The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (1491) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 2000 ANNUAL RETREAT (STUDY SESSION) AUGUST 5, 2000 Sheraton El Conquistador Resort Palo Verde # 1 & #2 Room 10,000 N. Oracle Road Oro Valley, Arizona STUDY SESSION (AT OR AFTER 7:30 A.M. TO NOON) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Introduction of Facilitator: Peggy Fiandaca, Partners for Strategic Action Town Council Retreat Subjects: 1. Town Council Goais and Objectives 2 Oro Valley Development Review Process 3. Town Council Meetings ADJOURNMENT (NOON) Posted: 08/02/00 12:00 Noon Ih TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager SUBJ: 2000 Town Council Retreat - Supporting Documentation SUMMARY: The attached supporting documents have been compiled for your p upcoming council retreat on August 5, 2000. They are as follows: 1 . 2000 Retreat Town Council Feedback Information 2. Resolution No. 95-22 " Town of Oro Valley Policy for the Annexation of Unincorporated Land". p 3. Minutes and Notes from Facilitator of June 5, 1999 Town Council Retreat. 4. Minutes of November 3,1999 Town Council Meeting, Item #5. Acceptance of the Solid Waste Management Task Force Report and Supplemental Report and Possible Action regarding Solid Waste Collection within the Town of Oro Valley. 5. Information dated June 13, 2000 from League regarding Income Tax Repeal. 1 a own Manager (IF 2000 RETREAT TOWN COUNCIL FEEDBACK 2000 Retreat Town Council Feedback: A. Town Council Goals and Objectives Subtopics: •'• Where do we go from here? (WW) + Annexation Policy (WW) •'• Council Policy, Oro Valley Vision, expectation of Council Member activity under weak council govt. (BR) + Goals and Values (PL)(DJ) + Another retreat in six months (PL) + Review of Last Town Council Retreat Agenda (i.e. where does Solid Waste stand?) (DJ) + Master Plan for the next 5 year period. (DJ) + Feedback System to Customers (DJ) + How serious is the threat of the income tax initiative? (WW) + Alternative Water Resources (PL) B. Oro Valley Development Review Process Subtopics: + Our Policies toward development Community. (WW) C. Town Council Meetings Subtopics: + Agenda/Agenda Management (FL) (DJ) + How do Council Members get an item on the agenda? (DJ) •'• Electronic communication (DJ) •'• Town Manager's recommendation on Council Communications (DJ) (PL)Paul Loomis;(FL) Fran LaSala; (DJ)Dick Johnson; (W1/V)Werner Wolff;(BR)Bart Rochman RESOLUTION NO . 95-22 RESOLUTION NO. (R) 95-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE "TOWN OF ORO VALLEY POLICY FOR THE ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED LAND" AND MAKING SUCH DOCUMENT A PUBLIC RECORD; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. (R)93- 18 WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has, in the past. annexed unincorporated areas into the town limits, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council desire to update and revise the policy of established guidelines for future annexations to ensure that any such annexations will be logical. practical, financially feasible and in the best interest of the town's present and future residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: That certain document known as "Town of Oro Valley Policy for the Annexation of Unincorporated Land" dated May 5, 1995, `,vhich is attached herewith and labeled as "Exhibit A", three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk. is hereby adopted. declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. That this resolution shall supersede Resolution No. 93-18, which adopted a previous annexation policy, and Resolution No. 93-18 is hereby rescinded. /7 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley,,, Arizona this / day of May , 1995. Cheryl Skal v, Mayor r I " ATTEST: Kathrynu . Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1://' Tobin S idles, Town Attorney EXHIBIT A Town of Oro Valley Policy for the Annexation of Unincorporated Land May 5. 1995 r - The annexation of unincorporated areas of Pima County of the Town of Oro Valley shall consider the following guidelines: 1) Pursue the filling out and squaring off of the town limits. Strive toward a configuration for the town limits which eliminates county islands and peninsulas and yields an identifiable, manageable boundary for the town. r 2) Areas to be considered shall be prioritized as to quantifiable benefit to the Town. 3) Require the submittal of a fiscal impact analysis for both undeveloped (rural) and developed properties, the level of detail and contents of which may vary with the intensity or complexity of thero osed or existing use of the land. Such analysis is required. regardless of who initiates the P P annexation process. 4) Future annexations of the Town shall be generally consistent with the policies and the planning area of Town's adopted General Plan. 5) Consider aP roactive stance on annexations initiated in areas deemed most fi.seally beneficial to the Town as indicated by town-prepared studies andlor professional regional studies. 6) Lands annexed by the Town shall have existing, ordinanced zoning translated to Oro Valley districts in conformance with state law and to densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the zoning ordinance of the governing jurisdiction immediately before annexation. r 7) The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission shall review any proposed annexation for conformity to the adopted General Plan. The Commission shall forward a recommendation to the Town Council within 90 days of the initial hearing on the proposed annexation. 8) Pre-annexationidevelopment agreements shall he considered by the planning and zoning commission and town council where appropriate ro riate during the annexation process with a five year limitation then subject to review at the end of the live year period. RESOLUTION NO. (R) 93-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE "TOWN OF ORO VALLEY POLICY FOR THE ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED LAND" AND MAKING SUCH DOCUMENT A PUBLIC RECORD; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. (R) 89-47 . WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has, in the past, annexed unincorporated areas into the town limits, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council desire to update and revise the policy of established guidelines for future annexations to ensure that any suchinterest will be logical , practical, financially feasible and in the best o f the town' s present and future residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: That certain document known as "Town of Oro Valley Policy for the Annexation of Unincorporated Land" dated May 5, 1993 , which is attached herewith and labeled as "Exhibit A" , three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby adopted, declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. That this resolution shall supersede Resolution No. 89-47 , which adopted a previous annexation policy, and Resolution No. 89-47 is hereby rescinded. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 5th day of May , 1993. Lanetta Lee Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FARM: -74 4'4' Gary D. Kidd, Town Attorney EXHIBIT A Town of Oro Valley Policy for the Annexation of Unincorporated Land May 5, 1993 The annexation of unincorporated areas of Pima County of the Town of Oro Valley shall consider the following guidelines: 1) Pursue thegradual, general, filling out and squaring off of the town limits. Strive toward a configuration for the town limits which eliminates county islands and peninsulas and yields an identifiable, logical boundary for the town. 2) Low priority may be given to areas which provide non- quantifiable benefit to the Town. Such areas should be included with adjacent areas to achieve a cumulative net benefit. 3 ) Require the submittal of a fiscal impact analysis for both undeveloped (rural) and developed properties, the level of detail and contents of which may vary with the intensity or complexity of the proposed or existing use of the land. Such analysis is required, regardless of who initiates the annexation process. 4) Future annexations of the Town shall be consistent with the Town' s adopted General Plan policies and the planning area, as defined by the Coronado National Forest and Catalina State Park on the east, the Pinal County line on the north, Ina Road alignment on the south and Thornydale Road alignment on the west. 5) Consider a proactive stance on annexations initiated in areas deemed most fiscally beneficial to the Town as indicated by town-prepared studies and/or professional regional studies. 6) Complete a study of unincorporated areas to determine the most logical , practical and financially feasible lands to be annexed. Staff should prioritize potential annexations according to fiscal or other benefits deemed suitable by the Town Council. 7) Lands annexed by the Town shall have existing, ordinanced zoning translated to Oro Valley districts and to densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the zoning ordinance of the governing jurisdiction immediately before annexation. 8) Annexation requests initiated by land owners shall conform to all guidelines of this policy, the Town' s General Plan and the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Annexation Policy page 2 May 5, 1993 9) At the direction of the Town Council , the Oro Valley Planning ann in g and Zoning Commission may review a proposed annexation for conformity to the adopted General Plan and compatibility of existing and proposed (if any) land uses with existing and/or planned uses for lands currently within the Town limits. The Commission shall forward a recommendation to the Town Council within 90 days of the initial hearing on thero osed annexation. p p MINUSES & NOTES OF FACILITATOR FROM JUNE 5 , 1999 TOWN COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION/RETREAT JUNE 5 , 1999 8:00 a.m. -- 12:00 noon 12210 NORTH ORACLE ROAD STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 8:00 AM CALL TO ORDER 8:15 a.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Wayne Bryant. Council Member r Fran LaSala, Council Member Paul Parisi. Council Member STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Sweet. Town Manager Werner Wolff. Chief of Police Bill Jansen. Town Engineer Dan Dudley, Town Attorney r r David Andrews. Finance Director Terry Vosler, Building Administrator Jeffrey Weir. Economic Development Administrator Bryant Nodine. Planning & Zoning Administrator Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk SETTLING ISSUES WITH TORTOLITA NEIGHBORS (MAYOR LOOMIS) Discussion followed regarding maintaining the integrity and quality of life for citizens in the Tortolita neighborhood. It was discussed that it would be appropriate to have a session to meet with representatives from Tortolita to have an open discussion. CUSTOMER/CITIZEN SATISFACTION FEEDBACK PROCESS (VICE- MAYOR JOHNSON) Discussion followed regarding moving ahead with this concept and develop the appropriate mechanisms to obtain customer/"citizen satisfaction feedback. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD POWER Discussion followed regarding the Town Council taking more responsibility in controlling the town's Boards & Commissions such as: 06/05/99 Council Study Session%Retreat 2 • Structure the appointment • Set term limits • Draft an appointment process policy • Rotate the Chair on an annual basis Mayor Loomis called a recess at 9:30 a.m. Meeting resumed at 9:45 a.m. ANNEXATION POLICY (VICE-MAYOR JOHNSON) It was discussed that the basic annexation process is good if utilized properly. Although the Council does not like to use annexation agreements, they may be necessary on occasion depending upon the individual situation of the annexation. It was discussed that another meeting should be held to discuss setting appropriate boundaries for the future growth of the toy,n. TOWN COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS (MAYOR LOOMIS) The following Town Council Liaison Assignments were discussed: Wayne Bryant: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Water Utility Commission Dick Johnson: Capital Improvements Program Governmental Liaison Greater Tucson Economic Council Library Advisory Committee Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitor's Bureau Fran LaSala: Development Review Board Finance & Budget Committee Planning & Zoning Commission Paul Loomis: Pima Association of Governments Paul Parisi: The Chamber Serving Northern Pima County Fire Advisory Committee Police Liaison Pima Association of Governments (Alternate) FIRE PROTECTION (COUNCIL MEMBER PARISI) Discussion followed regarding holding a Council Study Session with the Fire Advisory Committee to discuss and identify the perceived and real problems to get a good understanding of the basic facts before a decision is made. It was discussed that a presentation of the final report will be given to the Town Council around the middle of July. 06/05/99 Council Study Session/Retreat 3 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (MAYOR LOOMIS) Discussion followed regarding Community Economic Development strategies that should be consistent and will remain consistent in the future. Must balance between business, economic development and maintain a high quality of life. The east side of Oracle should remain open space. It is important to make sure the infrastructure is in place before development occurs. Update the Economic Development Document that was issued in 1997. CHANGING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP FROM 5 TO 7 MEMBERS (VICE MAYOR JOHNSON) Members of the Council discussed the merits of increasing from a 5 to 7 member Council. Eleven out of 87 cities/towns have 5 council members. Populations range from a high of 25.455 (Oro Valley) to a low of 460 (Jerome). It was discussed that in order to accomplish this in Oro Valley. Council will have to adopt an Ordinance by September 1. 1999 so that the membership increase becomes effective at the March 2000 election. AGENDA MANAGEMENT Members of the Council discussed the suggestions submitted by the Town Clerk and Town Attorney regarding managing items placed on the agenda and the importance of keeping order during meetings. It was suggested that staff look into distributing packet materials to the Council 2 weeks prior to each regular meeting to give ample time for review. Discussion followed regarding scheduling a retreat after every election and on an annual basis for goal setting. Discussion also followed regarding having a retreat whenever necessary, not just on an annual basis. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted. 02721,7,_ CCA4_4_,,r Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk NOTES FROM FACILITATOR— NINA TRASOFF These notes were prepared in order to facilitate discussion and not to provide an all encompassing overview of what was discussed. Common Ground Passion Caring for Town Ability to stay calm & focused Integrity Tenacity SETTLING ISSUES WITH TORTOLITA NEIGHBORS Paul Loomis: • Incorporation not correct, but still our neighbors • Once settled— chance to work with them • Annexation? Independence for area? • Urban growth boundary? • Some form of self control of their neighborhood? • *Maintaining unique characteristics, ie., village within Oro Valley. Paul Parisi: • He & Johnson only ones on Council • People from Tortolita came to us • Amphi School District • For ballot— not automatically town • Public input • *Wants open meetings on this — otherwise people see things askew • We followed the system • Control for development to Oro Valley standards Dick Johnson: • Is it just power? What are we after? • Is it control over land uses? Leadership? • We need to give them a voice • Need to think as a region wi preservation of lifestyle • Come to agreement/avoid court Wayne Bryant: • We had a couple of meetings ago, agreed to have them. • Individual council members to put on agenda • We could have done DARE officer better as willingness to help, as opposed to taking over 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator—Nina Trasoff • It's a question of attitude • Property owners did come to us, but with self interest to be able to upzone. Others don't want it. • Support them until courts decide. Fran LaSala: • Legislature caused this, no win situation. Tucson's view is can legislature pass law for one count`. • Pitted neighbor against neighbor • Unfortunately, we annexed when everyone said Tortolita was not legal, except one judge saw it differently. • Voted for annexation because thought Oro Valley could better protect integrity of Tortolita. • Northwest needs to incorporate to draw state revenue. • Doesn't want to grant zoning changes from current zoning because they could become a town and sue. CUSTOMER/CITIZEN SATISFACTION FEEDBACK PROCESS Dick Johnson: • Feedback process. Paul Loomis: • Could add it to web site and e-mail. • Customer surveys sent out— worthwhile. • We are a service organization • Award mechanisms tied to feedback • Make it easy for customer. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD POWER Wayne Bryant: • Alarmed that DRB can make a decision • Buck stops with Council. not Board • Decisions should be made by Council • Appointed citizens should not have ability to make decisions. Break of fiduciary responsibility. • Decisions —no matter how mundane, should come to council. Paul Parisi: • Agrees we should exercise power more often. 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator—Nina Trasoff 3 • Appointments should not be just Liaison & Mayor • Should go to council. Dick Johnson: • Need structure • Term limits for Boards • Chair rotation • Take political aspect out Paul Loomis: • Organization of boards • Need new blood • Need to evolve to reflect the Town • Items that don't come to Council -- nned tolook at them again • May need to look at this under Council Agenda Fran LaSala: • Perhaps each council member should appoint hoard member. • That makes each council member more responsible • Should be criteria for appointment • Chair should be one year • Commissioners should be a pulse-reflection of Council. Dick Johnson: • Take a look at it all • Then committee by committee Better outreach for volunteers. ANNEXATION POLICY Dick Johnson: • Annexation policy— not specific enough • Establish vision of OV final size for staff guidance Paul Loomis: • Past policy/process solid although it doesn't define final boundaries • Satisfied, but need to add to economic impact, but also economics as currently zoned. • Be aware of areas that want to be part of Oro Valley and value they hold. Paul Parisi: • Wants to annex state land north of Town • If it were ever sold, Oro Valley could control zoning • Allied Signal —they could move out and Pima County would decide. 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator— Nina Trasoff 4 • Everything else should be initiated by property owners —current practice is ok • Pre-annexation agreements should,be to preserve current zoning, not upzone. Wayne Bryant: • Pre-annexation agreements— perceived as behind closed doors —otherwise basic policies good. Dick Johnson: • Discourage pre-annexation agreements. Paul Loomis: • Against pre-annexation agreements as a rule. • Sometimes they are needed. • Need to be careful, but still necessary tool. Dick Johnson: • Overall goal, square off boundaries (le not down the middle of a road) Commonalities: Basic policy good, pre-annexation agreements can be useful: must be public. COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Paul Loomis: • Where do we stand? What are strategies adopted by Council? • Economic Development is tool to try to not have property taxes—concerned with priority placed on it. • Wants goals for Oro Valley to stand, not be secondary to economic development. • Cannot compromise Town values. Dick Johnson: • Bring in competitive businesses doesn't expand the pie greatly. • OV should target specific services that meet unmet resident needs. Fran LaSala: • When he heard Kmart & Walmart were coming in across from Target, he was upset • East side of Oracle/First could be speciality center for Star Buck's type place. like St. Phillips Plaza. Wayne Bryant: • If we do too much development, we'll have constant traffic problems. • May need a business loop for people moving through. • New business may not be worth extra pollution. Dick Johnson: 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator—Nina Trasoff 5 • Need to plan for future —20 years down the road. Paul Parisi: • That is the planning Town should do for area businesses. standards must he consistent. Fran LaSala: • Work with the Chamber. Work with businesses that are here — aim for diversity. Wayne Bryant: • Infrastructure must be there first. Paul Parisi: • Agreed with Wayne Bryant about infrastructure. r • Communities Facilities Districts can be used as an incentive. Commonalities: Need solid consistent standards that balance tax and quality of life. Update Economic Development Strategies. CHANGING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP FROM 5 TO 7 MEMBERS Dick Johnson: • OV is largest Town to have only 5 council members. Fran LaSala: • Agrees. Wayne Bryant: • Wants Ward system. Fran LaSala: • Then you get people only interested in their area. Wayne Bryant: • Harder to build concensus. Paul Parisi: • Agrees. • Also harder to get qualified candidates • You get things done with smaller number • If we pay, that much more to spend Dick Johnson: • Quality: people don't run because of the way they're attacked. • We're getting to civility. 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator Nina Trasoff 6 • Diversity is the key. • Time is now to make that decision. Wayne Bryant: r r • Look at Tucson— can't get anything done. Paul Loomis: • Undecided— League of Towns suggested 7 as greater diversity. • Now that he has worked with 5 — not sure • Wants to do more research. Wayne Bryant: • Added staff time • Longer meetings Town Manager Chuck Sweet: • Some additional time-but depends on quality,type of person in office. • If micromanage then it's a problem • If policy makers, no difference. Town Clerk Kathryn Cuvelier: • Agrees with Town Manager • Time of council meetings depends on chair Do fact finding in time to decide for March 2000 ballot—examine by sector/ward, ratio of staff to counci/merits/disadvantagesibudget. AGENDA MANAGEMENT Paul Parisi: • OK as is. • Must have order in system— It may take awhile, but certain control must be there. r • Would like to see more different topics on agenda. Dick Johnson: • His concern is what we do with current items. • We all have to watch what kinds of questions/statements we make. • Shouldn't politicize things. • Consent Agenda—perhaps we need to define what goes on it— ie administrative issues Council shouldn't have to deal with. Wayne Bryant: • Wants to pull some things off of consent agenda for public perusal. • Any major ticket item should be in public. 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator—Nina Trasoff 7 Dick Johnson: • It becomes political. Fran LaSala: • Applicant takes advantage of a lot of time. • Don't sacrifice public input for efficiency. Dick Johnson: • Call to audience is at the start so people know they have a chance to speak. • Mayor at the end calls for further comments. 1) Call to audience (i2 start. 2) Blue card mandatory. 3) Non-public hearing, no additional input. Wayne Bryant: • Likes second call for public involvement. Dick Johnson: • Public input becomes very repetitive. • Maybe further limit time or not allow repetition. Paul Loomis: • Add note on podium. All: • Must adhere to time. Paul Parisi: • There is a difference between council meetings and open Town Halls— should have one every quarter that's where people should have input. • Council meetings are business meetings. • There are opportunities to speak at committee meetings, study sessions. • Input comes before we do business. • If not a public hearing, then they've lost opportunity to speak. Dick Johnson: • We have so much notice. Wayne Bryant: • Buck still stops with Town Council. Paul Parisi: • Plenty of opportunity —regular sessions are business meetings. Wayne Bryant: 06/05/99 Notes from Facilitator—Nina Trasoff 8 • We know HOT TOPICS —let's separate them to special meetings with more input. Fran LaSala: • If we expand Council. we expand # of meetings. • Maybe time to tighten up & adhere to time limits. • Have a spokesperson for similar opinions. Paul Loomis: • After applicant has spoken, shouldn't get to respond to public unless questions are asked by Council. • Limit# of items on agenda—better to have additional meetings. • Get packages for Council meetings delivered earlier— (staff would be working 2 weeks in advance). • Will be strict. If applicant wants to respond later, then whole matter will be delayed. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3 , 1999 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ITEM #5 • 11/03/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 5. ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION WITHIN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dick Izen, Chairman of the Task Force, stated there were members of the task force present to give an overview of the need for government intervention, costs, existing contracts and recycling issues. The following members from the Solid Waste Task Force gave the report and spoke in favor of the Supplemental Report and possible action regarding Solid Waste Collection within the Town: Bob Putnam, 11410 North Scioto, Oro Valley Dan Griffen 14054 North Cirrus Hill Drive, Oro Valley Paul Sobel, 14108 North Biltmore Drive, Oro Valley Mark Lewis, 7925-A North Oracle Road, #391, Oro Valley Council Member LaSala asked the following: 11/03/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 • Why does the Town need a "community clean-up day" when it could be developed with a little advertisement • Has anyone investigated the cost for recycling. He stated it would be very expensive for businesses to provide this service at no cost • Had there been any information gathered regarding the environmental laws and liabilities In conclusion, Council Member LaSala stated if none of these issues had been addressed, how could the force possibly expect Council to take action? Mr. Lewis gave the following explanation: (1) The idea was to coordinate a day in which the Town could effectively advertise and communicate to the population as a whole using a mass media approach. (2) The issue of recycling could be something people could do if they chose to do so. (3) The Task Force focused particularly on the environment, doing the right thing, and being a leader in the area of recycling. He added the task force felt there was a need to have a responsible trash provider in the Town, therefore, they did not evaluate this issue from a profit standpoint. He stated if the Council had concerns regarding profit that this could be added to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Council Member LaSala stated that the customer could be charged for the amount of garbage generated to encourage people to recycle. He asked what would be the incentive for recycling. Mr. Lewis explained that regarding the volume that he had contacted six of the markets in which the test studies had been done. Each of the six said that it was their desire to discourage volume, not to encourage volume to save money in both trash and recycling. Council Member LaSala stated that he had been overwhelmed with letters and approached by individuals who were in total opposition to this proposal. Council Member Bryant stated he had also been approached and that the majority of people's concerns were with having too many trucks providing service on different days and the cost. He asked if the Town developed an Ordinance, could the Ordinance regulate the price and standardize the dates. If so, would this impose property taxes on the citizens? Mr. Andrews explained if the Town entered into the trash business, it would not necessarily mean a property tax, but simply a fee for service. Council Member Parisi explained that this task force was assembled because the community felt there was a need for the Town to investigate solid waste collection and suggested accepting the report and moving forward. Vice Mayor Johnson thanked the task force for their participation and suggested that Council accept the proposal; staff review the report: and staff resubmit the report with their recommendations along with a sample RFP, and then move forward. 11/03/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 7 Council Member LaSala stated the private sector is doing a wonderful job. He said he had a philosophical problem with government intervening in an area when the private sectors are doing just fine. Mayor Loomis stated that he believed the task force had done a super job and had a very good recommendation, but had concerns with overall liability, unknown RFP's: and not providing compensation to the bidders for putting together the proposal. He said the report did identify deficiencies in the Town Ordinance and has identified areas where additional corrections could be made. He added that there should be an organized method for trash collection within the Town of Oro Valley. He stated there were ways to motivate the providers to restrict certain elements and meet some of these deficiencies. MOTION: Mayor Loomis moved to ACCEPT the Solid Waste Management Task Report/Supplemental, thank the task force for their effort, dissolve the Task Force, and the Town staff review the recommendations submitted by the Task Torce and an addendum for recommendations on Ordinance changes and if necessary a plan that would accomplish working with the major contractors and other recommendations that staff deems necessary. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Discussion: Vice Mayor Johnson stated that he would like to include in the motion'`to start some preliminary action on the RFP". Mayor Loomis stated that the Town force had provided a draft RFP and proposal. He stated that he did not believe Council needed to go any further with the RFP and did not accept Vice Mayor Johnson's request to amend the motion. CALL FOR QUESTION MOTION: Council Member LaSala requested a call for the question. Call for the question passed, 4/1, with Council Member Bryant opposed. Motion passed. 5-0. Mayor Loomis called a recess at 8:22 p.m. Meeting back in session at 8:34 p.m. LEAGUE INFORMATION REGARDING INCOME TAX REPEAL JUN-13-2000 17:28 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.01/06 THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS 1 820 West Washington Street ® Phoenix,Arizona 85007 I Phone (602) 258-5786 Date: June 13, 2000 To: Rachel Bartels From: Becky Hill Subject: Income Tax Repeal This fax has (6)pages. If there is any transmission problem,please contact sender at(602)258-5786. Thank you for your call this morning regarding the "Axe the Tax" Initiative. I should first tell you that the letter I said we sent out requesting information regarding your budget should the initiative pass has not been mailed yet. It will go out this week. For those who will ask why we are making this request please note that we have had requests about the impact to cities and towns and we would like to have that information on hand. We also believe that individual cities and towns will begin receiving similar requests from interested citizens and the press and having this information ready will assist us all in answering questions certain to arise from both sides during the debate. Below are some below points regarding the initiative and I have included a copy of the actual text of the initiative. Primary Provisions • Beginning January 1, 2005 the income of individuals, corporations and other legal entities shall not be subject to taxation by the state or any political subdivision. • Any act that provides for a net increase in state revenue must receive a 2/3 vote of the Legislature and a majority of the votes of the qualified electors at the next general election.This includes a new tax, a new tax rate, new fees and reduction in tax credits and deductions and changes in the allocation formulas of shared revenue. (Although obviously urban revenue sharing goes away altogether.) Allows for inflationary increases that are not the result of an act by the Legislature. • Encourages candidates for federal office to sign a pledge that they will advocate for the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service and the federal income tax and support a national consumption tax. We have also been asked what the total impact of the Initiative is. Here are the aggregate estimates. Income tax is 50% of the state general fund or about $3 billion per year. About 60% of that currently goes to education and another 30%for corrections, public safety and health services. • Urban revenue sharing equals 15%of the state income tax; for the upcoming fiscal year this is estimated to be in the $400 million range. Please call if you have further questions. JUN-13-2000 17:28 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.02�06 . APPinullaisumuNnummEnR_BEEEaumuturainaturE l_ MAR • Secretary of State jq OCT 2 v 0 1700 W.Washin on 7th 12 1 ')„� � Floor . Phoenix,AZ 65007 The undersigned intends to circulate andfile --��.:�- ►.\R Y OF STATE an IN1TAATIVDor a REFERENDUM ' hereby makes sppljcat;on for the issuanc® of Ic�rcle the appropriate word) petition:and an official serial number to be printed in the lower right- side of each signature sheet of such petition. Pursuant to Arizonahand corner of each Revised Statutes # 19-111, attached hereto is the full text, In no less than eight point type, of the MEASURE or CONSTITUTIONAL intended to be NAT1ATE5or AMENDMENT circle appropriate REFERRED (circle appropriate word) at the nextgeneraword) e cc on. A description of no more than one hundred words of the principal provisions of the proposed law, constitutional amendment or measure that will appear in no less than eight point type on the face of each sheet to be circulated , petition signature The Taxpayer Protection Act of 2000 wi - - �-1• (1� end all Arizona state and local income taxes over a fouryear phaseout • that anynew taxes be period; ( 2 ) ensure approved by a majority of voters; and (3 ) allow voluntary pledges in favor of elimination � of the federal income tax and its replacement by a federal sales tax ' ballots next to the to be placed on election name of all candidates who take thatled e. p g r ,.r. a . IW 1 e' Sig elute of Applicant Taxp!yer Protection Alliance Name of Organization(if any). `"— Lori Klein _ Printed Name of Applicant - -- 3431 W. Thunderbird, Suite 302 PMB Addre�� 13122 N. 21st Dr, p • �.., hOenzx AZ 85053 Address City State Zip AZ city 1112,9____ ( 602 ) 866-2394 • State Zip Telephone Number — _ (602 ) 993-9832 Telephone Number Richard Mahone , chairman Name of Officer end Title --- 1620 N. 11th Ave. address Phoenix AZ 85007 Date of Application e� t -•�' .2_,W t tji ,. City Stele Zip ( 602) 253-1202 Signatures Required f5j Telephone Number Jef f rey .Singer, _11..D. , Treasurer ---- Name of Officer and Title Deadline for Flingr.janci(� . 4942 E. Horseshoe Rd. Address Serial Number Issued_1:-:- C — le),..() poen ' City ?ACLU --- State Zip FOR OFFICE USE ONLY j6O2 998-2006 _ Pwsui 1 mu �'—�--� Telephone Number JUN-13-2000 17:29 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.03/06 • • An Initiative Measure Thxpaver Protection Act 2000 199q OCT 28 P I?. OF ROP OWING AN . STA: �11IjENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMEPT,D .INNG ARTICLE IX, SECTIONS 12 AND 22 RELATING TO STATE TAXATION; AMENDING ARTICLE VII BY..kbursusEcTioN 19 RELATING TO A VOLUNTARY FEDERAL INCOME TAX ELIMINATION PLEDGE. TEXT QELI1E Pk�(,�POSED � NDMENI Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona: The following amendments are proposed to become valid when approved by a majority ty of the qualified electors voting thereon and upon proclamation of the Governor. Section 1. Title. • This initiative shall be known and may be cited as the "Taxpayer Protection Act of 2000." Section 2. Findings and Declaration of Pur ose. A. The state of Arizona's income tax on individuals and corporations-doesn't work. It is a tool of special interest groups. It is complicated, confusing-and-stifles economic growth. The state income tax will be eliminated over the next four years. 13. • Any future tax increases of any kind will be submitted to Arizona taxpayers for their approval. No increase can take effect without a majority of their vote. C. The people of Arizona have a substantial interest in ensuringits citizens are informed prior to the date of each primary and general election about theosition held p by candidates for elected public office, both state and federal, on issues of significance to Arizona Zona voters. Among the issues of significance to the people of Arizona is theP osition of the candidates for elected federal office on a legislative proposal to replace the federal income tax with a national consumption tax, defined generally as a tax imposed on the gross receipts from the retail sales of any taxable property or service sold in the United States, but not including a tax calculated at a flat or fixed rate on personal or corporate income, and thereby to abolish the Internal Revenue Service. D. Arizona's candidates for federal office will be required to state their position on eliminating the federal income tax and replacing it with a national consumption tax,, and thus abolishing the Internal Revenue Service. Their pledge shall be stated on the . P g ballot for the Arizona general election until such a consumption tax measure becomes the law of the e United States of America. JUN-13--2000 17:29 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.04/06 Section 3. 0 'i -0 � p 1`: 1 , Article IX, section 12, Constitution of Arizona, is amended as follows: y ,_ Section 12. Authority to levy and collect taxes; exemption of income from taxation Section 12. The law-making power shall have authority to provide for the levy and collection of license, franchise, gross revenue, excise, income, collateral and direct inheritance, legacy, and succession taxes, also graduated income taxes, graduated collateral and direct inheritance taxes, graduated legacy and succession taxes, stamp,registration, production, or other specific taxes. THE LEGISLATURE MAY PROVIDE FOR INCOME TAXES THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004. BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2005, THE INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER LEGAL ENTITIES SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION BY THIS STATE OR BY A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. Section 4. Article IX, Section 22, Constitution of Arizona, is amended as follows: Section 22. Vote required to increase state revenues; applications; exceptions Section 22. (A) An act that provides for a net increase in state revenues, as described in Subsection B MAY BECOME PRELIMINARILY effective en AFTER the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature. If the act receives such an affirmative vote, it - -- - : '-- - IS PRELIMINARILY EFFECTIVE on the signature of the governor as provided by Article IV, Part I, § I, OR RIF the governor vetoes the measure, it MAY become PRELIMINARILY effective unless AFTER it is approved PP by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature. AFTER PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SUBSECTION, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL PUBLISH,PRINT AND SUBMIT THE ACT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT THE NEXT REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION AS A REFERENDUM AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE IV, PART I, § I. THE ACT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS IT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THEQ UALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING ON THE MEASURE. (B) The requirements of this section apply to any act that provides for a net increase in state revenues in the form of: 1. The imposition of any new tax. 2. An increase in a tax rate or rates. 3. A reduction or elimination of a tax deduction, exemption, exclusion, credit or other tax exemption feature in computing tax liability. -2 - JUN-13-2000 17:29 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.05/06 ►.. • 4. An increase in a statutorily prescribed state fee or assessment or a#t1140€ s 12: , :3 statutorily prescribed maximum limit for an administratively set fee. . O S " T5. The imposition of any new state fee or assessment or the authorization of any new administratively set fee. 6. The elimination of an exemption from a statutorily prescribed state fee or assessment. 7. A change in the allocation among the state, counties or cities in Arizona transaction privilege, severance,jet fuel and use, rental occupancy, or other taxes. 8. Any combination of the elements described in paragraphs 1 through 7. (C) This section does not apply to: 1. The effects of inflation, increasingassessed valuation or anyother similar effect that increases state revenue but is not caused by an affirmative act of the legislature. 2. Fees and assessments that are authorized by statute, but are notrescribed byformula, p amount or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency. 3. Taxes, fees or assessments that are imposed by counties, cities, towns ad other political subdivisions of this state. (D) Each act to which this section applies shall include a separaterovision describing ng the requirements for enactment prescribed by this section. Section 5. Article VII, Constitution of Arizona, is amended as follows, by adding section 19: 19. Voluntary Federal Income Tax Elimination Pledge Section 19. A. A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATE OR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM THIS STATE MAY, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO, EXECUTE XECUTE AND FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX ELIMINATION PLEDGE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION B. THE PLEDGE MUST BE FILED AT LEAST SIXTY DAYS BEFORE A PRIMARY ELECTION AND AT LEAST TWENTY DAYS BEFORE A GE NERAL ELECTION. A CANDIDATEoT B E SHALL N . - DENIED PLACEMENT ON AN ELECTION BALLOT FOR FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT A PLEDGE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. B. THE TEXT OF THE PLEDGE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS `PART A: I, , VOLUNTARILY PLEDGE TO ADVOCATE AND VOTE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, - 3 _ JUN-13-2000 17 30 LEAGUE OF AZ CITIES 6022533874 P.06�06 '90CT2&THE ELII�SINAT � ► � ION OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND THE ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL TAX ON ECONOMIC CONSU TI r -,--T PART B: I AUTHORIZE THAT THE NOTICE "SIGNED THE FED ERAL INCO1 ME-4 • TAX ELIMINATION PLEDGE"BE PLACED NEXT TO MY NAME ON THE ELECTION BALLOT AND IN ALL OFFICIAL VOTER EDUCATION PAMPHLETS IN WHICH MY NAME APPEARS AS A CANDIDATE. SIGNATURE OF DATE" CANDIDATE C. THE AUTHORIZED ELECTION OFFICIALS SHALL PLACE THE NOTICE - PRESCRIBED IN PART B OF THE PLEDGE NEXT TO THE CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE PRIMARY OR GENERA',ELECTION BALLOT AND IN ALL OFFICIAL VOTER EDUCATION PAMPHLETS IN WHICH THE CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS. D. IF A CANDIDATE WHO EXECUTED THE PLEDGE IS NOT ELECTED, THE PLEDGE LAPSES AND IS OF NO FURTHER EFFECT. THE CANDIDATE MAY EXECUTE AND FILE ANOTHER PLEDGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT SEQUENT ELECTION. E. ANY RESIDENT OF THIS STATE HAS STANDING TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION IN A COURT OF COMPETENT 71CJRISDICTION. Section 6. $ yrabi1 i . If any provision of this initiative or its application to anyperson PP . or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect otherprovisions • or applications of the initiative that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,pp a and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable. 61378 J • •4 - Tr1Tf11 D (AC Memorandum To: Dave Andrews, Finance Director From: Jeffrey H. Weir, Economic Development Administrator Re: Research Results on Elimination of State of Arizona Income Tax During the Monday, June 12th Budget Study Session the Mayor requested the Financial staff to review the potential impact of a referendum being proposed for the November ballot. The proposed referendum would eliminate ALL State of Arizona Income Taxes (personal and corporate). The current tax applications would be eliminated within four years [no clear definition of how this would be implemented, I have assumed a one/fourth reduction impact]. The 2000 - 2001 Fiscal Year Budget anticipates $ 2,342,000 in Income Taxes as the Town's share of Urban Revenue Sharing. This amount is 7.5% higher than the previous FY Income Tax related receipts. Additionally, it is anticipated that the Town will receive an increase of $ 1,050,000 based on the new Census data. If we project future fiscal years Income Tax receipts based on a 7.5% growth after adjusting for the new Census impact the following revenues could be expected: Total Amount Income Tax After Current ADOR Census Revenue Proposed Fiscal Year Allocation Increase Sharing Reduction 2000-01 $ 2,342,000 $ 0 $ 2,342,000 $ 2,342,000 2001-02 $ 2,518,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 3,568,000 $ 2,676,000 2002-03 $ 2,707,000 $ 1,129,000 $ 3,836,000 $ 1,918,000 2003-04 $ 2,910,000 $ 1,214,000 $ 4,124,000 $ 1,031,000 2004-05 $ 3,128,000 $ 1,305,000 $ 4,433,000 $ 0 5 Year Totals $ 18,303,000 $ 7,967,000 5 Year Revenue Impact ($ 10,336,000) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk SUBJECT: Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat—8-5-00 SUMMARY: Attached is the Report/Minutes for your review and approval of the annual Town Council Retreat held on August 5, 2000 at the Sheraton El Conquistador Resort. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the Report/Minutes of the Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat dated 8-5-00. .iii au44,41,,:/l Department Head Oownhttlidde ----- l Mana er ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 2000 ANNUAL RETREAT August 5 2000 LE Y /IA?! 04 0 37 vir f" . Ath, UND Sheraton El Conquistador Resort Palo Verde #1 & #2 Room 10,000 N. Oracle Road Oro Valley, Arizona Retreat Facilitator: Peggy Fiandaca, Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Present: Paul Loomis, Mayor Francis LaSala, Vice Mayor Richard Johnson, Council Member Bart Rochman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member Staff Present: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk Alan Forrest, Water Utility Director Bill Jansen, Town Engineer Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Chuck Sweet, Town Manager 8/5/00 Oro Valley Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat 2 VISION FOR ORO VALLEY Short Term Goals: • Finish up "catch up"with infrastructure improvements. • Establish a process/procedures on how the Town does business. - Need some real creative thinking - Heavy on"customer service" • Improve Communication - Continually educate citizens on what the Town is doing. - Need to bridge the "subdivisions" or neighborhoods. - Need to educate people beyond their own special interest. - Tell them the truth. • Commercial development should be done tastefully. • Infrastructure should be in place before development. • Recognize that government is a"service business." - Run the Town efficiently so people want to do business with us. • Bridge between what is/was vs. what it will be. Before After Recreation Area/View of the natural Along Oracle Road/major environment commercial corridor Small community of 3,000 people 30,000 people today/25 sq. miles • How do we integrate the Homeowner Associations and the Town? • Expand our visibility. Long Term Goals: • Continue to maintain Oro Valley standards and atmosphere. - Retain"small town" atmosphere. - Person to person/personal service. - Pride (both natural aesthetic & high standards of development). - Be good stewards. • Community of parks and quality of life facilities & activities that lead "people to people" activities. • Build facilities to enhance those activities to bond with people in our community. • Grow our commercial base. Customer Service: • Streamlined and efficient. • Accurate • Personal interest in what the person is asking for. • Friendly. 8/5/00 Oro Valley Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat 3 • Interpretations—consistency and within standards. • Feel empathy to understand the person's concerns. • We are the ambassadors of Oro Valley • Deal with the issues early on. - Understand, focus on the real issue. • Tasks vs. Measurements - Instead of evaluating if the tasks are being achieved, measure where we want to go, e.g., How do we impact business with projects? Design issues, etc. Who is our customer? • Every citizen. • Developers. • Other Agencies. • Internal departments. • Everyone we deal with is a customer. • Continue to have the customer in mind while still achieving our goal, addressing needs of the customer, and having them leave with a good impression. How do we measure customer service? • Evaluation/Survey—"Tools" • Respond to comments/suggestions. • Continual encouragement of feedback. • Follow-up on processes. - Who does it? - How is it done? - Departments set goals and report regularly on how they are doing. - Set performance measures. Responsibility Council set direction Council/Town Manager set goals Department goals are set Performance Indicators Process to evaluate/develop Evaluate Staff Comments: Town Engineer - • Working on departmental goals. • Roads—5 year Strategic Master Plan. • Infrastructure Action Plan being developed. 8/5/00 Oro Valley Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat 4 • Looking at transit—much broader perspective on opportunities to bring to Town Council to determine which direction we want to go. • Stormwater Utility and Townwide Drainage Plan is being worked on. • Annual CIP process—we are working on bringing forward—correlates with the 5 year TIP. • Response—consider the audience when providing the information. Community Development Director— • P & Z/Council approves work program annually. • Developing standards for the development process. • Working to "define"the development process. • Established Development Review Committee. Committee will set goals over new few weeks—from there we will establish standards. (e.g. custom home-time to get through the process). Water Utility Director— • Will need assistance in quantifying the customer end issue. Town Clerk— • Issue—getting appropriate technology to assist with efficiency. • Customer service training? Annexation: • General Plan outlines area of influence and planning area. • Identify desired land use. • The existing annexation policy has evolved 3 times. • Last Retreat—Council felt the policy was still relative. - Pre-annexation agreement allowed, but must be a good reason and considered on a case by case basis. - Fiscal analysis/economically viable. Should we annex additional areas? • The goal to square off borders is a good goal. • If property owners want, will consider annexation. • Annexation should not interfere with any incorporation effort. • State land to the north is the only area that is advantageous. • If Casas Adobes incorporation fails, do we as a region (i.e., Marana, Tucson, Oro Valley) determine what is appropriate? • We need to have in place where we want to go (e.g. Magee/Oracle?) - Need a plan on what we want to do. - Understand the property owners goals. 8/5/00 Oro Valley Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat 5 Consensus Points for annexation: • Casas Adobes—do nothing until after the outcome of the election for incorporation is determined. • Hold regional discussion. • Current annexation policy is good (don't want to be tied to pre-annexation agreements unless good reason). • General Plan should re-examine our planning boundary. COUNCIL ACTIVITY WITHIN THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT • Manager runs day to day operations. • Council sets policies. Expectations of Council Members: • Set policy—provide it through Town Manager. • Work through Town Manager. • Must be careful of providing our opinions/thoughts when we talk to employees. • Do not tell employees what to do. • Careful in asking for information also. Expectations of Town Manager: • Implement policy through day to day operations of the town. Town Council Operations: • What is the Issue? - Agenda/Agenda Management. - Procedure for Agenda Development. - Electronic Communications. - Council Communications. Discussion: • Agenda/Agenda Management has improved. • Council packets out 2 weeks prior to a meeting. - Additional items are distributed close to the meeting date. - Short Time-frame might have necessitated addendums. - Need to find appropriate length of time that would ensure a complete package. - Public needs the time to review the package also. Develop Agenda Process: • Monday prior to Friday. - Agenda Committee meets. - If the packets are not complete or additions are made, the item would be continued. Consensus points for the Agenda process: • Council wants complete packages one week prior to meeting. • If not complete, postpone item to the meeting one month ahead. • Keep current timeframe in place to receive information from developers/departments. • Examine the alignment of P & Z, DRB, etc. meeting timeframes. 8/5/00 Oro Valley Town Council 2000 Annual Retreat 6 • Agenda is fixed on the Friday, one week prior to the meeting. Ensure that: - Adequate review time - Public review time is adequate. - Limit the amount of last minute items. - Ability of staff to produce a complete packet. - Look at ways to distribute the information. Hold a study session to specifically discuss this issue and the issue of electronic packets. Infrastructure Plans What is the issue? - Where do we stand on solid waste? - What is our strategy on alternative water resources? Discussion: • Opportunity identified in the report. • Establish standard for Oro Valley • Need to continue to pursue the direction given when the report was accepted. (e.g. tipping fees, franchising). Alternative Water Resources: • Sub-committee is coming up with their recommendations. • Commission will be coming to Town Council soon. • Will have enough information soon to make some decisions ("and get beyond just study"). • Public should begin to get information on this. It is a high priority in the community. Development Review Process: Perception that certain developers are treated differently. - Issue between developers and Council - Process has been an issue. Goal: • Improve the dialog between the development community and Town. • Everyone should be treated equally. • Each project should be examined individually; on its own merits. • Improve communications to understand the direction of large developers and the town. • How can we work together to make future projects to meet mutual goals. The Mayor and Council agreed to set an additional Retreat in 6 months. Respectfully submitted, '4/qv, Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk