi/L in the air. This MCL regulation is more stringent than the ambient air quality. The AMCL reflects ambient air quality using the 10,000:1 ratio for Radon transfer from water to air. The calculation of 4,000 pCi/L in water equates to 0.4 pCi/L in air. Programmatically, as little as possible new risk is generated, if the air inside of homes has low levels of Radon. The program to diminish risk is called the Municipal Multi-Media(MMM)program. No guidelines for inclusion into the MMM program have been published. The National Institutes of Environmental Health is meeting this June in Denver to review future directions for the MMM program. The contact for more information is Doug Kladder of the Western Regional Radon Training Center,University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, (800) 513-8332. Again, comparable risk reduction in the home environment is the goal of the MMM. Facts about Home Construction • Remediation at the home site is accomplished via pressure differentials that draw Radon out from under the pad and exhaust the Radon above the roof • The only house foundations that are exempt from Radon are houseboats and treehouses • Radon extraction is simpler for slab-on-grade house construction as opposed to basement construction { • Air-space-at-grade vents to achieve convective air flow are not sufficient to meet standards • Air handlers in large buildings contribute to trapping Radon, fresh-air make-up vents are necessary • Minor leaks in floor air returns can suction Radon from soils and discharge into the building • Radon is pushed into homes by barometric pressure drops and by precipitation that push soil Radon up into lower pressure zones such as structures or into Radon collection/exhaust systems • Sealing cracks is not a stand alone remediation technique • Radon in the house returns to highest levels 6 to 12 hours after a complete air exchange with outside air • Residential Radon remediation focuses on creating low pressures at the contact between the building slab and the soil. The terms presently used are"Active Soil Gas Depressurization" for systems with fans or blowers; "Passive Soil Gas Depressurization" for systems that rely on pressure differences alone; and"Sub-Slab Depressurization Systems" a general term. • Venting the Radon from below a structure does not create a point source of pollution; vented radon is at the same volume as is naturally existing • Utility trenches under buildings are good venting points • Depressurization systems for existing residential structures (retro-fit)are estimated by the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency to cost in the range of$1,800 to $2,000 per house. Depressurization systems for new residential structures is estimated to cost about$200 per house. • Passive depressurization systems are more suited for new construction. If the extraction is not sufficient, system design should allow for a fan to be added to make it an active system. • Retrofits can detract from aesthetics • Radon extraction systems are a value added benefit that may be market driven since they are low cost at the time of initial construction • Biggest bag for the buck is the AMCL soil remediation. • Unit prices for construction can be low if initialized by the builder and performed on a custom basis • Public notice of why AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L is appropriate. Public trust needs to be built on the recognition of risk reduction. Miscellaneous Facts about Radon • Radon is not associated with landfills, it is naturally occurring • Health concerns for"Radon decay products"not Radon itself because it is very short-lived: the decay products are radioactive Polonium,Bismuth, and Lead that can enter the lungs • Alpha particles are the radiation products of concern, as opposed to Beta and Gamma particles • Alpha particles kills most cells contacted, occasionally it affects DNA at the gene P53 which allow the affected cell to begin cancerous growth • Radon and cigarette smoke affect the same gene increasing cancer probability. • Additionally, chemical changes occur from radiation at the cellular level in the form of"free radicals" (hydroxides and hydrogen) • Skin is more protected than internal tissues from radiation because of the signficant layer of dead cells that protect inner tissues • Risk associated with Radon is a function of exposure time and dose concentration • The first recognized documentation of Radon hazards were articles on health risks for uranium miners in the 1940's • While natural rock materials used in homes such as granite table tops contain Radon,their contribution is very low and is not a concern • Approximately 85 percent of Pima County schools have been tested and are clean due to positive pressures from ventilation units • Evaporative coolers can flush out Radon(Radon in water contributions from coolers is not significant) 9 REGULAR AGENDA TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 03/15/2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: U.S. HOME vs. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, Cause No. 335827 SUMMARY: This item was placed on the regular session to permit discussion, consideration and possible action relating to U.S. Home vs. Town of Oro Valley. This matter is developing and further information and/or documentation may be provided on or before the March 15, 2000 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Will be provided at the meeting of March 15, 2000. SUGGESTED MOTION: Will be provided at the meeting of March 15, 2000. Signature of Attorney �� et, REGULAR AGENDA TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 03/15/2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: NEW WORLD HOMES vs. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, Cause No. 325395 SUMMARY: This item was placed on the regular session to permit discussion, consideration and possible action relating to New World Homes vs. Town of Oro Valley. This matter is developing and further information and/or documentation may be provided on or before the March 15, 2000 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Will be provided at the meeting of March 15, 2000. SUGGESTED MOTION: Will be provided at the meeting of March 15, 2000. I or §i7na u e of Town Attorney