HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1542) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
BUDGET STUDY SESSION
May 26 , 1999
5:30 p.m.
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
BUDGET STUDY SESSION -AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. FOLLOW-UP ISSUES FROM MAY 20, 1999 BUDGET REVIEW
SESSION
2. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (10 minutes)
(Pages 135 - 150)
3. MUNICIPAL DEBT SERVICE (5 minutes)
(Pages 440 - 454)
4. NARANJA ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (5 minutes)
(Pages 447 - 449)
5. ORACLE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (5 minutes)
(Pages 450 -454)
6. TRANSIT (15 minutes)
(Pages 378 — 391)
7. BUILDING SAFETY (20 minutes)
(Pages 184—203)
8. STAFFING REQUESTS FOR FY 1999/2000 (45 minutes)
9. REVIEW OF BUDGET ISSUES FROM THIS EVENING'S MEETING
AT OR AFTER 7:15 P.M.
10. LODGING INDUSTRY INCENTIVE POLICY PROPOSAL AND
RECOMMENDATION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the Manager's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999/2000 is available
for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:30
a.m. — 5:00 p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify
the Town Clerk at 297-2591.
POSTED: 5/21/99
4:30 P.M.
LH
8
STAFFING - 199912000 BUDGET
Staff is currently working on a spreadsheet regarding
this agenda item for Wednesday, May 26th which will
list all staff positions that relate to the 99100 budget.
We hope to deliver this spreadsheet of information
early next week prior to next Wednesday's budget
session.
10
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 05/26/99
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Jeffrey H. Weir, Economic Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Lodging Industry Incentive Policy Proposal and Recommendation.
SUMMARY:
The primary purpose of an incentive policy is to provide the Council and staff with a"powerful tool" that
results in achieving desired development. The nature of the business attraction efforts in today's highly
competitive environment is the creation and application of incentives/inducements. Given the importance of
continued development of resort and lodging facilities for the Oro Valley community a set of guidelines has
been prepared. The elements of this proposal address both existing and new lodging operations. The
importance of capital investment is a primary consideration as well as overall business performance.
The focus on investment precludes projects that are small in scope, but allows for both new and existing lodging
operations to request consideration. The incentive associated with investment is a stepped reduction in the sales
tax on construction materials returned, or rebated, to the business based on greater amounts of investment
qualify for a larger rebate. The second"part" of the proposal provides for an increase in the existing bed tax
from 1% to 2%. The incentive associated with performance would recognize a return, or rebate, to the lodging
facility operator (both existing and new) of.75% of the additional 1%. This amount is the same amount
currently provided to the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau(MTCVB) as stipulated in the
existing Financial Participation Agreement between MTCVB and the Town of Oro Valley. The remaining
.25% of the additional 1% is proposed to be designated for use as for a community project, such as a park or
similar amenity.
The Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines as proposed will provide the Town Council with an important tool
that results in achieving the strategic objective of increasing resort/lodging facilities within the town limits. The
resort/lodging facilities generate significant tax revenues for the town without placing high demands on services
or infrastructure. The process envisioned gives complete control to the town whereby the lodging facility
builder/operator first pays all of the sales taxes and then is reimbursed based on actual performance. This
approach guarantees control is in the towns hands and does NOT require any out of pocket expenditure by the
town.
Currently one major planned project and their respective builders/operators have requested considerations. That
project is the Radisson Grand Resort. Two other projects could also be considered, the new Holiday Inn Express
and the Sheraton El Conquistador expansion.
ATTACHMENTS:
a. Memorandum to the Mayor and Council dated April 19,1999 addressing Business Incentive
Policy/Guidelines —Lodging Industry.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
Determined on a project specific basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines and requests adoption by the Council.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
7
I I/
(L ___,
Jeffre H eir, CED
Economic Development Administrator
(-----)
David L. Andrews
Finance Director
I/ / i
Chuck Sweet 4°
Town Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Jeffrey H. Weir, CED, Economic Development Administrator '-'/^
VIA: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
DATE: April 19, 1999
SUBJECT: Business Incentive Policy/Guidelines—Lodging Industry.
The current Town of Oro Valley Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) was
adopted in the fall of 1997 by the Town Council. One of the five stated purposes of the
CEDS is to provide guidelines in decision-making to the Town's political and administrative
leadership to achieve unity of purpose in the pursuit of economic development goals. There
are twenty one (21) action steps identified in the CEDS that relate to the achievement of the
Strategic Plan. Action Step number twelve (12)Develop and adopt a Business Incentive
Policy, states that the Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to
attract or retain desirable businesses. Guidelines and review criteria will be established to
assist the Town in deciding when to grant such incentives. The following request proposes
the establishment of incentive(s) and guidelines to be applied to both existing and new
businesses within the lodging industry.
The Town of Oro Valley is and will become more reliant on the generation of Sales Taxes as
the primary source of operating revenues. A major focus on increasing new sales taxes is the
encouragement of construction of both new resort/lodging facilities and the expansion of
existing facilities. Major resorts require large investment sums, even smaller motels require
millions of dollars. In today's cautious investment marketplace the opportunity for capital
intensive projects is highly scrutinized. The current General Plan and the existing CEDS have
identified attracting and expanding resort/lodging facilities as a dual source of potential
revenue growth. Lodging facilities provide sales tax revenues for rooms and food beverage if
available and bed tax revenues. Given the high desire by the Town of Oro Valley for
increased lodging AND the increased difficulty in raising large amounts of investment capital
it is proposed that an Incentive Policy/Guideline be developed and approved for the lodging
industry. It is the intent of this policy to apply ONLY to motels/hotels/resorts.
The proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Policy/Guideline focus separately on two
incentives. The first is the Bed Tax and the second is Sales Tax on Construction Materials.
The following criteria were used in the development of this incentive approach:
1. The Policy/Guidelines must be fair, performance based and equitable to both
existing and new lodging businesses;
2. The Policy/Guidelines should address various facility sizes and potential revenue
generation; and
3. The lodging facility(s) requesting consideration must clearly be identified as a
benefit to Oro Valley.
MEMORANDUM PAGE 2 of 3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Business Incentive Policy/Guidelines—Lodging Industry.
Bed Tax. The current Bed Tax applied to the gross price of each room is 1%. At
this time the contract between the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan Tucson
Convention and Visitors Bureau(MTCVB) specifies that 75% of the 1% Bed Tax be
forwarded to the MTCVB. The remaining 25% of the 1% Bed Tax flows into the
town's General Fund and traditionally is used for Economic Development related
expenses.
The enclosed chart, Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data, and the accompanying
three data sheets indicate the amount of Bed Tax, if any, charged by each community.
Eighty seven (87) Arizona communities' were reviewed, the source document being
the January 1999 Local Government Directory published by the League of Arizona
Cities and Towns. Oro Valley's nearest community competitors (within a 70 mile
radius) ALL charge at LEAST 2% with Marana at 3% and Tucson at 4%.
Number Per Cent
Community's Using 0.00 % Bed Tax 25 29%
Community's Using Up To 1.00 % Bed Tax 5 6%
Community's Using> 1.00% - 2.00 % Bed Tax 27 31%
Community's Using> 2.00 % - 3.00 % Bed Tax 22 25%
Community's Using> 3.00% -4.00 % Bed Tax 7 8%
Community's Using 5.00 % Bed Tax 1 1%
87 100%
Incentive Proposed. Increase the Bed Tax from 1%to 2%. Place a"cap" on the
MTCVB revenues at no more than $ 450,000 annually, calculated at the current 75%
of 1%. Continue the existing 25% of the first 1% as a General fund revenue. Provide
up to 75% of the additional 1% as a potential incentive and dedicate the remaining
25% of the additional 1% for funding of a specific community project/facility/
program as determined by the Council. The enclosed Proposed Lodging Industry
Incentive Guidelines spreadsheet indicates the distribution of the higher 2% Bed Tax.
II. Sales Tax on Construction Materials. Currently the Town of Oro Valley
charges a 2% Sales Tax on all construction materials. As previously indicated major
resort/lodging facilities are investment intensive given that in many cases average
room construction costs can reach from $ 100,000 to $ 167,000. This high per room
construction cost is a significant factor in identifying investment capital, the total
investment commitment for a resort can easily be from $ 35,000,000 to much larger
amounts. Given the importance to Oro Valley in attracting and encouraging
expansion of resort/high end lodging facilities any inducement that results in
investors looking at this community more favorable should assist in fulfillment of a
major economic strategy.
MEMORANDUM PAGE 3 of 3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Business Incentive Policy/Guidelines—Lodging Industry.
Incentive Proposed. To encourage high investment intensive resort/high end
lodging facility construction in Oro Valley the following incentive is proposed. A
reduction of the Sales Tax on Construction Materials for lodging and related facility
construction be made available for qualifying projects:
Sales Tax Oro Valley
Investment Amount Rebate Retains %
> $ 5,000,000 < $ 10,000,000 0.50% 1.50%
> $ 10,000,000 < $ 17,500,000 0.75% 1.25%
>$ 17,500,000 <$ 25,000,000 1.00% 1.00%
> $ 25,000,000 < 5 32,500,000 1.25% 0.75%
> $ 32,500,000 < $ 40,000,000 1.50% 0.50%
> $ 40,000,000 < $ 47,500,000 1.75% 0.25%
> $ 47,500,000 2.00% 0.00%
The enclosed Proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines spreadsheet indicates
the impact of the Sales Tax on Construction Materials Incentive.
It is requested that the Council through the Town Manager's office bring forward this topic at
the next available Council Study Session. The need for expediency will allow for a timely
response to the Radisson Resort development team. The Radisson Resort development team
has asked the Town of Oro Valley for consideration of assistance which will facilitate
identification and acquisition of investment capital.
Cc: David Andrews, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data chart,
2. Three (3) data sheets supporting the Arizona Community's Bed
Tax Data chart data, and
3. Proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines spreadsheet.
II '
CA
X
o ca
CO
$. LA
X
• ••lrrr,.•r
•!• !!t!4!4!t! 1t t
.;.t!
.{. .y. ;.f.rrJJJt.}i.rt{..y.yrf:
CIO ;. .{..rJ rJ rr rj 11 l••1l rJ.y f. ;./�•
•+ 4+**4+ + 444+ p
CD M
CD
i i i i i i i i i • O
::i•••••:::i::it:i � V1
••j•j•j•;•j•i r•i•j•;•j•:•j•:••I•j•r•r•j•r•j•j• ;•;•;••• j•j•j• i•:•:•!•••:•:•:•:•j•j•j.r :•r•r•r•�•j•:•r•r•r•r•r•I•I•r•r•I•
:;•;-:•;•;•;•;•;•:•;• r r r r �, r♦ r r r,,.• ♦ i, ! , r r i r!r 1 r r r,r 1 I I r 1 r!,
,•,•,..•,•,•:.
jr•j•j•r•} ,•i•.•'.•,•! �•i•�• : r•1•r •i.i • • . ••j. ....... •r•;•r•t. •VI
:•j !•.•j•;.•.:•i ..:.i.....r.j...j•�•r•r•j•j• 5.5.5.;••
•I•I j•.•j•j.i•.r•;..:.; �•r•r•j•r•j•j.j•:•:•,•:•.•j.j•r•j• :•i•i•,•:•:•1 I%•r%!r I%••i•
•i••••;••• i ♦ r , , r r 1 1 r, r,r r!r r r r !, r , r,♦ s r r,r,♦,,,11,r 1,
.,.}..•.r...' ..i• r•' i•i•.�• �.�• �.j•r•;••j•j•r•r.�•r•i•r•r•,•j• r•,•r•....� j•j•r•r•r•r•r•,. j•i.,.j•j.j.j.r•,�•j .•,•,.,•.r•r•r• w
, ♦ ♦ r !♦r ♦1♦ I♦1 r♦ r♦r , . . .,..}. .r.r.j.r. i•j•r•♦•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•
w) ...... .r ..: •i !! ♦•, r 1 1, • ,r r r r i•j r r r r, !,. •i i i,,r.,,I,,r r.r
N 4104 ++.104.4044
0
N *4*44444444444444444444444444 4444444•
\ V
•C
O o0
V :.:•:•.:.:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.{•:.:.:.: f V
.:t.}:..y.y.y{.:j.y:•{•;..y.yr.:• .y r.;..;:•;.{..y.:rJ.y.;.{..y.;.y.y :,.y;..yrJ:J{.r,.rl.y:;{.r!¢rJ.y:J�.y.;..y:,:,.y:.;.{,.}:..y•}v•:rfi:t_.y:..,:.1,.y{..:.:;;..y.f.y:t•}:f.y•�.t:rt•yJrr1444441Ir1444r!•
r..;{•.{.{• :•.:.•:•.}.yr.:..y;..y:.�.{. .y.;:.:• {.{.rJ�.:.{.Jfr.f.:.¢.y rt {.f.•yJt44.}rtrt{•lrrtrt4rti r}r7•{•J•{•:.:t:.h•}{..yJt:.•y{•J.�JJl.:.J.1..y{•:•:•:.:.J•{•:•{.:J.:.
:.;...:•{.;• ;••}.y•: •y•:•:•v v S•ti•{. ;..y.:.;.:...}.; :.Jt;..}r,.r!{. {.JJ;...;{..y.,rt. 4v ; ..:..} ;. : _f: �.rJ.}/•{J444":""'"'
44i4fi
. • 4r !f! i4
M ¢ J"."'4444h
•
O .f..J t.•j/�•rth J.rl4lt llV l••{.r..
N .. . . .. W
'i 444444444*44*4444 *
N :. • 444444444 444444444 444444444.0444444444-41.444444
1.1
1.4
.•• X
0
::f-+f+✓:J+1rJrlrlrJ+trrr Jrf.•JrlrJrlvJ
1:f :J:J:I+lrNlrlrNNJrrb•N J+l:
fri
O •:f :+;+J:hr••••lrNNNNJrJ+NJ:f
:.Y.•rlrJrNJrhhlrlvNhr.MhNh�
I+.M.NHIr.Y I:l+l+:
4,,,,,,
4,.,,,♦
1-4
\ ! `• •! •r! •••Jrr1:1 !.•1r1r! rIr1NNr1••.;••1r.;.•1.•.•✓1••1r%+I.••� �•�r •1r.• •Ir!
O MfrJ:::.':J:.•:J••:rI+Jr Jr. •:JrJ:J+•; � )r••! - � ! • • !l !, r r•••I!I I 1,•r
• :� • ! .• rrrrrl:.• !N ! rfrlrrlr fir:rlr.;rJ r••r�rrlrl •:Jr! •r1r! YNrJ:NhIrlrlrlrNlrlrNlrJrNl CD
r r r r l,r r r r r r l♦,l,r s l,♦1 1
�:Jr�r::lrl:JrJr•;r1rJ••Jr.
4.4.4.frJrlrl+IrlrJrlrlrl+Ir.rrJ::•rI! !%! !! frlNjrlrlrJ rJr�rlr.•.•Ir1:.;r.••r.'.•.;:�r.;rl! �.�rNlrfrl.•Jr1 • 1V�rhNNNNN1rNHIr11W�r�f
•1r�rI :Jr.•rf r ••%r.;: ••• , .• r r•• 1 ••r• 1 r ♦1 1 I♦
• ::: ,r r! +� ,. 4 j .•+r.•Jr.;:.;r1•YrJrJ:JrhlrJar .•JrJrl:4..• •••, .1rJr1• •11rNI/IrNlrlr�r1r1r1.
f::f::1:�.• •,r✓r f.•� � r r r r r r r r ,,r i r, r
✓ :rIr••:: .•�r.;r1rJ.•frJr.;r.1r.'r�r! rJ•r fr�••t:Jr...;.;.•:;::r.YJr;.•1.•1.•�7.•�r:f:.•• ! r •fir rr�r�jr��rlrNlr�r�N.
.. .:l:f:•:r: :1: :1r.•::rf:: :IrJ:.irf:::f:::::::::::::1:.•:f+J:� J:::::f+l:::::::l:::rJ::l. •% r:rJ+J+J:JrJrlr�rJrJ:J+JrIr1::.
W
LA
4444+444.4.444444 4444444.444444444 44444444 m
N 44444444444444444 44,44,,, ,44,,44, 44444444
0
0
i
Ln 0 LI 0 Ln 0 Ln 0
M M N Ngrni
Arizona Community's
Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates
Distribution of Data
I. Distribution of Bed Tax Rates.
Total of 87 Community's.
Number of Community's Using 0.00 % Bed Tax 25 29%
Number of Community's Using Up To 1.00 % Bed Tax 5 6%
Number of Community's Using > 1.00% - 2.00 % Bed Tax 27 31%
Number of Community's Using > 2.00 % - 3.00 % Bed Tax 22 25%
Number of Community's Using > 3.00% - 4.00 % Bed Tax 7 8%
Number of Community's Using 5.00 % Bed Tax 1 1%
87 100%
II. Nearby Community's (within 70 miles).
Benson 2.00 0/0
Casa Grande 2.00
Eloy 2.00
Marana 3.00
Nogales 4.00 Wo
Sahuarita 2.00 Wo
Sierra Vista 4.00 0/0
South Tucson 2.00
Tucson 4.00
Willcox 4.00
Arizona Community's
Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates
Sales Tax Bed Tax Bed Tax
Town/City Rate Rate Collections
1 Apache]unction 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
2 Avondale 1.50 % 2.00 % N/A
3 Benson 2.50 % 2.00 % N/A
4 Bisbee 2.00 % 2.50 % $ 36,778
5 Buckeye 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
6 Bullhead City 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 104,048
7 Camp Verde 1.00 % 3.00 % N/A
8 Carefree 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
9 Casa Grande 1.80 % 2.00 % $ 128,773
10 Cave Creek 2.00 % 4.00 % N/A
11 Chandler 1.50 % 2.90 % $ 871,000
12 Chino Valley 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
13 Clarkdale 2.25 % 2.00 % N/A
14 Clifton 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
15 Colorado City 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
16 Coolidge 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
17 Cottonwood 2.20 % 2.00 % $ 56,684
18 Douglas 2.50 a/o 2.00 % $ 31,985
19 Duncan 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
20 Eagar 3.00 % 3.00 % $ 10,899
21 El Mirage 3.00 % 0.00 % N/A
22 Eloy 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
23 Flagstaff 1.00 % 2.00 % $ 3,335,957
24 Florence 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
25 Fountain Hills 1.20 % 3.00 % N/A
26 Fredonia 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
27 Gila Bend 2.50 % 2.00 % $ 23,875
28 Gilbert 1.00 % 3.00 % N/A
29 Glendale 1.30 % 3.00 % N/A
30 Globe 1.50 % 5.00 % $ 158,804
31 Goodyear 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
32 Guadalupe 2.00 % 4.00 % N/A
33 Hayden 2.00 % 1.00 % N/A
34 Holbrook 3.0Q% 2.00 % N/A
35 Huachuca City 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A
36 Jerome 3.00 % 0.00 % N/A
37 Kearny 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
38 Kingman 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
39 Lake Havasu City 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 416,963
40 Litchfield Park 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
41 Mammoth 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
42 Marana 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
43 Mesa 1.50 % 2.50 % $ 1,432,186
44 Miami 1.50 % 0.00 % N/A
Arizona Community's
Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates
Sales Tax Bed Tax Bed Tax
Town/City Rate Rate Collections
45 Nogales 1.25 % 4.00 % $ 151,558
46 Oro Valley 2.00 % 1.00 % $ 164,827
47 Page 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
48 Paradise Valley 1.20 % 3.00 % N/A
49 Parker 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
50 Patagonia 3.00 % 3.00 % N/A
51 Payson 2.00 % 0.00 % 1. $ 67,829
52 Peoria 1.50 % 3.50 % $ 92,520
53 Phoenix 1.30 % 3.00 % $ 18,888,000
54 Pima 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A
55 Pinetop-Lakeside 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A
56 Prescott 2.00 % 2.00 % $ 208,329
57 Prescott Valley 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
58 Quartzsite 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
59 Queen Creek 1.00 % 1.00 % N/A
60 Safford 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 86,754
61 Sahuarita 1.00 % 2.00 % N/A
62 St. Johns 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
63 San Luis 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A
64 Scottsdale 1.40 % 3.00 % $ 6,877,314
65 Sedona 3.00 % 3.00 % N/A
66 Show Low 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
67 Sierra Vista 1.50 % 4.00 % $ 284,480
68 Snowflake 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
69 Somerton 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A
70 South Tucson 2.50 % 2.00 % $ 7,437
71 Springerville 3.00 % 1.00 % $ 8,354
72 Superior 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
73 Surprise 2.00 % 1.00 % N/A
74 Taylor 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A
75 Tempe 1.70 % 2.00 % $ 1,524,679
76 Thatcher 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A
77 Tolleson 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
78 Tombstone 2.50 % 3.00 % N/A
79 Tucson 2.00 % 4.00 % + $ 6,409,172
80 Wellton 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A
81 Wickenburg 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A
82 Willcox 2.00 % 4.00 % $ 130,523
83 Williams 3.00 % 1.25 % $ 278,556
84 Winkelman 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A
85 Winslow 3.00 % 2.00 % $ 71,790
86 Youngtown 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A
87 Yuma 1.70 % 2.00 % $ 2,190,493
MN
t'o O 00'1 M .w� O M O 01
To NN 01 O LA 00 F C t CO N O '-i 00
O C N O LA tt N = O O tD LA N i•
�
LI. M et �. �� E •O et N M M 01 °'
V!� ill ilk in- Q+
i -s Ua i - ill in-
x
Cu
i 0 N O 01 .-iO et O MN
s^ N tD O 01 M" t C 01 M O 01 '-1
tin N 011 O In CO11 fp 3 CO N O r4 CO
Ca c 00 3 t in M 1 M >" .= O 'O-i 'r4 M tip
N E .O N* in. 401, O in- in- ilk
W in. 011
Caa >c
0 0 W d
1
fo
0 O LA LA — 00 M O N CO `+•• x M M O 'a' O
O N N N O O O 00 O 01 CO O fa 01 N O Tr t0
O to to O +r '+•‘ 00 00 O N V e +- O CO O in
$ �O
x - N M r1 et 1g N M M N M N 00
LA to vi O
fp fo ..I LA LA S N O1 M ,-1 .-IO ri iv O M N LA ,-IE- > ri in. VI i r4 44, ri 4A. tt >` 3 N N Ln N N
c O in. 3 0 i� i� a) ; M r! N ilk N
Z O c �C au > O Ill• in- in-
CI)
> VII.-
O
ce
O 0 M LA CO M O N CO L to .4 LA it La T
xC C1 C O O N N O CO 0 01 00 to LA CO N O rC
to 0 0 0 0 C O a a 00 N m CO 00 0 N 0) t0 r-4 CO CO LA
i- 76
o o o :ElO LA O o .� N N .. N LA M M }' 2 N ' N M O i
• 3 LA N O = O 0 LA .-C r! U N a1 M r� C O O O tO '-1 00
• 'fl fp -0 N Mie- IA-
H .-C ilk .-i in. it a7 N Ct O 01 '-i 0`:
O 7) ri N ilk, in• a. iii- in- �Q> '-i i-�i in- in- M i
-a t/7 in- in- in,
RI
QO O O O to 01 O N N v t0 1.1 O 01 t0
C O 0 0 0 0 LA CO O OM C •> LA CO O N ri
C X A 0 '-C O 0 L1 ga. t0 O N ‘12fa i•+ tD r4 0 in nt
o 0 0 1- \ O 00 •♦ 00 N 00 N O tO N O 5N O LA tD 'r N
i-+ o O in N 0 t0 N tD ( LA 7 10 M O u O LA it 01 01 t
U c 0 O _ N tt �„ ' N M '� C C N to 01 in. CO
C O O a.
a . ir. O (a ir* 4A- ri r; i - il0- N
a +2 0 LA I... H ca 1# o
C) > Tr m
VI C
p1 — V V o O o O 00000 " CO M O N CO c
0 0 0 O '-1 LA O O t0 3 O 00 0 01 CO A
ea
V•+
C c c 0 O 0 0 00 v O 1003 x 0 CO 00 0 N !r g
to '-j N L( M M °s
�_ C O O LA LA N O 01 '-i
.x ( 0 O 0 .0 vi 0 O N et I c OW 0 M M F' -i N 01 M r-1 ri °a,
O O o O t fp O i LA !t !p O 01 M O co ri v m '-i 1441.
0 0 0 3 •` in M M M VI N N CO r1 LA g2) il- 4A-C O O O - ) M N il- ilk j = N - rl i/I. LA 0 o
In > Lm o LA CPi.CS l ' a C m ilk ilk ilk ; ^'
. ,..,
i C M !!• „ .c to C C
K C ilk V!•i� Q V
LLQ ►-+ A A A c
C cn
C▪ o
L o o
›. 0 ID x C c O 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0
O O x 0 0 O o o n N 0
73 to f0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 co O O 0 0 to > O O 00 N
° V O L0A O u1 ��.+ E
O O O O i� Q p O O ~ c o in .4 'N-4 t0
_4nt0 % LAN O N p p 0 O p p O o O
N M 00
MO- MO--
O 00 or.;
'-� CO t0 M L11 ~ > 00 tD LA rel
fa C in- in'
IA ce C LA M C LA tel V1 N.+
o — �, 4A- ilk ir* - 4A, ill- in- 4A-
L.
in 4-1C
et C
C0 O o 0 0
o
°_ � c o 0 0 t t t
.O5w ,,, x 0000 0 co to
O ct O
in LA O rt
0� , O '^-i N M E L.
rj o ~ o 0
c C - E ilk in-il- VI
to
u ♦.+ cn V VVV
C r. -c cu 4•+ .�
a+ to w > " O O = •- i
1).
C t •—' c`nn t •�
u cn C F XI .0 .0 of O OU VIp' i O C' i.� v 0 000 �' o o 4)
o o x °�in o o x
o �+ o 0 0 GC a Lu oC v, u Lal U LLJ
c a c 0 0 0 mi C c°C W c as o o°C W o GC LLL C
to 0
� � o u ootno ami ` C c - �" - C C 0 -= C C li
C C t L11 O N M V U cn �+ O to L. uf f(0 N
p1 Q C. .� '-1 N O h
,N ° d. U ,� ry .0 ,uf fLp 11 oO Liill�ilk ilk ilk O ii aJ O N 'C , — ij 'Q O = N
-I o E AAAA a oC oG vii I Q c4 ttl n 0 oC o�C (1) 0 0
a) au
tri a
aE
O x M
a LL) )-.+ ''+ ,"+
p<(.4,
Town of Oro Valley
Staffing Analysis
FY 1999-2000 Town Budget
Department! Estimated Salary &
Division Position Modification Benefits @ 25%
Finance/Economic Econ. & Financial New Hire; Part-time $26,000
Development Analyst (5)
Legal Paralegal New Hire 37,500
General Information New Hire 59,795
Administration Systems Admin.
Planning & Zoning Plan Review/Field New Hire 37,500
EIT
Building Safety Plans Examiner New Hire 50,000
Building Safety Permit Tech New Hire 25,000
Building Safety Building Inspector New Hire 37,500
Building Safety Plans Exam/Bldg. New Hire (Contract) 55,000
Insp.
Parks & Recreation Maintenance New Hire 28,750
Laborer I (2)
Parks & Recreation Parks Maint. Lead New Hire 20,625
Person
Parks & Recreation Recreation/ New Hire 35,000
Volunteer
Coordinator
Police Assistant Chief New Hire; .75 FTE 61,160
Police Patrol Sergeant New Hire 56,250
Police Patrol Officers (4) Grant Contingent 168,000
New Hires
Public Works Laborer New Hire 22,500
Water Utility Utility Service New Hire 41,250
Worker IV
Water Utility Utility Service New Hire 90,000
Worker II (3)
Water Utility Customer Service Reclassify 1,500
Rep. Clerk/Receptionist
Water Utility Civil Engineering New Hire 45,000
Technician
Town Clerk P/T Clerk New Hire (.5) 11,875
Receptionist
Human Resources PIT Clerk New Hire (.5) 11,875
Receptionist
Finance Secretary to Admin. Reclassification 5,577
Assistant
Human Resources Human Resource Salary Adjustment TBD
Director
Human Resources Human Resource Salary Adjustment 7,045
Specialist
Library Librarian New Hire 50,000
.
Public Works Transportation New Hire 62,500
Planner
Public Works Bicycle Program New Hire 41,875
Coordinator