Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Budget Records- Town - 6/30/1986
City/Town Oro vii cnT Fiscal Year 1985/86 OFFICIAL FORMS FOR CITY/TOWN BUDGET DEVELOPED BY STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL Rev. 4/85 City/Town of oro Valley TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal Year 1985/86 Resolution Resolution for the Adoption of the Budget Schedule A Summary Schedule of Estimated Expenditures and Revenues Schedule B Summary of Estimated and Actual Amounts to Support Budgetary Estimates Schedule C Summary by Source of Non-property Tax Collections Schedule D Summary of Expenditures by Each Department/Program and Fund RESOLUTION NO. 219 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986 WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42-301, 42-302, 42-303 and 42-304 ARS, the Town Council did on the 27th day of June 1985 make an estimate of the different amounts required to meet the public expenses for the ensuing year, also an estimate of receipts by taxation upon real and personal property within the Town of Oro Valley, and W EREAS, in accordance with said sections of said Code, and following due public notice, the Council met on June 27, 1985, at which meeting any taxpayer was privileged to appear and be heard in favor of or against any of the proposed expenditures or tax levies, and WHEREAS, it appears that publication has been duly made as required by law, of said estimates together with a notice that the Town Council would meet on July 25, 1985, at the Oro Valley Town Hall for the purpose of making tax levies as set forth in said estimates, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the said estimates of revenue and expenditures shown on the accompanying schedules as now increased, reduced, or changed by and the same are hereby adopted as the budget of the Town of Oro Valley for the fiscal year 1985-1986. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 25th day of July 1985. 1--kCe'Le ZCs-4141"t".1 E. S. "Steve" Engle, Mayor ATTEST: '`�! i V` !ri..•' s iii�f, l . Kathryn eller, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: \JIV) alter Henderson, Town Attorney -1 (n -T1 CD CD r- C) A(n (/) -1>C)r V)C7-I CD C C CD (D CD CD V)is C CCI CD CD-C CD o --1 CT c*CT N V) CT V) CD Cr" c-+.a in N CD CT c+ 2' c-+ C c-+-.•N c-`r CD Ti c+ C C -+•V) Ci c-+a 'L7 ✓ 0 Ti co •• 0 o Ti cp •• a c+ CD (n C (n N a c•r CD N C a Cr) Ti a CD a CD 3 a -1.a CD Op (-1- --a -<Ti rt.?. Ti CD -' --C ct - T+ 1 C CD < CD 3 < C CD --'•CD 3 >,< Cl f--+ a C.0 c-t- C 0 O.0 V) -•-'-co Ti CD C Ti Ti C C V) O CD V) CD -,C CD -Ti V) N --t,C CD CD c+ O c+ C O ct N --+•-S Cf) -11 O -'•-S V) cn Cu rn C c c,_ C 3 C X O V1 C-)7I CD C.CD C. a CD C -" -0 V1 c+ C -J•CD a. t-t•-I m - a < C C • �,CD C I C.C. :U C C7 4, 4, 4, \ CT1 C7 O O O o o H rrn-�'-� w w 1 1 w w o ,,-) N N N \\:1, N C C) 1-' I--- . 1--'\\•\., \ 70 ,-..., �-' rG D H , \ \. -0 m m V)o O I-' \---4- '-' 70,X C./1 C m y-1 3 C.A.) w oo z m f---1f---1w 0 0 \ I I O wO \ 0 0 OCA--� �< (..51 U1 I I \ \ CO 00 1--1 ren = >(n m I-' I-' \� I--' \--- \ ..1-` C7 co> 0 m d 00 CO C C7 W W ►� CO0o a \ , I 4, \ � 4, mo- J o I--' I--' \\\ 10 �, z--�Czl m m O, cn o 0 0 0rri a = :\\ \\\\\: m C I ` 7. 403 c2. 71 ~(J —"•1 O m o o op co \ \ ,. 0 -n rrn>z W 00 m N D \Ntt.± .i I I • v -<Jai]�m ON C x (D Ii \ O D Z\ 70 H \ O--1 CD C RI C-)---1 m cn o>o(r) rxz---1 n r 1 H Z rn -v p (Ti 73 D I-+ I --4 O-1.---, 70 I I I .--c .ND m H m 0 0 o m CD t 1 in �-1 Z -< C rn 1 1 1 r--'-i O O Z 70 I I I n I I 1 ---- _ -rl 0 0 om 1 1 1 C 7a --1(n CI<m 0 0 In 1 I I -ZIC 0 0 2ozm 1 1 1 H--1 D c77ri --i-<CD H 0 CA (n n-n CD -oxz n I I I 0 rr--0 0 0 . C 3 rm m 1 I I n, a c--)7. a -I --1-t C z--t (n v x City/Town of oro Valley SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL AMOUNTS TO SUPPORT BUDGETARY ESTIMATES Fiscal Year 1985/86 A.R.S. §42-302 1 . PREVIOUS BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR A. Expenditure Limitation (EEC or Voter Approved) 1,403,261 B. Estimated Amount of Exclusions -0- C. Total Estimated Expenditures 1,403,261 2. CURRENT BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR A. Expenditure Limitation (EEC or Voter Approved) 1,834.100 B. Estimated Amount of Exclusions -0- C. Total Estimated Expenditures 1.843,100 3. PROPERTY TAX - PREVIOUS BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR A. Amount Levied Primary Property Taxes _p_ Secondary Property Taxes -0- Total Property Taxes Levied -0- B. Amount Collected to Date Primary Property Taxes -0- Secondary Property Taxes _p_ Total Property Taxes Collected to Date -0- C. Property Tax Rates Primary Property Tax Rate _p_ Secondary Property Tax Rate _0_ SCHEDULE B (1 of 2) City/Town of pro Valley SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL AMOUNTS TO SUPPORT BUDGETARY ESTIMATES Fiscal Year 1985/86 A.R.S. §42-302 4. PROPERTY TAX - CURRENT BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR A. Maximum Allowable Primary Property Tax Levy pursuant to A.R.S. §42-301 - Estimated Amount -0- B. Amount to be Levied (Estimate) Primary Property Taxes _p_ Secondary Property Taxes _0_ Total Property Taxes to be Levied -0- C. Property Tax Rates (Estimate) Primary Property Tax Rate _p_ Secondary Property Tax Rate -0- 5. Amount received from primary property taxes in the previous budgeted fiscal year in excess of the maximum allowable amount of the primary property tax levy (A.R.S. §42-301 .I) _p_ SCHEDULE B (2 of 2) City/Town of Oro Valley SUMMARY BY SOURCE OF NON-PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS Fiscal Year 1985/86 A.R.S. §42-302.0 REVISED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES SOURCE PREVIOUS YEAR PREVIOUS YEAR* CURRENT YEAR F'EDERAL GOVERNMENT:** Federal Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 TOTAL. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,500 11,091 8,000 STATE GOVERNMENT:** State Sales 80,688 98,301 145,700 State Income 70,734 116,701 131,300 State Highway Users Revenue 90,508 98,738 99,700 L.T.A.F. 16,171 16,288 21,400 TOTAL. .. . . . . . . . . , 330,028 398,100 COUNTY GOVERNMENT:** Auto Lieu 15,000 20_164 16,000 TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,000 20,164 _16,000 * Include actual revenues received prior to the date of the tentative adopted budget and the expected revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year. ** Monies received and estimated revenues from Federal , State or County intergovernmental sources should be recorded in the proper category. SCHEDULE C (1 of 2) City/Town of oro Valley SUMMARY BY SOURCE OF NON-PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS Fiscal Year 1985/86 A.R.S. §42-302.0 REVISED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES SOURCE PREVIOUS YEAR PREVIOUS YEAR* CURRENT YEAR CITY/TOWN GOVERNMENT: Sale of bonds (give detail ). . . . . . . City/Town sales taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 806 427 488 353 490 City/Town use taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '0- -0- 'n- Utility franchise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 5,000 4,279 5,000 Business license taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2 000 3,305 2,000 Licenses and permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 101 ,507 7�,000 Fines and forfeits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000 133,755 1QQ,000 Other service charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sale/Rental of property. . . . . . . . . . . Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoning & Development Fees 15,000 14,419 10,000 -. - • ' - M . ' s ' ••. 111 • 111 Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Racl i n TnwPir Rental 1Q -0- - -0- TntPrPst 1 37 544 64 249 e 52,000 Mi s rP 1 1 ane,a 1s i 1,100 6,415 2 000 Rnacl Pprmi i s I 1, a 1,285 500 Carry Fnrward 605,110 605,110 8Q-9,01. TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 125,660 1,364,141 1,412,000 TOTAL NON-PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS. 1,40'1,261 1 725A24 1834,100 * Include actual revenues received prior to the date of the tentative adopted budget and the expected revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year. SCHEDULE C (2 of 2) In (1 City/Town of Oro Valley SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY EACH DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM AND FUND Fiscal Year 85/86 A.R.S. §42-302.B.1 and 6.2 ' ADOPTED ADOPTED ESTIMATED BUDGET BUDGET CONTINGENCY EXPENDITURES CURRENT DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM PREVIOUS YEAR ADJUSTMENT* PREVIOUS YEAR YEAR ALEOAC Surcharge 44,400 Building Inspection 40,000 36,809 40,000 Capital Improvements 21,000 -0- , 110,000 Mayor & Council 2,000 447 2,000 Animal Control 200 -0- 200 Arts & Recreation 500 Convention Bureau 2,500 Election 1 ,000 PAC 2,000 1 ,056 1 ,170 Special Census 5,000 5,197 -0- 2- 1a1f_ SPrtri cea 5,000 Engineering 5,000 695 5,000 Tcwn Attnrripy -1 ,000 2-1,791 . 35,000 Town C''1 Prk 90,400 88,684 . 140,000 Court 70,000 66,750 ♦ 100,000 Planning/finning .• ii i . V __----7-61---- Police 60Police 424,178 433,946- . 555,248 ___ i.g zay_,.__ • la ii, _ A 262,-021 Public Works -G- -0- 4,300 Federal Revenue Sharing (itemize by function). . . . . Police Salaries 4,500 11,091 8,000 Contingencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 439,783 185,000 110,000 441,261 TOTAL DEPARTMENTS/PROGRAMS 1,403,261 185,000 1,030,958 d,834,100 * Adjustments resulting from contingencies approved during the- year. SCHEDULE D (1 of 2) (!!! City/Town of oro Valley SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY EACH DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM AND FUND Fiscal Year A.R.S. §42-302.1115 -8.2 ADOPTED ADOPTED ESTIMATED BUDGET BUDGET CONTINGENCY EXPENDITURES CURRENT FUND PREVIOUS YEAR ADJUSTMENT* PREVIOUS YEAR YEAR General Fund. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1,182,661 185,000 813,560 1,449,779 Special Revenue Funds. . . . . . . . . Trust Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enterprise Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Streets & Roads 195,100 206,307 262,021 Federal Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 Public Works Reserve -0- -0- 4,300 Capital Projects Funds. . . . . . . . 21,000 = -0- 110,000 Total Funds Excluding Debt Service and Special Assessment Funds. . . . . . .. . . Debt Service Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . Special Assessment Funds. . . . . . Total Debt Service and Special Assessment Funds. TOTAL FUNDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,403,261 185,000 1 1,030,958 1,834,100 * Adjustments resulting from contingencies approved during the year. SCHEDULE D (2 of 2) Can ORO E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor 0 bA.44IP* KATHRYN CUVELIER, Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor ' HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman i WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman , * ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate 0 HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman . WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police 1,„ SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts rt 16 • 4 • 4/11PV14.1t TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 August 14, 1985 National Council on Governmental Accounting 180 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Dear Sirs: I am interested in purchasing 2 copies of the NCGA manual. Please send information as to the cost, etc. at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk Aikt ORO • E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor 0i,11i4A1 KATHRYN CUVELIER,Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor "�" HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman it: WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman ♦ ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate 0 HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman ` ` WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts tort t 1r 40/dir PV144Vit TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 September 12, 1985 Mts. Carol Ann Milford Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. Valley Bank Center, Suite 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85073 Dear Mrs. Milford: Enclosed are the items requested. Please do not hesitate to call should you need further information. Sincerely, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk enc. 17 ?1L RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES, INC. August 29, 1985 AUG 3 1 tt5 Ivo ot Ms. Kathryn Cuvelier, Clerk Town of Oro Valley 680 West Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Dear Ms. Cuvelier: We would very much appreciate receiving a copy of the adopted budget for fiscal year 1985-86 and the annual report for fiscal year 1984-85. In checking our records, we find we have not received the annual reports for fiscal years 1982-83 and 1983-84 and would appreciate receiving a copy of these also. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES, INC. (al/ Mrs. Carol Ann Milford Valley Bank Center, Suite 3450•Phoenix,Arizona 85073• (602)257-7770 Member New York Stock Exchange,Inc. STif o r�� ��. • us ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION d -- y' 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 1912 4' RECEIVED BRUCE BABBITT April 22, 1985 CHARLES L. MILLER GovernorDirector APR 2 51985 TO: AR I z0M `I E S AND TOWNS FROM: Charles L. Miller, Director ll SUBJECT: Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) The Local Transportation Assistance Fund created by the Legislature in 1981 and amended in subsequent sessions continues to be an important source of funds for cities and towns. To be eligible for funds in fiscal year 1986, an application must be submitted to the Arizona Department of Transportation prior to June 17, 1985. (A sample application is attached. ) Expenditures of LTAF monies can be used for the following purposes: o Cities/towns with populations greater than 300,000 must spend their funds for mass transit operating and related capital purposes. Those cities/towns with populations less than 300,000 can use 100% of their funds for trans- portation purposes. o If the LTAF distribution in a fiscal year reaches a total of $23 million, a city/town may authorize, by resolution, the use of up to ten per cent of Local Transportation Assistance Fund monies for cultural , educational , historical , recreational or scientific fa- cilities or programs or for non-residential outpatient programs or services for developmentally disabled per- sons. The LTAF monies must be matched equally by non- pub i i c monies received by the city or town and ex- pended for the same purposes. State statutes require that your application be received by the Department of Transportation prior to June 17, 1985, to be eligible for these funds. Certification to the state treasurer will be made on July 2, 1985. Atch cc: Harry A. Reed Jack DeBo I ske '41�or �,a`t�viii ' ' HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICS • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING APPLICATION FOR LOCAL TRANSNURIAU lUN A5J1J H�v�t rur�u� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY/TOWN COUNCIL OF THE CITY/TOWN OF , REQUESTING THE ARIZONA DEPARTRENT—U—TWOMATTON TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 40-1102, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. WHEREAS, the Thirty-fifth Legislature, second special session of 1981 established a Local Transportation Assistance Fund from the proceeds of the Arizona State Lottery; and WHEREAS, the Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation shall determine the total amount of requests for Local Transportation Funds from Cities and Towns; and WHEREAS, these funds are to be distributed on a monthly basis by the State Treasurer to cities and towns requesting funds; and WHEREAS, these funds are to be used for the following purposes: TRANSPORTATION: *OTHER: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY/TOWN COUNCIL OF THE CITY/TOWN OF , ARIZONA, THAT the Arizona Department of Transportation is hereby requested to take necessary steps in authorizing Local Tran3 po1 i/ V 1 oi0 ••/•i i n iv .. o ufortha ahnva-mentioned purposes. M \rw �� •Fw.ndr►i.r .r PASSED this day of 1985, by the Mayor and Council of the City/Town of , Arizona. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY/TOWN CLERK DATE *A city or town may authorize by resolution the use of up to ten per cent of local transportation assistance fund monies received pursuant to §40-1102 in any one fiscal year for cultural, educational, historical, recreational or scientific facilities or programs or for nonresidential outpatient pro- crams or services for developmentally disabled persons as defined by § 36-551 who have never res i aed w i cn i n a i uc I;Ly i d;.:4 a. z_t: ... o l i shed pursuant to i36-558 if the monies are matched equally by nonpublic monies received by the city or town and expended for the same purposes, except in a fiscal year when the total distributed from the local transpor- tation assistance fund is less than twenty-three million dollars. MAIL TO: Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Division 320-B 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 44 ORO h E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,MayorA44� KATHRYN CUVELIER,Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor2ki*, HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman '� WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman Vim. ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman0 t11111 WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts vs, t� • ► t 41irstV1410 /Z 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 September 12, 1985 Barbara Fairfield The Daily Territorial P.O. Box 35250 Tucson, AZ 85740 Dear Barb: Please publish the enclosed on the dates indicated on the last page. You can reduce the pages down to as small as is legible. Thank you. Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk enc. ORO * E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor ��� KATHRYN CUVELIER,Town Clerk • � LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney �. JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman '� WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police FitSUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts 417 ,"VV410,11P 4 Z TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with the provisions of Title 42, Sect ions 302, 303, and 304 ARS, the Oro Valley Town Council did on the 25th day of July, 1985 adopt the budget for the fiscal year 1985-6. A summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures may be examined at the office of the Town Clerk, 680 west Calle Concordia between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PUB: The Daily Territorial September 16, 17, 18, 1985 REQ: Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk A ©� r, t. AFFIDAV,- 'IF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) 3AReAR A V. FAIRFIE.LD being first .... , duly sworn, deposes and says that (he)(she) is the Legal Advertising Manager ry of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the PENDITURES AND REVENUElfuri County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, )2.D 1 County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached III ........._ TT. D ANCE AT NON-PROPERTY mAT ,--,,-- iINNING TAX NDI YEAR COLLECTIONS -4 JOU -4' c--° f 9, 4( 0 9,010 )30, .:50.4 / ' / 7 . , was printed and published correctly in the re. lu- and entire issue of said THE / DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues;that the first was made 19,cao _052_,. on the 1 t) r day of SEPTM:',ER 19 5 , -n- -0- -O and the last publication thereof was made on the - day of 3 R r -0- -0- -0 3Ec)TEME.1ER 19 ;that said publication 1 _,..... (.1 1 was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: Uti SAMil IT,Win...1.,A.Z.I.EV , / I / 5 C19/23/ , . ___Essilmosaukt , . . 4--- Sallttiln (2JadaJd 0 leluaH/aies , Va6Jvq,a3IAJOS J0410 I o i• slopsol pue sauH Request of .r 0:4 ti 0 0 P) VA'(...LEY .0-a sliwad pia sasua311 umrs -777.77 saxel asuaDIL ssaupng . aspipueJj Atom saxes asn umol/X20 .., sawn sa vs um) A (LIvlap OA tf,) spusq 0;Les ___ _wapitiuMin likl t2 fno 1 A3ticl 33VI0S 1N3A311 0 IWILS3 ' • - Daily Territorial El combir .with Daily Reporter zti .s.ry JINA (V1St4 XVI ka3dOlid-NON , 1 s AO Amos . By i , -I ALA-1AL- 'z-)0 0.0v4,13 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23!,-;*;.::, day of ...-;E:)TEN!--4F. R 19 $..' 41,.. •4. I i'l, f WA Notary Public in and for the Cont of Pima,(State of Arizona My Commission Expires: / -i 8 AFFIDAVIT Or PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) being first 4 A 2, ,,,t . F 7 1 c ' - duly sworn, deposes and says that (he)(she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached T .. , D';' ) VALLEY P ... _, .. ..- -- . '1J%.):•*7 ITif-.). - FISCAL Y - -14 ii I was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PUBLIC NOTICE DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues;that the first was made In accordance with the provisions of Title 42, Sections 302, 303, and 304 ARS, the Oro Valley Town Council did on the 25th day of July, on the .: - day of 1 9 1985 adopt the budget for the fiscal year 1985 6. A summary of the budgeted revenues and expendi ftures mtheay be examined at the of and the last publication thereof was made on the day of ice of Town Clerk, 680 West Calle Concordia between the hours , of 8:30 a.m.and 5:00 p.m, Pub:The Daily Territorial 19 ; that said publication September 16,17,18,1985 .. :, Req: Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: i : . i .) 1 Tr1 1. '/ _-, , ,/ 1 / Request of Daily Territorial' [35-d C.coribined with Daily line, By \ ,..?. i) , A) \ a,--)--P'—(-4---4,----&—,_--- ''' ' j 1,-c---",---C •<,:,__ Subscribed and sworn to before me thi ) 1 T i., day of _ 19 . // • /Th i, (..-- Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires: /.._ ,_, / ORO h E . 0 01A144 KATHRYN CUVELIER,Town Clerk S "STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor bollt 1 HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman � • WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police :.„„ SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts • `• •. 44NV14#1* /210 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 September 12, 1985 Mb. Kay Cirivello Government Reference Library P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726 Dear Ms. Cirivello: Enclosed is the 1984/85 Budget for the Town of Oro Valley per your request. Please call should you have any further questions. Sincerely, MAIN OF ORO VALLEY Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk enc. L. &VREFACE ' INTIWDU( ION AN'I) BACK(,ROU`ND z -1111N St:itc'rtic'nt by the National t ouncil on Gov- !) ,kceounting and financial reporting for state and ernmental Accountin_ (N( ( A) provides ;it!!horitative local governments is guided by the principles set forth guidance on defining the governmental reporting en- by the. National Council on Governmental Accounting tit\• the `(_'GA due process procedures were followed (NCGA) in Statement I. Governmental Accountin in developin!_ this statement. The NUG A issued a [_)is- and Financial Reporting Principles. issued in 1979. , cussion Memorandum. -Definition of Reporting En- Through widespread acceptance. Statement I and sub- tity." in December lcttiit. Public hearings on the issues sequent NC-CIA pronouncements are ackno led ed as raked in the discussion memorandum were held in the primary authoritative statements of generally ac- April 1951• N(.'(iA deliberations, including considera- cepted accounting principles applicable to state and tion of comments received on the discussion memoran- local governments. However, these principles do not dum. led to issuance of the June 1951 -Dotinttioii of provide explicit guidance to defining the -reporting en- Reporting Entity- Exposure Draft. Comments on that titv- for governmental financial reporting. exposure draft led to further NCGA deliberations prior to the approval of this statement. 2) NCGA Statement I states: 5 '•A comprehensive annual financial report cov- ering all funds and account groups of the eon- ernmental unit including appropriate com- ' bined. combining, and individual fund state- ments; notes to the financial statements: schcdu!•�s: narrative explanations: and statisti- 5 cal tables should be prepared and pun- F listed.' f This requirement l OCS not, however. indicate o.`r- +.'_aniLatiuus. act: tit:s and functions to he included or excluded from the reporting entity. 3) Statement I also uses the term 'entity" to refer to the level of aggrega.R)ii to he used in the financial re- .. ports of a governmental unit: ". . . the indi\idual funds and account groups should continue to he to basic eiiut1 rep; rted upon in the CAFR (comprehensive annual fi- _" nancial report). but that the primary reporting '"'' entity focus of separately issued GPFS (general i purpose financial statements) should be upon fund type and account group financial informa- tion. This statement considers only the or+garli/:ititins, ac- tivities and functions which should he included in GPFS. 4) The NCGA believes that the criteria for definini2. the reporting entity of a governmental unit should be established to clarity the organizations, functions and acti'ities of government c\hich should be included in the general purpose financial statements (GPFS) of that governmental unit. In particular. there is a need for criteria for inclusion in the financial stat`ments of a reporting emits with a separately elected legislative body of financial data on separate agencies 01 govern- ment. such as public authorities, whose officials are ap- pointed rather than elected. , 5) The NCGA believes that criteria for defining the }:- reporting entiiy should he developed for several reasons. Among these are: A) Comparability. Users of financial reports may wish to make comparisons among units of go\- NCGA STATEMENT 3 • -.1.\GI: 1 - ;, ernment or between time , iods for a given niticantly intluenc• peratiorts and accountability for • government. Criteria for the inclusion or ex- fiscal matters. Oversight responsibility implies that a elusion of units of government would assist governmental unit is dependent on another and the de- users in making such comparisons. pendent unit should he reported as part of the other. 13) Comprehensiveness. Criteria for detinini.: the The manifestations of oversight responsibility are des- J. ,,,.., reporting entity would help the users of the Ii - cribed in paragraphs 1t) and 13, below. }. nancial reports by reducing the possibility of arbitrary exclusions or inclusions of various or- 10) The most significant manifestation of over- ganizations. , sight—which ordinarily is accompanied by other as- C) Responsibility and control. Users interested in pests of oversight as described in paragraph 13— evaluating the performance ofgovernmental nosabgiaeisioutiftieremaefflour. To the extent that a separate entities need to he able to identify the opera- agency produces a financial benefit or imposes a finan- _ tions for which their officials are respo,isihie. cial burden on a unit of government, users of financial Specific criteria for the reporting entity inclu- statements need to know the magnitude of such activity sion or exclusion can help fulfill that need. and its present and prospective impact on the reporting , entity. Manifestations of financial interdependency in- clude responsibility for financing deficits, entitlements ENTITY DEFINITION ION CRITERIA to surpluses and guarantees of or"moral responsibility- for debt. . 6) Several different sets of criteria for defining the reporting entity have been proposed. The NC(; be— lieves that specific criteria should be established since a than oversight are so significant in the relationship be- concept without specific criteria may be impractical for tweet a particular agency and a reporting entity that use in implementin, a definition. exclusion of the agency from the reporting entity's fi- nancial statements would he misleading. These other 7) The NCGA believes that the definitio,n criteria factors include: a) scope of public service (defined in • shooed be broad enough to include all governmental ac- paragraph 14). where there may be only partial over- tivitics, organizations and functions necessary to sight: and h) special financingg relationships. w fere• achieve the desired objectives of comparabiiity, com- there is no oversight. There may also be circumstances prchensivcness and responsibility and control. A broad where the degree of oversight is so remote (as in the definition may cause inclusion of some separate a+ten_ case of certain industrial development corporations) cies th rt have not been previously included h)v all re- that the relationship of the agency to the entity is hest . )rtin_ entities. However, the NCGA believes that a described in a note to the financial statements rater ' t;... :oad definition is necessary tc) p rovide users with all than in the financial statements. necessary information. ti) In cleyc•Ic)pin p the re orting entity definition APPLYING THE CRITERIA criteria, the NCG A assumed that all functions of Dov- 12) The NCGA believes that a positive response to eri�ment are considered to be responsible to elected of- the foregoing criteria +e a • ' fiecals at the federal. state or local level. T'here�tore�, all - errteri L indicates tli'tt t11 enc% should functions of government must he a part of either ted_ be included in the reporting entity. The NCGA reco<c- s • , government, piles that professional judgment is necessary in indi- erat, .tate c r (acid goy c rnment unci should he reported - _ vidu:il tact situations to determine whether a particular it the lowest letiel of legistati‘e tuthoritY that is copses- c)r�anization should be in the re )ort +� tent with the criteria of this statement. There may he e 1 in entity. ventures, where it is difficult Appendix includes several illustrations intended to instances, other than joint to determine whether the statements of a specific sepa- assist in the application of these criteria. rate agency should he included in the financial state- 1 , „.., ,, f ,,kms L... h� T'h he ments of a state or a particular local +government of the :4.., ,„r y.„ ,n, .. _,, 3, t.::_ -,. .:4 :.: .k4 - {,�r'` state. State and local government fiscal officials should following tiirt )er .?.Inc.ante is pros•i e concerniti the various manifestations of oversight set forth in para- confer to resolve such problems: a possible solution might he to include the agency in the financial state- Graph 9.r enis Of 011e R1)0111111.1 Ctltity :incl disclose it in the . ;�. note's to the financial statements of the other entity. `�1 The �oyern- ing authority is that person or persons. board, . commission or other hody which possesses The N('GA concludes that the basic but not the final decision-making authority and is held only--criterion for including a _over nmc ntal �i` part- primarily accountable for decisions. When the �f tT 1}' �T= �T � meat, agency, institution, commission, public authority governint! authority is appointed by elected of- or other governmental organization in a governmental Iicials, a determination must he made as to unit's rept)rtir.; c ntityjor Ccneral purpose financial re- whether the appointment N authoritati‘e. One ,,,)rts �$ c � ��� ` � G � iii ide� hy .iii elected c)tf�ici.LI principal hLc:Luse, ' 4 h'�` �» r :---4-'7r- no 1k or slit. is in in c)tflci'il osition where ttie r. :a O�e'rsight responsi )i rty i` e"''r t ” 6i'tI `Lo - position the person is appointed to has little ernmental unit's power anti includes, but is not limited continuing. linkage to the elected official (e.g., to, financial interdependency, selection of governing appointment of a chairman for a charitable ;lc- authority, designation of management, ability to si;►- ti%it\ ), is not authoritative. An authoritatk e PAGE 2-NCGA STATEMENT 3 . -... ... ... its ,. .. . .. ...-. - .....L... .,. .•,..:� ,.::: .. s:. fit' ... . ...... %.. .._ . -'''"'''"'DW''''"'",-'''' .-'- ... .,. .a. : .. .,,, ,. . ..:..J :, . ,.r... _ • • appointment is one where t 1e ele:ted official disburse._.;nt of funds'' (Trust and Agency m• intains a sigrtiti.:int continuing relationship type funds would be included.) Who holds with the appointed official with respect to car- _ title to assets? (Ownership-of assets would rving out important public tunctions_ indicate inclusion.) Who possesses the right - (---, Bj) lemipsiiimilMitindimagesunt. 'flee manage- to require audits? (This may show ability to ment of an agency consists of those individuals control.) responsible for the day-to-day operations of 4) Where the _overnmental agency. When management revenues are derived by means of a public is appointed by and held accountable to a gov- leve or charge, in contrast to being grant re- ernino authority that is included in the entity, ceipts. there should he the presumption to the. activity ivity being managed will fall within the include the agency's revenues or expendi- entity. A governing authority may he ceremo- tures within the reporting entity. For pur- .( nial in nature and not possess the powers bf ap- poses of this criterion the following detini- pointment over management. In this case. :he tions apply: organizational relationship must he examined. and the terms and conditions of an employer- a) "Public. The origin of authority for employee relationship should he used as an in- making the levy or charge lies with dicatrofl of whether the activity should he in- elected officials of the entity, or persons eluded in the entity. appointed by the elected officials. or C) -reathere exists a delegation, hut not an ah- . r The ability to significantly influence operations rogation. of the power to levy or charge: should include. but is not limited to, the au- the authority or power would include the thority to review and approve buugeti:ry re- ability to determine the nature and type :n quests �:nd budgetary adjustments and amend- of tax imposed or fee collected. « ments. sign contracts as the contracting au- I9 "Levy or charge.- The imposition of a thoritY• approve the hiring or retention of key 7 monetary pa\mens. the proceeds of managerial personnel. exercise control over t.i which are applicable to and for the belie- r`. cilities and properties and determine the out- fit of the citizens served hti. the level of cone or disposition of matters affecting the re- government imposing the levy or charge. ci ients of the services being provided. The power to levy- would include the de- pWhen abso- termination of the terms of leve and es--r ...:�_ _.. . , r� � �s ��t of the nlc:ltc�tio�t•-.�cll�ir�istr�i- lute authority over all funds is vested within tai•. li lime.; ; - the jurisdiction of either a eonstitut oro of- tion. : ricer. a management official or agoverning, au- thority 14) SCOPE OF PUBLIC SERVICE. This criterion thority that is within telt., et�ttt�. .h,. �ie should be included in the entity. When respon- for determining whether the statements of a specitic iiit , ,,, , aoeney should he included in the financial statements of srb,rt,ti for the fiscal condition of an < �erlc� is outside the direct purview of a governing au- a reporting entity embraces the following aspects: thoritv or management deemed within the en- 4 • tdgment is required to determine the line A) Whether the activity is for the benefit of the re- trt�, judgment�. y � • • porting entity and/or its residents. ot.tiscal accountability and its applicability to includingactivity the within the entity. 13) Whether the activity is conducted•within the geographic boundaries of the reporting entity Likewise. JUUemmlent is necessary when the god•- - • thority or of an agency and is generally available to the citizens of that erning su management � may not be clearly within the entity, hut fiscal entity. activities, or the results thereof. are directly re- F a . wt _ IMPLEMENTATION A AND re- lated to It. _ _ ���''�"E t,:a- ,, •. !,,4.,• y',- . _ 4 L, V; * EI I'EC-MINE I)A'I'L 15} The criteria used in determinitg the scope of the r-,.''''''':'"•.. yR Xa. •. • -- egs ra.: entity for financial reporting purposes should he des- ct-ibed in a note to the financial statements. The note should refer to how the specific elements of oversight Who ros- responsibility and other criteria were considered in de- 1) 1 whether to include or exclude specific agencies senses the authority for final approval over cidirig the authorizations of budgetary appropri- from the eritit\ definition. In any instance where there ations? Who may authorize revisions to the is a positi‘c response to the criteria set forth herein, the approved budget? specific reasons for excluding such agencies from the 2) F, _'_ Who is responsible entity shall be disclosed. S ;r for funding deficits and operating deticien- (7..: -: cies'.' is this responsibility a legal or a moral 16) Legal constraints should not he a controlling lac- _ one? \\ho governs or controls the use of tor in defining the reporting entity. Although legal con- surplus funds? l low are surplus funds dis- traints may exist, the N(_•(iA believes that they do not posed of? preclude implementation of the entity definition 3} ' Who governs criteria. Legal contraints may complicate reporting hut the process controlling the collection and «ould not preclude implementing the definition. NCGA STATEMENT 3• PAGE 3 I?) Implementation problems ..ill vary and, in some ing the reportinL arty definition criteria to the Ire i- •urisdicticons, significant implementation et forts may he ous }ear, and the existence of the faro tOrrna statements . required. In some instances there max' he reluctance to of prior years should be indicated v' appropriate toot- deviate from statutorily mandated reporting require- note disclosure. ments: in others the responsibility or authority to issue :; general purpose reports will he unclear. Therefore, it may be necessary to solicit the support of the executive The provisions of this statement need and legislative branches at both the state and local level not he applied to immaterial items. to effectively implement these reporting entity criteria. This statement was adopted by the affirmative votes of members Cormie, Farrell-Donaldson, Greathouse. idler application is encouraged )ut Grossman. Harmer, Ives, Mullov, Murphy.urphy, (erne, not required. These criteria for definition of the report- Points. Rat•terv, Rogan. Schirman. Schlanger, Vaughn, ing entity are broader than N%hat many officials consid- tik'ailison and Williams. Member Hay.disscnted on the erect the reporting entity in the past. and comparative grounds that provisions of the statement are not financial statements comparable with prior `'ears may worded with precision sufficient to provide useful gui- he difficult to prepare. Governmental units should at- dance to preparers and auditors of governmental com- tempt to prepare pro tormu financial statements apply- prehensive annual financial reports. • *te •r PAGE 4.NCGA STATEMENT 3 APPLNDI.\ 3) Facts: A ci.. ,colds title to the land on which a museum is constructed. The museum is operated by a • following examples illustrate the application of the nonprofit corporation which is supported principally The l, to . - situations: through citizen contributions and endowments. The entity definition criteria particular tu, � city levies an annual tax, however. for the purpose of r. , ',.. 1) Facts: A school system is separately chartered partially deferring the cost of maintenance of the . f'from the city in which it exists. The school system was museum building and grounds. The proceeds.of this tax established by an act of the state legislature which de- are remitted to the nonprofit corporation and expended signated a school board as the governing authority• by it. The nonprofit corporation operates under the �' a the are elected s the '. �a directors elected Members of school hoard elected by public. governance of a board of directors elected by contribtit- The school hoard has control over hiring and firing em- int; members and leases the property from the city for ployees, the power to contract for schools. purchase $1 per year. Facilities of the museum are free to con- eduipment, etc.. and has the power of eminent'domain. tributing members and open to the public for a mini- The school board is required by an act of the state legis- mum fee on weekends and no tee on other days. lature to submit an annual budget to the city council for Conclusion: The property is part of the city entity, approval and is prohibited from spending or obligating hut the museum corporation is not. The tax levied for funds in excess of the maximum amount approved by purposes of the museum should he reported in a Special the city council. Taxes are levied by the city council and Revenue Fund if its purposes are so restricted. This are collected and distributed to the school system by fund should also record the distribution of the proceeds the city. The school system also receives funds from the to the museum. In addition, the notes to the city's ti- state and county. The school hoard does not have the nancial statements should describe the relationship authority to borrow funds or issue bonded indebted- with the museum. ness. but the city,council may and does borrow funds and issues bonds for the school systems. Conclusion: The school board is apart of the report- 4) Facts: A public benefit corporation was created ing entity of the city, even though the school s';stem is by'a cite to facilitate urban renewal within the hound- separately chartered from the city and isgoverned by aries of the city'. A governing. hoard is appointed by the an independently elected school hoard. The ovci-rkiine ciity and title to various properties transterred to the � corporation. 1tiftich then proceeds to raze existing sirli::- factors are: The city council is responsible for aonrov- P the school hoard's budget and establishing spel]dine tures, operate temporary-use facilities (such as parking ln� limitations. The city council is resr'nsihle for fundino lots) and provide additional infrastucture necessary to deficits. The city council is responsible for levying taxes attract r,e". development. Fin:incing of its activities is in (�'..'- andcollecting and distributing the funds to the school the form of federal grants and city advances or sub- ,.. , v The hoard cannot borrow funds, but the sidles in money and scrs ices. City advances or subsidies board. city may and does issue bonds to finance school system in turn may he financed from the sale of bonds to be re- operations. (But a school district governed by an tired out of city taxes. elected school board might be excluded from the city Conclusion: The corporation is part of the city entity, entity if the city council has no approval authority over even though the majority of its financing may he pro- the school ool district's budget. is not responsible fo� vided through federal grants. The overriding factors eh . t , - i � governance > > financing the school district's deficits and does not issue are: I'lte is h city appointees, the public bonds to.finance school district construction.) services rendered are wholly within the boundaries of the city and the activities and transactions are intended Facts: A public benefit corporation was created to benefit pt the city by returning property to its tax rolls by a city to provide subsidized public housing in actor_ and providing employment for its citizens. The corpo- federal The ma yor a appoints rations transactions should be included in the city danee, with legislation. � pp . . en- members of the governing hoard for staggered terms: tits s reports and its activities described in the notes to they, in turn, elect a chairman. The governing hoard the city's financial statements. employs executives; authorizes contracts of subsidy with the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban De- velopment e:- tielo ment pursuant to the latter agency's regulations 5) Facts: An industrial development corporation is and statutory authorizations: and causes the corpora- created by an act of the state legislature (or city corm- tion to construct,own and operate public housing facili- cil) for the specific purpose of promoting aIld develop ties within the boundaries of the city. The financial iia- ing 1omi]iimercial. industrial and manufacturing enterpise bility of the housing agency is essentially supported by and encouraging employment ‘e ithin the boundaries of the operating and debt service subsidies received under the sl'�::tic city. The members of the hoard are all .ip- p fromfederal government, although ser- pointed by the mayor, except for sc\eral other elected e.ontr,iei the t. vices or cash subsidies may he. and from time to time otticials who are hoard members ex officio. Ihe law.iu- are. received from the city as well. thorizes the corporation to issue industrial develop- Conclusion: The housing agency is part of the city en_ ment bonds after approval by the city council. The r�h;•-� tits. even though the financial support is primarily pro- bonds do not constitute indebtedness of either the city �.. i , or the state and are secured solely by revenues received ;;w:. sided by the federal government. The overriding fat- tors are: The city ci-::::t_..'. r;:._ C 'r; .'r..!i`"1 M the over_ from the commercial organizations on whose behalf the tthea public service is bonds are issued. File city assumes no responsibilit for nance is appointed hti the city: and rendered wholly within the boundaries of the city. The the day-to-day operating expenses of the corporation: agency's transactions should he included in the city-en- such expenses are financed by tees charged to the corn- tity's reports.` mercial enterprises. NCGA STATEMENT 3•PAGE 5 17 " • Conc1t1sion: Fhe corporation tot a part of th ,:it` statement.) Tt < rporation's transactions should be entity since the city has assumed no financial responsi- shown as a debt service fund of the city, and the corpo- -hilit' w natsocver for the corporation. The corpora- ration's outstanding debt should be reported in the gen- tion's activities and debt should be disclosed in a note eral long-term debt account group of the city. The cor- to the financial statements. (But, where the corpora- poration is also a part of the state entity, because of the t � tion s debt is secured in part by the city's moral ohlii!a- oversight relationship and the '`moral obligation" re- tion to replenish the corporation's debt service fund, lationship: its activities and the scope of the "moral ob- - should that become necessary, or where the city issues ligation,' should be reported in a note in the state's fi- bonds on behalf of an industrial development corpora- nancial statements. tion to create a revolving fund to make loans to corn- 1 mercial enterprises, the industrial development corpo- 8) Facts: A public benefit corporation was created ration should be treated as part of the citti' entity.) by a state to provide mass transit (subways and buses) activities entirely within the geographical boundaries of 6) Facts: A county flood control district was created a city. Of the 15-member hoard of directors. 11 are tip- by state statute as aflood control and reclamation dis- pointed by the governor and four by the mayor of the trier. It is a political subdivision of the state as is the city. The city owns all the transit facilities and provides county, and has the same boundaries as the county. capital construction funds for new facilities. Operating Since the creation of the'district, the county has relin- subsidies are provided by the city, state and federal quished all of its flood control and water drainage ac- governments. tivities to the district. The governing body of the district Conclusion: The corporation is part of the city entity, is the governing body of the county. Amon, its duties, even though the majority of the governance is ap- it approves the district's budget, determines the dis- pointed. by the state and the state provides some trict's tax rates. serves as the hoard of eeualizati)n for operating subsidies. The overriding factors are: All the the valuation of property within the district for ad vol- facilities are owned by the city, the corporation is hea\- Orc.'rrl tax purposes, approves contracts and determines ily uhsidized by the city and the public service is ren- when to issue honds authorized by the voters ot the dis- dpred wholly within the boundaries of the city. 'rhe cor- y trice. The management of the district is the responsibili- poration's transactions should he reported within the tv of the districts director, who is appointed hs the gov- appropriate fund types of the cite. The corporation erning" hoard of the county. The district has 700 em- activities and trap-irctions should he described in the plovees as compared with 6.5(R) employees for the notes to the state's financial statements rather than in- counts. The annual general fund budget of the district eluded in the state's financial statements. is about $15,t)t)U,00() as compared with about � �r. S SI-0),000,0u0; ,(Rfl),0000 for the county. 9) Facts: A nonprofit corporation was organized by Conclusion: The district is a part of the county entity a city and the city was the sole member of the corpo- since it is governed by county elected and appointed of- ration for the sole purpose of conducting an elee- ficials and is performing what is essentially a normal tronic data processing service activity. The cite entered county-type function (i.e.. flood control within the into a contract with the corporation: providing. for the county's boundaries). The district's transactions should purchase of data processing services: permitting the be reported within the appropriate fund types of the sale of such services to other governmental entities: county. A capsule summary of the district's operations granting the city power to approve capital and operat- should he disclosed in the notes to the county's Finan- ing budgets; and providing for distribution to the city cial statements. and other customers of earnings trot operations, as de- fined. pro alta to purchases. The city is the primary cus- 7) Facts: ,A public benefit corporation was created tomer, accounting for approximately Ut) percent of by a state for the sole purpose of assisting a financially sales. This separate organization was established in distressed city to refinance its outstanding short-term order to provide flexibility deemed necessary in acquis- debt and to finance new construction. All board mem- ition of physical facilities, computer hardware and soft- hers of the corporation are appointed by the governor ware and skilled computer personnel outside the con- of the state. Certain city taxes were declared to he state straints applicable to city government's acquisition of taxes and diverted to the corporation so that the corpo- facilities and personnel, generally. ration could make debt service payments on its debt. Conclusion: 'Be corporation is part of the city entity and the state assumed a "moral ohli:!atiim" for the cor- for financial reporting purposes, even though legal sep- poratron's debt. ,ration exists and certain administrative requirements Conclusion: 'File corporation is a part of the city en- of the city are not applicable to it. The city. created the tit v, even though the city has no oversight responsibility corporation and controls the operations of the corpora- for the corporation, because the corporations transac- tion through its membership. its contractual relation- dons are integral to a complete comprehension of the ship, its right of approval over budgets and its right to city's financial standing. (See paragraphs 11 and 14 of receive earnings derived from its purchases. ,, c PAGE 6• NCGA STATEMENT 3 . {ON COUN_ 1L Standards Board and the American • �'���. NATIONAL C r���nci.il ��c.cc ilnt�,��Vit. ON GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The NCGA•consists of 21 members which include The National Council on Governmental Accounting local, state. and federal governmental accountants. au- (NCGA) develops, promulgates and interprets prinri- ditors, and managers, practicing certified public pies of accounting, financial reporting and related ti- accountants. governmental accountiiig/financial man nancial management activities for governments in the agement educators and members at large. Within the United States and Canada. While accounting and re- appropriate membership classifications. Council mem- porting for governmental operations that are similar to hers are elected by vote of the Council to serve four- business enterprises closely parallel commercial year terms. The Council and its Executive Committee accounting and reporting, there are environmental are assisted by the NCGA Committee of Advisors, considerations which may require modification of com- comprised of representatives of accounting. public in- mercial accounting practices and professional pro- terest. and governmental organizations. The work of nounccments as they apply to proprietary funds of ov- the Council is facilitated by project area Task Forces ernments. NCGA's responsibilities are directed to state (which include Council members. Advisors. and others and provincial governments and to all classes and units who possess an expertise or viewpoint relative to the of local governments and.quasi-governmental units. project) that research issues and draft recommenda- The genesis of the National Council on Governinen- tions for Council consideration. tal Accounting dates to the 1934 formation of the Na- The NCGA Rules of Procedure provide for several tionai Committee on Municipal Accounting, which types of Council issuances: began the work of formalizing accounting. auditing. 1. Statements reflect the conclusion of at least a and financial reporting standards for governmental majority plus one of the Council as to governing units under the sponsorship of the Municipal Finance principles and explain and illustrate their appiica- o ficers Association (MFOA). The name change in tion. including alternative applications where such 194Y to the National Committee on Governmental alternatives are deemed appropriate. Accounting emphasized that the authoritative pro- 72. Interpretations are issued by a majority plus one nouncements apply to states and all tapes of local .!.�ov- of the Council to clarif\. elaborate upon. or ex- ernments. The National Council is the successor to the plain a Council Statement. a principle or illustra- National Committee. tion, or related matters. The .NCGA was established in 1974 through the 3. Exposure drafts. proposed Statements, hack- sponsorship of the MFOA as a continuing body. To as- ground papers, working drafts and discussion sure that principles and procedures for govt-rnmept are memoranda mar he issued by the Council as nec•- ��� in conformity with generally accepted accounting prin- essary to solicit comments and assist in resolving a�F. p .. ciples. the NCGA maintains close liaison with the Fi- issues. • NCGA STATEMENT 3• PAGE 7 NCG A Members Governmental counting/Financial illanagement Educators State Finance Officers Leon E. Hay, distinguished professor of accounting. College of Business Administration. University of ..,::.:., "Frank L. Greathouse, chairman, director of State Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas Audit, State of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee Carl G. Orne, professor of accounting, School of Man- John F. Rogan. state finance director. State of W'iscon- agement. University of Alaska. Fairbanks. Alaska sin. Madison. Wisconsin Edgar A. Vaughn Jr.. state auditor, State of South Canadian Finance Officer Carolina, Columbia. South Carolina J. E. Mulloy. acting general manager. Management Studies Systems and Budget, Edmonton. Alberta Local Go%ernrent Finance Officers U.S. Federal Financial Executives *Joel NI. Schlanger, vice-chairman, director of finance, Cite of Roanoke. Virginia Gerald Murphy, deputy fiscal assistant secretary of the Roy E. Anderson, assistant director/controller, Illinois treasury. U.S. Department of the Treasury, s Municipal Retirement Fund, Chicago. Illinois Washington. D.C. - i . Farrell-Donaldson. `Ronald J. Points,associate director, U.S. General Ac- i�ir�c. U. auditor _c.neral. Citi of Detroit. Michigan counting Office. Washington. D.C. 'W. Gary Harmer. administrator/educational re- City Chief Executive sources and clerk-treasurer. Salt Lake City School District. Salt Lake City, Utah Orville W. Powell, city manager. Gainesville, Florida `Martin H. Ices. first deputy comptroller, City of New York, New York '� ,At-Large Beverley R. Schirman. accounting man; ger. City of �' Everett. Washin,,ton `E Iyman C. Grossman. vice-president/municipal rat- ., Ings. Municipal Bond Department. Standard & Practicing Certified Public Accountants I'oor'ti Corporation, New York, York p .. * Frieda K. Wallison. partner, Rovers and Welk. .-\ttor- F Donald H. Cormie. partner. Alexander Grant ,f:� H. ne vs, Washington. D.C. 1. Company, San Antonio. Texas - - ``:-"� William J. Rai tcrv, partner. Main I Iurdman & Crans- *Executive Committee member. toun. New York. New York James L. Williams. partner, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Donald V. Beatty, executive secretary I Iouston, Texas James S. Remis. director i PAGE 8•NCGA STATEMENT 3 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BUDGET 1985-1986 REVENUES 84-85 84-85 85-86 Budget Actual Budget GENERAL FUND State Shared: Auto Lieu 15,000 20,164 16,000 State Sales 80,688 98,301 145,700 Urban Revenue 70,734 116,701 131,300 Local Revenues Building Permits 30,000 101,507 75,000 Business Licenses 2,000 3,305 2,000 Cable Television 5,000 4,279 5,000 Fines,Forfeitures 60,000 133,755 100,000 Radio Tower Rental 100 0 0 Interest 35,000 61,350 50,000 Iiscel laneous 1,000 6,136 1,000 Sales Tax 363,806 427,488 353,490 Training, ALEOAC 5,000 2,329 3,000 Zoning Applic. 15,000 14,419 10,000 Fund Transfer - 175,000 Carry Forward 556,194 556,194 667,289 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,239,522 1,370,928 1,559,779 FED REVENUE SHARING Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 HIGHWAY FUND Highway Users Rev. 90,508 98,738 99,700 LTAF 16,171 16,288 21,400 Grants 0 0 0 Interest 2,500 2,517 2,000 Permits 1,000 1,285 500 Other 100 279 1,000 Received from General Fund 175,000 Carry Forward45,000 45,000 137,421 TOTAL HIGHWAY FUND 155,279 339,107 262,021 PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE Interest 44 382 Carry Forward 3,916 3,916 4,300 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 3,960 4,298 4,300 TOTAL REVENUES 1,403,261 1,725,424 1,834,100 Budget Contingency Actual Budget EXPENDITURES 84-85 AdJustsents 84-85 85-86 ALEOAC Surcharge 44,400 Building Inspection 40,000 36,809 40,000 Capital Improvements 21,000 0 110,000 Mayor & Council 2,000 447 2,000 Niscellaneous Animal Control 200 0 200 Arta & Recreation 0 0 500 Convention Bureau 0 2,500 Election 0 0 1,000 P.A.G. 2,000 1,056 1,370 Special Census 5,000 5,197 0 Vehicle-Pool Car 0 0 0 Prof Services 0 0 5,000 -- - Engineering 5,000 695 5,000 Town Attorney 35,000 23,791 35,000 Town Clerk 90,400 88,684 140,000 Court 70,000 66,750 100,000. Planning/Zoning 69,100 46,185 76,300 Police 424,178 433,946 555,248 Contingency 439,783 185,000 110,000 441,261 Sub-Total 1,203,661 185,000 813,560 1,559,779 Police Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 Highway Users Fund 195,100 ' 206,307 262,021 Public Works Reserve 0 0 4,300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,403,261 185,000 1,030,958 1,834,100 FINANCIAL REPORTS AND BUDGETS Financial reports are set up to coordinate with the accounting records. Attached budgets are set to identify amounts in the various categories so that reading of financial reports presents a clear picture related to the budget. In the financial reports, only the detail identified at the left margin will be included. Eleanor will give you in depth details upon request. For accounting purposes payroll costs paid by the town (taxes, FICA, benefits, etc. ) are grouped by type rather than by department. The result is that many payroll costs are included in Town Clerk Personnel whether or not their salary amount is included i n other departments for budget and financial reports. The amount is budgeted at 19% of salary/wage costs. Department Finance Report Personnel P roil Costs Town Clerk Town Clerk Court Town Clerk Planning & Zoning Town Clerk Police Police Officers Police Personnel Clerical Town Clerk Highway Fund Highway Personnel DEPARTMENTAL WORKING BUDGETS TOWN CLERK: Only the ten categories at the left margin will be a part of the financial report. Town Manager account will not be included i n a financial report until one is hired. Amount has been cut to reflect partial year. Overall this budget provides minimum coverage of the requirements of administration at a level the same as last year. COURT: The equipment category reflects the amount of the requested grant plus town match of earmarked funds. Limitations on use of the $16, 800 are not clear. Whether or not additional space and security will be required, or whether other administrative departments will be able to use such items as a copy machine are somewhat fuzzy. Personnel and jury fee expenses will vary according to number of cases. PLANNING & ZONING: Other than personnel , expenses in this department are subject to outside determinations based on how much zoning and development action is requested. Zoning application fees will also vary accordingly. POLICE: This budget reflects the original request. Personnel is based on approved increases and includes overtime cost at 137. plus a full time and a part time clerk. The budget is intended to provide for continuation of response time at 3 minutes for emergencies, and to maintain the dark house inspections as a basic service. Annexations currently under consideration will require 2 additional patrolmen which are not included. HIGHWAY FUND: Personnel costs do not include any overtime or a requested fourth person. It is unclear as to whether the request is for a regular part time worker or one "as needed" when existing staff cannot handle the work. Road Improvement amounts for new street lights and reconstruction are those pending at July 1 of this year. Specific overlays are undefined. No purchases of equipment are included, although provision is made for setting up reserve funds if other expenses are not too great. FUND SOURCES: State law requires a General Fund transfer to Highway Fund of an amount equal to 25% of the total transferred during any 4 of the previous 5 years. This equals $12,500 this year. TOWN CLERK BUDGET 8-85 Expense Expense ' 85-86' '83-84' '84-85, Budget Advertising 1 ,000 2, 213 2, 000 Furniture/Equipment 13, 132 819 1,000 Insurance 1, 792 1 , 192 11 , 350 Maintenance/Repair 6, 751 11 , 219 4,500 Miscellaneous 3, 319 Meetings/Training 41 400 Memberships 800 865 10000 Publications/Ref . 115 300 Recording Fees 46 200 Other 910 1 , 637 500 office 3, 174 3, 192 3,000 Outside Services 40670 3, 580 3, 000 Personnel 57, 347 56, 184 72, 000 Utilities 60350 7, 199 70 500 Contingency 8, 250 TOTAL 990360 88, 187 1150000 Options: Town Manager 25,000 1400000 Note: Personnel includes payroll costs from other departments. COURT BUDGET 8-85 Expense Expense Budget '83-84' ' 84-85' ' 85-86' Equipment 16,800 Jury Fees 839 1 , 600 Miscellaneous 5, 817 30600 Office 1 , 274 2,500 Personnel Salaries 7, 354 170000 Court App. Att. 3,320 5, 000 Town Magistrate 21 ,983 24, 500 Town Prosecutor 260 296 29, 000 TOTAL 54, 172 66, 883 100, 000 Fund Sources General Fund 54, 172 66, 883 910600 Justice Planning 8, 400 100,000 G d)'' - 61 qty � Lu PLANNING AND ZONING 8--85 BUDGET Expense Expense Budget '83-84' '84-B5' ' 85-86' Advertising 415 20483 2, 500 Meetings & Training 305 800 Miscellaneous 1 ,002 256 400 Office 1 , 478 1, 692 20000 Outside Services 5,360 Plan Rev i ew, et c. 3, 000 Personnel 260875 36,075 47,000 Planning 5,000 Town Site 5,089 Other 150 Reproductions 135 1 , 000 14, 600 TOTAL 350130 46, 185 76, 300 Q41/ r\-, V POLICE BUDGET 8-85 Expense Expense Budget '83-84' '84-85' ' 85-86' Capital Expenditures 2, 870 20,814 8,505 Dispatching 16,000 15,996 25,500 Insurance 1, 347 24,040 Ma i n t. & Repair 3, 034 4,200 Miscellaneous 10,889 5, 792 3, 905 (incl . office) H.S. Coor d. Grant 5, 928 32,000 Personnel 227,421 314,040 400,848 Police Training 1 , 931 2, 788 5,000 Vehicles 46,635 45, 911 51, 250 TOTAL 305, 746 415, 650 555, 248 FUND SOURCE Fed. Rev. Sharing 5,994 11,091 8,000 H.S. Grant Reimburs. 2, 931 32,000 General Fund 299,752 401 ,628 515, 248 Total Funds 305, 746 415, 650 555, 248 C 0 HIGHWAY BUDGET 8-85 Expense Expense Budget '83-84' ' 84-85' ' 85-86' Capital Expenditures 9, 100 General Maintenance 1 ,997 2,000 Insurance 1 , 840 242 15, 000 Miscellaneous 2,878 3, 190 400 Personnel 410415 85,202 81,000 Prof . Services 2, 503 920 3,000 Road Improvements 460480 600171 83,800 Street Maintenance 19,374 14,030 18, 300 Vehicles 30,972 30,601 25,000 Equipment Reserve * 24, 000 Contingency 90521 TOTAL 145, 462 2050453 262, 021 * Spec i f y 2, 000 per month expense funds for these reserves. Road Improvements Traffic Light 26,000 Linda Vista 150500 Overlay 420300 RESOLUTION NO. 215 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE 1ICWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986 AS A 'TENTATIVE BUDGET; SETTING FORTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986; SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNTS ESTIMATED AS COLLECTIBLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986; GIVING NOTICE OF THE TIME FOR HEARING TAXPAYERS AND FOR ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986; PROVIDING FOR CONTINGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF FUNDS; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: SECTION 1: That the statements and schedules of the tentative budget for the fiscal year 1985-1986 accompany and be included as part of this resolution. SECTION 2: That the statements and schedules herein contained be adopted for the purpose as hereafter set forth as the tentative budget for the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona for the fiscal year 1985-1986. SECTION 3: That the statements setting forth the receipts, expenditures and amounts collectible for the fiscal year 1985-1986 accompany and be included as part of this resolution. SECTION 4: That the Town Clerk be and hereby is authorized and directed to publish in the manner prescribed by law, the estimates of expenditures, as hereinafter set forth, together with a notice that the Town Council will meet for the purpose of final hearing of taxpayers and for adoption of the budget for fiscal year 1985-1986 for the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, on the 25th day of July, 1985. SECTION 5: That upon the recommendation by the Mayor and with the approval of the Town Council, expenditures may be made from the appropriation for contingencies, the transfers of any sums within any specific appropriation may be made only upon the approval of the Mayor. SECTION 6: That money from any fund may be used for any of the appropriations except money specifically restricted by State Law or by Town Ordinance or Resolution. SECTION 7: That the various Town officers and employees be and they hereby are authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary or desirable to give effect to this resolution. SECTION 8: WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, an emergency is declared to exist, and this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adopt ion. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 27th day of June, 1985. APPROVED this 27th day of June, 1985 by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. E. S. Eng e, Mayor A'1TEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Walter Henderson, Town Attorney °110 E �� S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor 4 KATHRYN CUVELIER,Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor , 441VVIre HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman '� WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman .regoROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate 00' HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police O � 4 - SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts 41V11"f4tat 4r/Z 0‘w TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 September 11, 1985 Douglas R. Norton State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General 111 West Monroe/Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Dear Mr. Norton: Enclosed is the Budget for the Town of Oro Valley, fiscal year 85/86, along with Resolution No. 219 adopting the Budget for fiscal year 85/86. Sincerely, 'IC'JWN OF ORO VALLEY c J -Le Kathryn Cuvelier Town Clerk enc. hr S,��n(:;LOIT ' ), *191: STATE OF ARIZONA DOUGLAS R. NORTON.CPA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL AUDITOR GENERAL May 9, 1985 TO: City or Town Official FROM: F). nsee,t776.' Do as R. Norton Auei for General The enclosed budget forms have been developed by my Office as prescribed by Arizona Revised Statutes §42-302. Any questions or comments you have should be referred to Phil Brown or Terry Doolittle of the Accounting Services Division. Enclosure • 1 1 1 WEST MONROE • SUITE 600 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 • (602)255-4385 PUBLIC NOTICE BUDGET HEARING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY In compliance with the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act ( Federal Revenue Sharing) , the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley will , during its budget hearing, conduct a public hearing on the proposed uses for Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in relation to the entire Town budget . The hearing will be held at the following date and place : DATE: July 25 , 1985 TIME : 7 : 30 P.M. PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, AZ 85704 Citizens are welcome to provide written and/or oral comments and to ask questions regarding the entire budget and the relationship of Federal Revenue Sharing funds to the entire budget . The proposed budget may be examined at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 680 W. Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, Arizona, between the hours of 8 : 30 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. pct,k 10.4-40 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 160: BUDGET i4,- 1985-1986 REVENUES 84-85 84-85 85-86 Budget Actual Budget GENERAL FUND State Shared: Auto Lieu 15,000 20,164 16,000 State Sales 80,688 98,301 145,700 Urban Revenue 70,734 116,701 131,300 Local Revenues Building Permits 30,000 101,507 75,000 Business Licenses 2,000 3,305 2,000 Cable Television 5,000 4,279 5,000 Fines,Forfeitures 60,000 133,755 100,000 Radio Tower Rental 100 0 0 Interest 35,000 61,350 50,000 Miscellaneous 1,000 6,136 1,000 Sales Tax 363,806 427,488 353,490 Training, ALEOAC 5,000 2,329 3,000 Zoning Applic. 15,000 14,419 10,000 ,---- -----.-, Fund Transfer - 175,000 ,� � {Yrs ,,, 556 194 556 194 667 289 (a La �- t ,{f Carry Forward , ' _ TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,239,522 1,370,928 1,559,779 ) V '` V .. V` �: ,, FED REVENUE SHARING � Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 HIGHWAY FUND Highway Users Rev. 90,508 98,738 99,700 LTAF 16,171 16,288 21,400 Grants 0 0 0 Interest 2,500 2,517 2,000 Permits 1,000 1,285 500 Other 100 279 1,000 Received from General Fund 175,000 Carry Forward 45,000 45,000 137,421 TOTAL HIGHWAY FUND 155,279 339,107 262,021 PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE Interest 44 382 Carry Forward 3,916 3,916 4,300 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 3,960 4,298 4,300 TOTAL REVENUES 1,403,261 1,725,424 1,834,100 Budget Contingency Actual Budget EXPENDITURES 84-85 Adjustments 84-85 85-86 ALEOAC Surcharge 44,400 , Building Inspection 40,000 36,809 40,000 Capital Improvements 21,000 0 110,000 --Mayor & Council 2,000 447 2,000 Miscellaneous Animal Control 200 0 200 Arts & Recreation 0 0 500 Convention Bureau 0 2,500 Election 0 0 1,000 P.A.G. 2,000 1,056 1,370 Special Census 5,000 5,197 0 Vehicle-Pool Car 0 0 0 Prof Services 0 0 5,000 -- Engineering 5,000 695 5,000 Town Attorney 35,000 23,791 35,000 Town Clerk 90,400 88,684 140,000 ,�-- Court 70,000 66,750 100,000 Planning/Zoning 69,100 46,185 76,300 Police 424,178 433,946 555,248 Contingency 439,783 185,000 110,000 441,261 Sub-Total 1,203,661 185,000 813,560 1,559,779 Police Revenue Sharing 4,500 11,091 8,000 Highway Users Fund 195,100 206,307 262,021 Public Works Reserve 0 0 4,300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,403,261 185,000 1,030,958 1,834,100 AFFIDAVIT C UBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss, COUNTY OFPIMNi-k6CEAVED being first FAIPFIELD JUL 1 0 05 duly sworn, deposes and says that(he)(she) is the Legal Advertising Manager TOWN of ORO NI PILE`i of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima,State of Arizona,and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, PUBLIC NOTICE ciagAIS-IY 5M County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached HEARINa) TIME:7:30 BUDGET . PLACE:Oro Valle) TOWN OF OR C'0ALLEY TOWN OF ORO PROPOSED TENTATI ''-'* i, .., C N ).TIC - -)LiDG 'FT h.-:A 1985-198 84-85 REVENUES 11.10..921 "ERi4D ..______—.1PrectateSilue Automobile Lieu Tax _4117,__ State Sales Tax Urban Rev. Sharing _ 32,2.21___ was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE kessLitslmes . Building Permitsica„.01—.- Business Licenses "---_____Liaa--- Cable Television :::=5...0.0.— DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues;that the first was made Fines & Forfeitures _filLi10O.--- 100 . Radie Tower:Rental 35 000 Interest ................. on theday of 19 Miscellaneous 7 ±12::: .161.-11Q11 Peace Officer Train.--5 -- Salesng TaApxplications and the last publication thereof was made on the Zoni15..19.0--- __56-134_ day of Carry Forward L22-522-- Available Funds EEREFALIVENE,alinitig 19 ;that said publication ; Revenue Sharing ___A.450___ ..1 J LY , t::. HIGHWAY 1Igi /NI) was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: Rev.Highway Users 1950.__ :-----114-121-- LTAF ---2-521—. Interest Miscellaneous .............-141-..... : 7/ 12/35 07/C9/ 35 .............L.M.-..... Road permits Avarilia—Fratd 155...22.9— PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE• Interest ..............................4.4....... l Carry Forward _ __aal_ Available Funds 3 960 .....................1.--............ Request of REVENUE 1 403 261 TeloN CF u .....!........._±..._......... ;, ,-,PO VALLEY ...................................................... BUDGET 84-85 EXPENDITURES ALEC:MC Surcharge A200 Daily Territorial gia nimal Control Appropriation to other Funds Attorney 35,000 Cambined with NO Rifle By ri 4 Subscribed and sworn to before me T...1 day of j f., L y 19 of . Notary Public in and for the County of Pima,State of Arizona My Commission Expires: / — 20 — Ry 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ` , PROPOSED TENTATIVE BUDGET 1985-1986 REVENUES 84-85 84-85 85-86 GENERAL FUND Budget Projected Proposed r p . State Shared Revenue Automobile Lieu Tax 15,000 16,900 16 000 State Sales Tax ' 80,688 94,548 145,700 Urban Rev. Sharing 70,734 110,376 Local Revenues 131,300 Building Permits ,000 96,650 50 80,000 Business Licenses 2,000 2 940 Cable Television � 2,000 5,0D0 4,680 5,000 Fines & Forfeitures 60 000 0 ,. 1 3 ,800 100,000 Race Tower:Rental 100 -0- -0- Interest 35,000 47,424 40 000 Miscellaneous ' 1,000 1,880 1,000 Peace Officer Train. 5,000 2 800 Sales Tax , 3,000 363,806 423,000 400,000 Zoning Applications 15,000 12,740 10,000 Carry Forward 56.194 556 194 Available Funds , 515,200 ._ 1 2 9 522 1,489,202 1,449,200 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING Revenue Sharing 4 500 ---- � 4,5008,000 HIGHWAY USER' S FUND Highway Users Rev. 90,508 95,268� 99,700 700 LTAF 16,171 14,800 21,400 Interest 2,500 2 530 2,000 Miscellaneous 100 300 Road Permits 500 1,000 1,460 1,000 Carry Forward 45,000 45 000 Available Funds t 248,000 55,27 159,358 372,600 PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE Interest 44 44 -Q- Carry Forward 3,916 3,916 4,300 Available Funds 3,960 3,960 4,300 TOTAL REVENUE 1,403,261 1,657,020 1,834,100 m. BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED 84-85 84-85 _ 85-86 ADJUSTMEN' EXPENDI TURES ALEOAC Surcharge 37,000 Animal Control 200 _ 200 200 Appropriation to other Funds Attorney _ 35,000 31,200 30,000 Building Inspection 40,000 32,650 40,000 Capital Improvements 21 ,000 -0- 110,000 '�` Court 70, 61,460 95,000 Engineering 5,888 - 800 -0- Election -0- -0- 1,000 Mayor & Council 2,000 400 2,000 Other P.A.G. 2,000 1,056 1,500 Planning & Zoning 69,100 48,670 76,300 Police 424,178 422,830 540,248 Professional Services Special Census 5,000 5,200 -0- Town Clerk 90,400 90,200 145,000 Vehicle-Staff Car Contingency 439,783 439,783 370,952 Sub-Total 1,203,661 1,134,449 1,449,200 Police Revenue Sharing 4,500 ----14-49-1-- 8,000 Sub-total 4,500 11,-091 � 13 Highway Users 195,100 208,332 372,600 Public Works Reserve -0- -0- 4,300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1._1412_61_ 1,353,872. 1,834,100 _ r U1rAK'1'M1NTAL Uh'1'AlL 0 COURTS Jury Fees Miscellaneous Office Personnel rA Professional Services Sub-total 70 , 000 61 , 460 9--- 15,000 PLANNING & ZONING Advertising 400 1 , 500 Office 1 , 100 5 , 000 Outside Services ' 888 4350 Personnel 5 , 54 , 200 Planning 10 , 000 6 , 250 Travel & Meetings 600 1 , 000 Sub-total 69 , 100 0721. --/(0,.30 ;, HIGHWAY General Maintenance 65 , 181 6 , 200 c 144; Meetings & Travel -4-e-8- - 3 ? ,00(...) Personnel 7 , 500 100 , 300 Professional Services 12 . 500 6 , 000 Road Improvements 11 , 500 28 , 000 Road Maintenance 32 , 000 30 , 500 Vehicles 32 , 200 Vehicle Insurance 1 , 900 11 , 000 Equipment Reserve 15 , 000 25 , 000 Contingency 5 , 000 90, 004- c/5-, UA, cApb-total 150 , 581 329 600 nak_Qa_ a.,Arric :,/4it.)1405 POLICE Capital Expenditures Dispatching 24 , 300 38 , 650 Grants ( H.S. Coord. Alcohol Program) Insurance 13 , 923 14 , 424 . _ _ Maintenance & Repair Miscellaneous 26 , 535 3 , 474 Office1 , 950 _ 1 , 550 Personnel 300 , 000 400 , 900 Police Training 37U _ 5 , 000 Vehicles 5'1 , 720 -- 51 , 250 Sub-total 421, 178 c, 2nQ- TOWN CLERK it7,02 - (54 6 ›-4_____ Advertising Furniture & Equipment 4 , 000 3 , 900 Insurance 2 , 000 7 , 700 Maintenance & Repair 6 , 000 4 , 000 Meetings & Travel 500 1 , 000 Memberships 1 , 000 1 , 000 Miscellaneous 2 , 000 5 , 000 Office 5 , 000 6 , 500 Outside Services 3 , 000 5 , 000 Publications & Reference 400 400 Personnel 50 , 000 -47 , 6i0 q'7ôou Recording Fees Utilities 6 , 500 7 , 500 Contingency - 10 , 000 9 , 000 Sub-total 90 , 400 ,_io-O PI TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PROPOSED TENTATIVE BUDGET 1985-1986 REVENUES 84-85 84-85 85-86 GENERAL FUND Budget Projected Proposed State Shared Revenue Automobile Lieu Tax State Sales Tax Urban Rev. Sharing Local Revenues Building Permits Business Licenses Cable Television Fines & Forfeitures Grant Funds Interest Miscellaneous Peace Officer Train . Sales Tax Zoning Applications Carry Forward Available Funds FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING Revenue Sharing HIGHWAY USER' S FUND Highway Users Rev. LTAF Interest Miscellaneous Road Permits Carry Forward Available Funds PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE Cash Forward Available Funds TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET PROJECTL PROPOSED 84-85 84-85 85-86 ADJUSTMENT EXPENDITURES ALEOAC Surcharge Animal Control Appropriation to other Funds Attorney Building Inspection Capital Improvements Court Dues & Subscriptions Election Mayor & Council Other P.A.G. Planning & Zoning Police Professional Services Special Census Town Clerk Vehicle-Staff Car Contingency Sub-Total Police Revenue Sharing _________ Sub-total Highway Users Public Works Reserve TOTAL EXPENDITURES DEPARTMENTAL DETAIL COURTS Jury Fees Miscellaneous Office Personnel Professional Services Sub-total PLANNING & ZONING Advertising Office Outside Services Personnel _ Planning Travel & Meetings Sub-total HIGHWAY General Maintenance Meetings & Travel Personnel Professional Services Road Improvements Road Maintenance Vehicles Vehicle Insurance Equipment Reserve Contingency Sub-total POLICE Capital Expenditures Dispatching Grants ( H. S . Coord. Alcohol Program) Insurance Maintenance & Repair Miscellaneous Office Personnel Police Training Vehicles _ Sub-total TOWN CLERK Advertising Furniture & Equipment Insurance Maintenance & Repair Meetings & Travel Memberships Miscellaneous Office Outside Services Publications & Reference Personnel Recording Fees Utilities Contingency Sub-total , r0NA titi f?► ,,__,, l'- .... \\,. , ITS BUDGET TIME „„?..,......... %. March 26, 1985 INTRODUCTION It's budget time again. In this report, we have summarized a number of subject areas - from the local transportation assistance fund to the budget forms for FY 1985-86. We suggest review of this special report by all persons directly involved in the budget process. The report is being mailed to city/town managers or clerks, finance directors and attorneys so it may be necessary for you to copy the report and distribute it further. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS All cities and towns in Arizona are subject to some form of expenditure limitation. However, forty-three cities and towns have adopted alternative expenditure limitations or modified their expenditure limits. Some communities have adopted a pure home rule option which includes language that states that each year the council will, after a public hearing, set the coming year's expenditure limitation. This is just a reminder to pure home rule communities to set your 1985-86 expenditure limit by the date specified in your particular home rule language. Also, be sure to set your limit to include all expenditures. There are no excludable items under pure home rule. In addition, many of you will be renewing your home rule option for 1986-87, and should begin your preparation this fall. Please give us a call this summer if you are going to renew your option. We will have a revised 1986 Guide For An Alternative Expenditure Limitation which contains election calendars, sample reporting forms and summaries of the requirements for adopting an alternative expenditure limit. PROPERTY TAXES IN 1985-86 For fiscal year 1985-86, your primary property tax levy will be allowed to increase above your 1984-85 maximum allowable primary levy by 2%, plus an amount for net new property. To assist you in calculating your levy, your county assessor must provide the council with property value information on or before the tenth day prior to the day the levy must be adopted. These values must be made available • for public inspection seven days prior to adoption of the levy. Also, primary property taxes collected over the maximum allowable levy in 1984-85 must be reported on schedule B of the budget forms. This amount must be used to reduce your primary levy in 1985-86, except for amounts collected from escaped property. Escaped properties are those parcels which did not appear on the assessment rolls for the tax year, but which would have appeared if they had been identified. THE UNIFORM EXPENDITURE REPORTING SYSTEM (UERj The UERS report must be filed by all cities and towns no later than four months after the end of the fiscal year. This requirement applies even if you have adopted an alternative to the State imposed expenditure limitation. As you will recall, the UERS report actually consists of three reports; (1) an annual expenditure limitation report, (2) a financial statement (performed when audits are done), and (3) a reconciliation report (reconciling total expenditures reported in the expenditure limitation report to total expenditures reported in the financial statement). Figures used in these reports are to be audited figures. To meet the four month filing deadline, you should contact your auditor soon after the close of the fiscal year. If you cannot meet the October 31 filing deadline, an extension of up to 120 days may be granted by the Auditor General. Such an extension must be requested in writing. Also, the statutes require that each city and town provide the Auditor General with the name of the chief fiscal officer of the community by July 31 of each year. The chief fiscal officer is responsible for filing the UERS report. EXPENDITURE LIMIT AND (VERS) DATES DATE EVENT February 1 Economic Estimates Commission (EEC) notifies cities and towns of their estimated expenditure limitation. April 1 EEC determines the actual expenditure limitation for the coming fiscal year and notifies the city or town. July 31 Provide name of chief fiscal officer to the Auditor General. October 31 Reports required by UERS must be submitted to the Auditor General unless an extension is requested (in writing) and approved. REPORTING ANNEXATIONS FOR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION ADJUSTMENTS Cities and towns should report all annexations to the Attorney General's office and the Population Statistics Unit at the Department of Economic Security. The population in the annexed area will be considered when developing the population estimate which is used in determining the expenditure limitations by the Economic Estimates Commission (EEC) as well as for distribution of the lottery funds. Annexations occurring after the EEC determines your expenditure limit (on or before April 1) but before the beginning of the fiscal year can also be used to adjust your population estimate for that year if they are submitted in time for both DES and the EEC to act. The EEC requires that requests for such adjustments be provided to them at least three weeks prior to the adoption of that city's tentative budget. Also, prior to action by the EEC, DES must review the requested population increase. The necessary materials, however, must first be sent to the Attorney General's office where all annexation ordinances are currently sent for certification for Federal revenue sharing purposes. The Attorney General will then forward the materials to DES for their review. Such certification by the Attorney General is not required for receiving a population adjustment from the EEC, however, DES has requested this procedure to help them keep track of annexations. We suggest that the necessary materials be provided to the Attorney General with sufficient lead time to give DES time for their review. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND (LTAF) To receive local transportation assistance fund monies, cities and towns must apply each year to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The deadline to apply to ADOT for LTAF monies is June 17, 1985 - the third Monday in June. Revenues from this fund must be used for transportation purposes (except in Phoenix and Tucson where it must be used for transit purposes). If the fund reaches the $23 million amount, then 10% of the LTAF monies you receive may be used for cultural, educational, historical, recreational or scientific facilities or programs. This 10% money may also be used for programs for the developmentally disabled. Before this percentage may be spent, an equal match must be obtained from non-public monies. (We had hoped when the fund was established that distributions would reach the $23 million amount, however, this does not appear likely for the coming fiscal year and we are now hoping distributions reach the $20.5 million minimum.) In addition, your auditor must certify that these funds have been expended properly. SPECIAL CENSUS A total of 50 cities and towns in Arizona will be participating in the special census this year. Although the count must be conducted this calendar year, the population update will not become effective until FY 1986-87. Therefore, the special census will not affect the state shared revenues that you will receive in the upcoming fiscal year. However, beginning July 1, 1986 the mid-decade population count will affect all of the State shared revenues you receive except the local transportation assistance fund. Revenue sources affected by the special census will include the State sales and income tax, as well as the highway user revenue fund and the vehicle license tax. HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND (HURF) The transportation finance package currently before the Legislature does not, in its present form, affect the city/town distribution of HURF revenues. An estimate for HURF is listed along with projections for other state shared revenues in the enclosed special report. Also, as a reminder, cities and towns must maintain expenditures of local revenue for streets at a level to be computed as an average of local funds expended for previous years. For purposes of this calculation, local revenues are defined by reference to the definition contained in the Constitution for the expenditure limit on cities and towns (Article IX, Section 20, Arizona State Constitution). Highway user revenue and local transportation assistance funds are not included as local revenues. This computation must include eligible local revenues from any four of the immediately preceding five fiscal years. In addition, your auditor must certify that you have met the local effort requirements. This certification must be sent to the State Treasurer. BUDGET FORMS The Auditor General will provide you with new budget forms in mid-April. By law, you are only required to publish schedules A through D of the Auditor General's official budget forms. The new forms are nearly identical to last year's forms according to the Auditor General's office. FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING The current Federal revenue sharing (FRS) program is authorized through September of 1986, however, FRS is on the list of proposed cuts to federal expenditures. In all likelihood, the question of whether FRS will be eliminated will not be decided until after you have adopted your budgets. Therefore, for budget purposes, we recommend that FRS be included in your FY 1985-86 budget in the same amount as received in FY 1984-85. This way you can spend the money if the program is continued. However, the actions of Congress on FRS cannot be predicted at this time, so FRS monies should not be budgeted for essential items this year. WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE For those of you who are policyholders with the League's association plan in the State Worker's Compensation Fund, rates will be higher upon renewal this July. The State Fund reports that rates will increase by an estimated 30% for city and town policyholders. This increase, according to the State Fund, is largely due to increased medical costs. However, the size of the increase is also due to the fact that the insurance industry as a whole has been very competitive over the last five years and that their costs and losses suddenly increased. In other words, premiums were being offered at highly reduced rates (in our case 32.5%) and insurers were suddenly caught with some large cost increases. Also, please keep in mind that this rate increase by the State Fund is an average, which should be used as a rule of thumb for the coming fiscal year. Actual rates will be adjusted depending on the number and type of municipal employees insured by the fund. Those of you insured with the State Fund should contact your local district office for the exact amount of the increase. TAXATION OF FRINGE BENEFITS Employees using municipal vehicles for commuting will be taxed for the benefit of using such vehicles under the regulations recently proposed by the IRS. Under certain conditions specified in the regulations, a city or town will be required to include three dollars in an employee's income for each day a vehicle is taken home. There is, however, no actual cash transfer; the additional income merely reflects the value of the use of the vehicle. This additional income will require an increase in the employer's FICA contribution. Some administrative costs will be incurred because internal records may be necessary to account for how many days and by whom a vehicle is used. Also, please keep in mind that the regulations are temporary and subject to change, but in the interim, we suggest that you prepare to comply with them. OVERTIME COMPENSATION With the recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling, your budget may be impacted by compliance with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. We are awaiting word from the Department of Labor as this report is published. Supplemental reports will be mailed to you as information becomes available. We suggest a review of your overtime and compensatory time policies as we await further word from the Department of Labor. SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASES The scheduled increase in contributions plus the increases in the maximum amount of salary on which social security contributions are calculated is listed below. The maximum amount of salary on which contributions are calculated for 1985 is the actual figure while those from 1986 to 1989 are estimates only. The changes go into effect on January I of each year. Percentage of Employer/Employee Calendar Year Contribution Maximum Salary 1985 7.05% $39,600 1986 7. 15% $40,200 1987 7. 15% $42,600 1988 7.51% Not available 1989 7.51% Not available CONSUMER PRICE INDEX In preparing your budget it may be useful to compare previously budgeted items with the ones anticipated for the upcoming fiscal year. To aid you in doing this, listed below is the consumer price index for the Metropolitan Phoenix area. This index was provided to us by the Arizona State University, College of Business Administration, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Although the index is for the Metropolitan Phoenix area, it may also be useful to cities and towns outside this area. To familiarize you with using the index here is an example. To convert 1977 figures to 1984 dollars you multiply the 1977 amount by 1.812 as listed in the index for 1984. This means that a $5.00 purchase in 1977 would cost $9.06 in 1984. Using the index in this way you can make comparisons between budget items for different years by adjusting for inflation. Metropolitan Phoenix Consumer Price Index (1977 = 100) Year Index for All Items 1977 1.000 1978 1.101 1979 1.261 1980 1.453 1981 1.603 1982 1.687 1983 1.713 1984 1.812 We hope the information in this report will be of use to you in the preparation of your budget. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call. 1985-86 BUDGET CALENDAR Deadline for ACTION FY 1985-86 1. Compile pertinent budget information. None 2. Distribute budget instructions, information and work sheets None to department heads. (A general meeting with department heads could also be held at this time.) 3. Complete compilation of the forthcoming fiscal year's revenue estimates None including State shared revenues, debt service requirements, etc. 4. Submit departmental budget estimates to appropriate reviewing official None or office. Review of departmental budgets and revenue estimates by appropriate reviewing official or office. (An individual hearing with each department head may be held in conjunction with the review step.) 5. Make approved changes and prepare summary of tentative budget including None general revenue sharing. 6. Begin typing and duplication of proposed budget. None 7. Deliver proposed budget to city council for review. None ih (..r11/4j2- 8. Adopt tentative budget. July 15 9. Publish budget once a week for two consecutive weeks. Include time Depends upon and place of budget hearing, and a statement indicating where the newspaper proposed budget may be examined. publishing date 10. Receive from the county assessor certified property values necessary to August 9 calculate the property tax levy limit. 11. Make the property values provided by the county assessor available for August 12* public inspection. 12. Hold public hearing on budget and property tax levy. Convene special August 12* meeting to adopt final proposed budget. 13. Adopt property tax levy. (Levy must be adopted exactly seven days after August 19* final budget.) 14. Forward certified copy of tax levy ordinance to county. (The tax levy by August 19* the board of supervisors must be made on or before the third Monday in August - A.R.S. 42-304 A.) 15. Publish public notice that a summary of the adopted budget is available September 11 for inspection at certain locations. * Check with your county board of supervisors as to their deadline for receiving your levy. Dates may change to conform to their schedule. EEEE ,?, INFORMATION % REPORT STATE SHARED REVENUES-BUDGET ESTIMATES March 26, 1985 We have good news to report on the State shared revenue estimates for cities and towns for 1985-8.6. Overall, these revenue estimates are significantly higher than State shared revenues estimated for 1984-85. The table on the following page lists the distribution for these projections. Included are estimates for revenue from the State sales tax, State income tax, Highway User Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Assistance Fund. Each of these estimated distributions are based on the appropriate population figures. The distribution listed for the Local Transportation Assistance Fund includes all cities and towns, however, you must apply for these funds to receive them. The estimate for highway user revenues provided to us by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) reflects an increase to the total distribution of about 8.3% over expected revenues for this fiscal year. However, the amount individual cities and towns will receive will vary according to changes in county of origin motor vehicle fuel sales. The factors for cities in Graham and Greenlee Counties decreased considerably due to declining motor vehicle fuel sales. As a result, cities and towns in these counties will receive less HURF revenue for the upcoming year, than for 1984-85. Also, the factors for cities in Pima and Pinal Counties continue to reflect a change which was made last May. A gasoline distributor had been mistakenly reporting sales for Pinal instead of Pima County. The impact of the change is now fully reflected in the HURF distributions, with a large increase for Pima and a loss for Pinal County. In addition, the distribution does not include 7% monies that Phoenix and Tucson receive. The most accurate estimate provided on the following page is for the income tax revenue. Monies distributed from this source are collected two years prior to distribution. The Arizona Department of Revenue estimates that income tax revenue for cities and towns will increase about 13%over the amount distributed in 1984-85. Also the State sales tax distribution on the following page reflects the Department of Revenue's estimated increase of about 5.2% over amounts estimated for distribution for this fiscal year. This estimate for the State sales tax is a preliminary projection and is generally conservative. The Department of Revenue's"official"estimate which comes out in May is usually higher. This report also includes estimates of the Local Transportation Assistance Fund. Due to the many problems we have encountered over the last two years with the lottery, we are providing you with a distribution based on the minimum distribution of $20.5 million. The total State shared revenues for cities and towns in the upcoming fiscal year from each of the sources are estimated as follows: Total State Sales Tax $ 120,500,000 Total State Income Tax 108,689,059 Total Highway User Revenue 134,220,000 Total Local Transportation Assistance 20,500,000 These revenue estimates are, to our knowledge, the best available at this point in time. However, if there are any significant changes in these revenue estimates, we will notify all of you immediately. If you have any questions, please give us a call. 1820 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602)258-5786 CITY/TOWN PROJECTED ESTIMATES LOCAL TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY USER, STATE SALES TeX AND STATE INCOME TAX REVENUES FOR FY 1985-1986 CITY/TOWN LTAF HIGHWAY USER SALES TAX INCOME TAX APACHE JUNCTION 111,336 730,906 584,548 527,253 AVONDALE 82,333 491,267 480,582 433,477 BENSON 39,089 252,463 250,117 225,601 BISBEE 69,650 431,056 420,921 379,664 BUCKEYE 47,963 206,539 202,047 182,243 BULLHEAD CITY 119,734 1,491,223 1,004,057 905,643 CAREFREE * 15,099 59,303 58,013 52.327 CASA GRANDE 142,720 1,101,398 880,852 794,51 4 CHANDLER 433,397 1,784,692 1,745,878 1,574,752 CHINO VALLEY 34,111 290,813 168,157 151,675 CLARKDALE 14,545 153,852 88,962 80,242 CLIFTON 36,015 257,565 249,764 225,283 COOLIDGE 63,893 504,020 403,094 363,584 COTTONWOOD 47,617 462,980 267,709 241,469 DOUGLAS 121,769 786,794 768,296 692,991 DUNCAN 10,000 36,587 35,479 32,001 EAGAR 32,899 490,257 164,215 148,119 EL MIRAGE 48,049 259,046 253,412 228,573 ELOY 57,097 459,069 367,144 331,158 FLAGSTAFF 328,554 3,784,103 2,044,181 1,843,818 FLORENCE 50,517 249,472 313,661 282,917 FREDONI A 10,043 113,274 61,191 55,193 GILA BEND 15,757 95,330 93,257 84,116 GILBERT 89,173 343,851 336,372 303,402 GLENDALE 1,014,233 5,844,441 5,717,329 5,156,938 GLOBE 57,876 724,895 405,153 365,441 GOODYEAR 52,984 165,219 184,572 166,481 GUADALUPE 41,556 271,015 265,120 239,134 HAYDEN 10,562 1 26,851 70,899 63,950 HOLBROOK 50,733 660,298 340,373 307,011 HUACHUCA CITY 17,358 100,082 97,729 88,150 JEROME 10,000 42,737 24,712 22,289 KEARNY 23,505 194,663 155,683 140,424 ICI NGMAN93,199 808,922 544,656 491,271 LAKE HAVASU CITY 158,044 1,390,206 936,041 844,294 MAMMOTH 16,969 140,222 112,144 101,152 MARINA 17,705 11 2,142 98,493 88,840 MESA 1,656,883 9,169,335 8,969,908 8,040,712 MIAMI 23,289 285,916 159,802 144,139 NOGALES 157,265 882,455 922,744 832,300 ORO VALLEY21,384 99,749 145,210 130,977 PAGE 50,430 534,45b 288,714 260,416 PARADISE VALLEY 109,432 666,711 695,338 627,184 PARKER 23,289 601,948 149,564 134,904 PATAGONIA 10,000 55,143 57,660 52,009 PAYSON 54,716 533,51 3 298,187 268,960 PEORIA 205,184 740,208 724,109 653,135 PHOENIX 7,503,332 47,497,001 46,519,986 41,960,278 PIMA 15,367 102,899 94,081 84,859 PINETOP-LAKESIDE * 22,813 264,233 136,208 1 22,858 PRESCOTT 202,544 2,040,674 1,179,980 1,064,323 PRESCOTT VALLEY 42,422 232,406 1 34,384 1 21,212 SAFFORD 66,663 451,106 412,449 372,022 SAN LUIS 20.951 148,230 114,497 103,275 SCOTTSDALE 953,370 5,330,199 5,214,270 4,703,188 SHOW LOW 42,422 490,573 252,882 228,096 SIERRA VISTA 278,418 1,502,549 1,467,223 1,323,412 SNOWFLAKE 32,726 400,630 206,519 186,276 SOMERTON 56,577 438,826 338,961 305,737 SOUTH TUCSON 57,832 439,057 385,619 347,822 SPRINGERVILLE 15.757 255,053 85,432 77,058 ST. JOHNS 32,033 591,611 198,164 178,740 SUPERIOR 39,392 338,416 270,651 244,123 SURPRISE 36,275 223,921 219,051 197,580 TAYLOR 18,354 218,578 112,673 101,629 TEMPE 1,246,429 6,430,731i 6,290,874 5,674,267 THATCHER 31,860 217,123 198,517 179,059 TOLLESON 51,426 266,624 260,825 235,260 TOMBSTONE 15,194 98,334 96,022 86,611 TUCSON 3,204,638 22,142,913 19,924,571 17,971,642 WELLTON 10,000 69,392 53,601 48,347 WICKENBURG 34,284 212,614 207,990 187,603 WILLCOX 31,340 195,403 190,809 172,107 WILLIAMS 20,129 246,806 133,325 120,257 WINKELNAN 10,000 111,587 62,367 56,254 AINSLOW 69,737 904,101 466,049 420,369 YOUNGTOWN 19,999 135,568 132,619 119,620 YUMA 419,762 3,235,853 2,533,353 2,285,044 * NEWLY INCORPORATED. FINAL POPULATION FIGURES NOT AVAILABLE. (70, FISCAL YEAR 1985-86: FINAL ESTIMATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF STATE SALES & INCOME TAX TO CITIES AND TOWNS ESTIMATED ESTIMATED 85/86 85/86 SALES TAX URBAN REVENUE COUNTY MUNICIPALITY DISTRIBUTION SHARING WICKENBURG $208,658 $188,111 .28 YOUNGTOWN $133,045 $119,944.22 MOHAVE BULLHEAD CITY $632,702 $570,400.22 KINGMAN $546,406 $492,601 .44 LAKE HAVASU CITY $939,048 $846,580.56 NAVAJO HOLBROOK $341,467 $307,842.64 PINETOP-LAKESIDE $136,646 $123, 190.27 SHOW LOW $253,695 $228,713.51 SNOWFLAKE $207,182 $186,780.93 TAYLOR $113,035 $101,904.69 WINSLOW $467,547 $421,507.61 PIMA MARANA $98,810 $89,080. 13 ORO VALLEY $145,677 $131,332.00 SOUTH TUCSON $386,858 __0348,764.16 TUCSON $19,988,577 $18,020,315. 19 PINAL APACHE JUNCTION $586,425 $528,680.49 CASA GRANDE $883,681 $796,665.89 COOLIDGE $404,389 $364,568.70 ELOY $368,324 $332,054.98 FLORENCE $314,669 $283,683.51 KEARNY $156, 183 S140,804.08 MAMMOTH $112,504 $101,425.77 SUPERIOR $271,521 $244,784.12 SANTA CRUZ NOGALES $925,708 $834,554.21 PATAGONIA $57,846 $52,149.66 YAVAPAI CHINO VALLEY $168,697 $152,085.44 CLARKDALE $89,248 $80,459.48 COTTONWOOD $268,569 $242, 123.42 JEROME $24,791 $22,349.85 PRESCOTT $1, 172,556 $1,057,094.90 PRESCOTT VALLEY $134,816 $121,540.64 YUMA SAN LUIS $114,865 $103,554.33 SOMERTON $340,050 $306,565.50 WELLTON $53,773 $48,477.90 YUMA $2,541, 492 $2,291,232.58 LA PAZ PARKER $150,045 $135,269.83 TOTAL TOTAL $120,500,000 $108,634,447.80 JUNE 5, 1985 /ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF [ REVENUE J. Elliott Hibbs Bruce Babbitt Director Governor JUR* 801Tt ' June 6, 1985 TOWN If 0 (1 ,, . Y MEMORANDUM TO: CITY/TOWN MANAGERS E CLERKS CITY/TOWN FINANCE DIRECTORS, le 1 FROM: J. ELLIOTT HIBBS, DIRECTORfl ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SUBJECT: ESTIMATED 1985-86 SALES AND INCOME TAX DISTRIBUTION The attached pages show the final estimates of 1985-86 state sales tax and income tax distributions to cities and towns. Please remember that these sales tax estimates correspond to Department of Revenue collections between July 1, 1985 and June 30, 1986. Please address any questions to Georganna Meyer at 255-3884. Mailing address (Capitol): Other locations: 1700 W.Washington Phoenix Uptown Tucson Phoenix,AZ 85007 5555 N. 7th Avenue 402 W. Congress 0 FISCAL YEAR 1985-86: FINAL ESTIMATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF STATE SALES & INCOME TAX TO CITIES AND TOWNS ESTIMATED ESTIMATED 85/86 85/86 SALES TAX URBAN REVENUE COUNTY MUNICIPALITY DISTRIBUTION SHARING APACHE EAGAR 0164,742 0148,520.10 ST. JOHNS 0198,800 $179,224.55 SPRINGERVILLE 085,706 $77,266.64 COCHISE BENSON $250,920 $226,212.46 BISBEE 0422,274 $380,692.52 DOUGLAS $770,764 $694,867.62 HUACHUCA CITY 098,043 088,388.35 SIERRA VISTA 01,471,937 $1,326,996.00 TOMBSTONE $96,331 $86,845.15 WILLCOX $191,422 $172,572.81 COCONINO FLAGSTAFF $2,050,748 $1,848,811 .89 FREDONIA $61,387 055,342.50 PAGE $289,642 $261,120.80 WILLIAMS $133,753 $120,582.79 GILA GLOBE 0406,454 $366,431 .19 HAYDEN 071,127 $64,122.80 MIAMI $160,315 $144,529.06 PAYSON 0299,145 0269,688.24 WINKELMAN 062,568 056,406.78 GRAHAM PIMA 094,383 $85,089.09 SAFFORD $413,774 0373,029.71 THATCHER $199,154 0179,543.83 GREENLEE CLIFTON $250,566 $225,893. 17 DUNCAN $35,593 $32,088.01 MARICOPA AVONDALE 0482,126 $434,651 .46 BUCKEYE $202,696 0182,736.67 CAREFREE 056,901 051,298.24 CHANDLER 01,751,485 $1,579,017.22 EL MIRAGE 0254,226 0229, 192.44 GILA BEND $93,557 $84,344.09 GILBERT 0337,453 0304,224.09 GLENDALE $5,735,695 $5, 170,904.91 GOODYEAR $185,165 0166,932.13 GUADALUPE 0265,972 0239,782.01 MESA $8,998,723 $8,112,624.69 PARADISE VALLEY $697,572 $628,882.33 PEORIA 0726,436 $654,903.95 PHOENIX 046,669,427 $42,073,920.39 SCOTTSDALE 05,231,021 $4,715,925.73 SURPRISE 0219,755 0198,115.50 TEMPE 06,311,082 05,689,634.39 TOLLESON 0261,663 $235,897.39 JUNE 5. 1985 eh* E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor X*1444 KATHRYN CUVELIER, Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Vice Mayor HENDERSON&FLEMING,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman WARREN M.HOOK,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman mom ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman 041 1NV :1111 WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police le A V SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts • 4 • 4.4rPrli.t iZ 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 MEMORANDUM TO : Council Members FROM : Mayor Engle DATE : May 3 , 1985 SUBJ : BUDGET Attached please find preliminary estimate of revenues and expenses for fiscal year 85-86 . We hope to have a meeting the week of May 12th to decide personnel and detail of the budget . Some of the personnel figures do not include 19% fringe costs and the highway budget does not include any provision for overlay or sealcoat . The committee has met for some 8 - 10 hours with staff to arrive at these numbers . . ; E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor 41{"1 :• 4> KATHRYN CUVELIER Town Clerk LOIS M.LAMBEFSON,Vice Mayor ���� «'; HENDERSON&OLLINGER,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,CouncilmanVire ., �:, WARREN M.HOOK Engineer 4.0 PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman ;:tfr<;; :Xv ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate HENRY G.ZIPF,Councilman ::n :.<..<t .>•i..> WERNER S.WOLFF Chief of Police `.Y} SUE TRINACTY,Commission on the Arts tto AA V A k,41% A zpvi -40 gar • ,A$t'•.'n Ft TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 MEMORANDUM TO: Department Heads FROM: Budget Committee DATE: April 16 , 1985 SUBJ: BUDGET MEETING The Budget Committee has reviewed your budgets and would like to meet with each one of you individually next Tuesday, April 23rd starting at 1 : 00 p .m. Please be prepared to answer the following questions : * 1 . What will this buy? 2 . Are there any expenditures committed this year that will carry over into next year ' s budget? 3 . How much revenue is expected for specific expenditures? ( Developers contribution to traffic signal or Linda Vista paving, etc . ) 4 . Any expenditures related to potential annexations? ( if so, how much. ) 5 . If your budget were to be cut by 10% , where would you cut? Across the board, or so much on certain items . *Examples of "will buy" : 1 . Highway x number of miles overlay - or specific streets to overlay. 2 . Grading (which)road and # of times . 3 . # of street sweepings , replacement of equipment . - 2 - Police 1 . Response time 2 . # of people on duty - all times , certain times , etc . 3 . # of cars in service 4 . Includes estimates of % overtime. J. ELLIOTT HIBBS CHAIRM AN EcoKmuc. Estimates Com sloe' n BRUGOVIRMINORCE BABBITT ROBERT EGG ERT MEMISSIR CAPITOL BUILDING KENNETH M. ROSS,JR. 1700 W.WASHINGTON MILM8111* PHOENIX,ARIZONA 45007 0 03()\ cC NOTICE TO ALL ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS: \O'\' ci‘ EXPENDITURE LIMITATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR ANNEXATIONS i\Cs OCCURRING BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND JUNE 30 An amendment to A. R. S. § 41-563 mandates the Economic Estimates Commission to adjust: the April 1 expenditure limitation of a political subdivision if an annexation, consolidation, or change in boundaries occurs between April 1 and June 30. The amended expenditure limitation is to be determined by the Commission as "promptly as feasible" and shall be used by the political subdivision only if received prior to the adoption of a tentative budget. The tentative budget must be adopted by the third Monday in July (A. R. S. § 42-302) . However, many governments adopt a budget much earlier. To execute its responsibilities., it is critical that the Commission have sufficient lead time to: • receive the annexed population estimates from the Arizona Department of Economic Security, • determine the amended expenditure limitations, • arrange meetings of the Commission members to approve the revised limits, and • distribute the new limits to the proper political subdivision. The Commission has determined three weeks is the minimum time required. Therefore, new population figures must be received by the Commission at least three weeks prior to the date of the tentative budget adoption. For any city. or town that adopts its tentative budget on the third Monday in July, the Economic Estimates Commission will not accept, after the last Monday in June, any revised population figures for redetermination of an expenditure limitation. It is the responsibility of municipalities to provide notification of annexations. The Department of Economic Security has requested that jurisdictions provide the Attorney General notification of annexations and do so with sufficient lead time to allow DES to estimate the population in the annexed area as of July 1 of the preceding year for the expenditure limit and to transmit that estimate to the Economic Estimates Commission by the last Monday in June. J. ELLIOTT HIBBS CHAIRMAN Economic Estimates Commission BRUCE BABBITT GOVERNOR ROBERT EGGERT hogmoure CAPITOL BUILDING KENNETH M. ROSS,JR. 1700 W.WASHINGTON 041111.4•11R PHOENIX,ARIZONA 115007 RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1985 TOWN of ORO VALLEY MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 1985 To: City/Town Managers and Finance Directors From: J. Elliott Hibbs, Chairman Economic Estimates Commission Subject: Final 1985-86 Expenditure LiMits The final 1985-86 expenditure limits for each community college district are being supplied in accordance with Article IX, Section 21, Constitution of Arizona and ARS 41-563. The 1979-80 base limits have been adjusted for changes in population and the cost of living between 1978 and 1984. The formula is shown below. GNP 1984 implicit price 1985-86 population X deflator 1984 X 1979-1980 = final 1978 GNP implicit base limit expenditure population price deflator limit 1978 Please call 255-3884 if you have questions. ks attch. Economic EstinuUes Commssiou FY 1985-86 EXPENDITURE LIMITS: CITIES AND TOWNS FY 1985-86 POPULATION** POPULATION INFLATION FY 1979-80 EXPENDITURE CITY 1984 1978 FACTOR FACTOR* BASE LIMIT LIMITATION APACHE JUNCTION 12,860 9,500 1.3537 1.4854 $1,581,484 $3,179,934 AVONDALE 9,510 6,900 1.3783 1.4854 $1,525,417 $3,122,884 B[NSO4 4,515 3,925 1.1503 1.4854 $1,317,815 $2,251,689 BISBEE 8,045 6,860 1.1727 1.4854 $1,559,907 $2,717,293 BUCKEYE 5,540 3,175 1.7449 1.4854 $1,048,270 $2,716,909 BULLHEAD CITY 13,830 13,830 1.0000 1.4854 $5,493,553 $8,159,982 CAREFREE 1,744 1,744 1.0000 1.4854 $594,948 $883,720 CASA GRANDE 16,485 14,100 1.1691 1.4854 $3,743,397 $6,500,872 CHANDLER 50,060 23,500 2.1302 1.4854 $7,245,951 $22,927,372 CHINO VALLEY 3,940 2,400 1.6417 1.4854 $255,094 $622,044 CLARKDALE 1,680 1,200 1.4000 1.4854 $255,616 $531`560 CLIFTON 4,160 4,515 0.9214 1.4854 $656,956 $899,100 COOLIDGE 7,380 6,775 1.0893 1.4854 $1,530,413 $2,476,234 COTTONWOOD 5,500 4,200 1.3095 1.4854 $1,105,601 $2,150,541 DOUGLAS 14,065 12,600 1'1163 1.4854 $4,067,476 $6,744,195 DUNCAN ' 670 700 (i9571 1.4854 $177,389 $252,197 EAGAR 3,800 2,450 1.5510 1.4854 $627,268 $1,445,129 EL MIRAGE 5,550 4,025 1.3789 1.4854 $774,680 $1,586,665 ELOY 6,595 6,300 1.0468 1.4854 $1,419,813 $2,207,706 FLAGSTAFF 37,950 32,000 1.1859 1.4854 $16,068,474 $28,305,598 FLORENCE 5,835 3,175 1.8378 1.4854 $714,110 $1,949,387 FREDON%A 1,160 850 1.3647 1.4854 $329,695 $668,324 GJLA BEND 1,820 1,575 1.1556 1.4854 $684,678 $1,175,204 GILBERT 10,300 4,250 2.4235 1.4854 $1,161,450 $4,181,044 Eadumnic Estimates Commission . . FY 1985-86 EXPENDITURE LIMITS: CITIES AND TOWNS FY 1985-86 POPULATION** POPULATION INFLATION FY 1979-80 EXPENDITURE CITY 1984 1978 FACTOR FACTOR* BASE LIMIT LIMITATION -------------' --- GLENDALE 117,150 84,000 1.3946 1.4854 $21,455,623 $44,446,763 GLOBE 6,685 6,550 1.0206 1.4854 $2,436,186 $3,693,231 GOODYEAR 6.120 2,500 2.4480 1.4854 $883,878 $3,213,954 GUADALUPE 4v800 4,300 1.1163 1'4854 $549`792 $911`606 HAYDEN 1,220 1,200 1.0167 1.4854 $408,838 $617,399 HOLBROOK ' 5,860 5,450 1.0752 1.4654 $2,585,121 $4,128,743 HUACHUCA CITY 2,005 1,690 1.1864 1.4854 $317,153 $558`898 JEROME 465 395 1.1772 1.4854 $132,688 $232`019 KEARNY 2,715 2,665 1.0188 1.4854 $950,057 $1v437,667 KlMGMAN 10,765 8,745 1.2310 1.4854 $4,426,488 $8`093v743 LAKE HAVASU CITY 18,255 13,000 1.4042 1.4854 $4,211,119 $5`783,587 MAMMOTH 1,960 1v960 1.0000 1.4854 $425,048 $631,355 MARANA 2,045 1,425 1.4351 1.4854 $202,239 $431,101 MESA 198,380 130,000 1.4722 1.4854 $54,090,640 $118,279,974 MIAMI 2,690 2,615 1.0287 1.4854 $878,262 $1,341`963 NOGALES 18,165 11,740 1.5473 1.4854 $3,245,377 $7,458,790 ORO VA EY , . . c^ .~ x= `' ' ` I r" PAGE 5,825 4,375 1.3314 1.4854 $3,381,616 $6,687,720 PARADISE VALLEY 12,640 10,425 1.2125 1.4854 $2,363,966 $4,257,436 PARKER 2,690 2,485 1.0825 1.4854 $1,145,364 $1,841,642 PATAGONIA 1,075 925 1.1622 1.4854 $213,500 $368,553 PAYSON 6,320 4,305 1.468 1.4854 $1,267,280 $2,763,455 PEORIA 23,700 10,500 2.2571 1.4854 $3,247,857 $10,889,097 PHOENIX 866,680 717,000 1.2088 1.4854 $230,176,760 $413,272,962 K2 ononLiC EsU.ma ,,. .h4Coth.dassion FY 1985-86 EXPENDITURE LIMITS: CITIES AND TOWNS FY 1985-86 POPULATION** POPULATION INFLATION FY 1979-80 EXPENDITURE CITY 1984 1978 FACTOR FACTOR* BASE LIMIT LIMITATION r--r M rrr rr rr rwrr wwa��rrrrw�w. P I MA 1,775 11465 1.2116 1.4854 $275,000 $494,914 P I NETOP-LAKESIDE 2,635 2,635 1.0000 1.4854 $1,214,814 $1,804,453 PRESCOTT 23,395 19,250 1.2153 1.4854 $8,495,931 $15,336,957 PRESCOTT VALLEY 4,900 1,520 3.2237 1.4854 $380,054 $1,819,842 SAFFORD 7,700 6,200 1.2419 1.4854 $5,434,597 $10,117,650 SAN LUIS 2,420 1,690 1.4320 1.4854 $724,909 $1,541,871 SCOTTSDALE 110,120 83,000 1.3267 1.4854 $30,472,056 $60,051,764 • SHOW LON 4,900 3,800 1.2895 1.4854 $1,443,667 $2,765,129 SIERRA VISTA 32,129 24,050 1.3359 1.4854 $5,020,502 $9,962,427 SNOWFLAKE 3,780 3,000 1.2600 1.4854 $741,469 $1,387,712 SOMERTGN 6,535 3,540 1.8460 1.4854 $681,742 $1,869,383 SOUTH TUCSON 6,680 6,275 1.0645 1.4854 $1,879,168 $2,971,421 SPRI NGERVI LLE 1,820 1,400 1.3000 1.4854 $678,299 $1,309,786 ST. JOHNS 3,700 4,100 0.9024 1.4854 $819,104 $1,097,976 SUPERIOR 4,550 4,700 0.9681 1.4854 $682,763 $981,792 SURPRISE j 4,190 3,550 1.1803 1.4854 $474,998 $832,748 • TAYLOR 2,120 1,740 1.2184 1.4854 $245,508 $444,312 TEMPE 143,970 102,000 1.4115 1.4854 $29,579,379 $62,015,005 THATCHER 3,680 3,170 1.1609 1.4854 $860,674 $1,484,100 TOLLESON 5,940 4,190 1.4177 1.4854 $966,494 $2,035,202 TOMBSTONE 1,755 1,600 1.0969 1.4854 $508,007 $827,681 TUCSON 370,155 311,400 1.1887 1.4854 $116,009,002 $204,829,547 WELLTON 995 900 1.1056 1.4854 $278,477 $457,305 WICKENBURG 3,960 3,300 1.2000 1.4854 31,805,966 $3,219,043 P. 3 Economic Estimates Commission. FY 1985-86 EXPENDITURE LIMITS: CITIES AND TOWNS FY 1985-86 POPULATION** POPULATION INFLATION FY 1979-80 EXPENDITURE CITY 1984 1978 FACTOR FACTOR* BASE LIMIT LIMITATION WILLCOX 3,620 2,985 1.2127 1.4854 $10,497,909 $13010,497 WILLIAMS 2,325 2,100 1.1071 1.4554 $1,254,501 $2,063,054 WINKELMAN 1,060 1,010 1.0495 1.4854 3183,579 3286,183 WINSLOW 8,055 7,725 1.0427 1.4854 $4,995,579 $7,737,233 YOUNGTOWN 2,310 2,100 1.1000 1.4854 $559,874 $914,785 YUMA 48,485 34,500 1.4054 1.4854 315,663,245 332,E96,852 TOTAL 2,366,333 1,849,169 1.2797 1.4854 $636,083,896 $1,204,941,273 * INFLATION FACTOR = (1984 GNP DEFLATOR)/(1978 GNP DEFLATOR) . 223.43/150.42 (SOURCE: BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE) ** FIGURES AS OF JULY 1 (SOURCE: DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SECURITY) PREPARED BY EEC STAFF, 3/26/85 0 o 141 A c V '.7:,,w sl *. \* ' THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONACITIES2-"4"1'' '11ug & TOWNS t i\, \ cz1820 WEST WASHINGTON ST. • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 • PH. (602) 258-5786 \,,,,._ . May 2 2 ReCeY � 19851�/'et) MAS' 2 3 . 1985 TO: City/Town Managers or Clerks and Finance Directors TOWS of 040 VALLEY FROM: Jeff Martin, Staff Associate SUBJECT: ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL HURF REVENUE FOR 1985-86 FROM GAS TAX INCREASE • As promised in our last Bulletin, enclosed is a distribution of the estimated revenues cities and towns will receive from the 3c gas tax increase provided for in the recently adopted transportation package. We hope that the enclosed estimates provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are received in time for inclusion in your 1985-86 budget. The amount listed should be added to the HURF estimate mailed to you in March. The gas tax increase will, of course, be distributed as part of your monthly highway user revenue fund (HURF) monies and will be subject to the same spending restrictions. However, unlike other gas tax increases which are distributed using the HURF formula, these monies will be allocated under the method provided by the Legislature (Chapter Law 308) and listed below. Under this formula, ADOT will receive about 2 : of the increase for state highway projects and the remaining 1c will be split among cities, towns and the counties. The counties will receive their share based on the population within the unincorporated area of the county. DISTRIBUTION OF 3c GAS TAX INCREASE 64% To State Highway Fund 14% To Maricopa County; split among cities and the county by population 8.5% To Pima County; split among cities and the county by population 8% To other counties based on unincorporated population 5.5% To cities and towns in other counties based on population This increase in the gas tax goes into effect January 1, 1986, and cities and towns will begin receiving the additional HURF revenue the following March. The delay in distributing these revenues is due to the fact that the additional tax imposed in January will not be collected until February and then sent to you in March. A total of $4,017,348 in additional HURF revenue is estimated for distribution to cities and towns in 1985-86. Enclosed is a listing of the revenue estimates for 1985-86 which represents four months of additional HURF revenue. As you can see from looking at the listing of estimated revenue, the gas tax increase will not bring in a great deal of money in 1985-86 since it is only four months of revenue. However, if you wish to spend the additional revenue this coming fiscal year, then you must include the increase in your tentative budget for next year. Beginning in 1986-87, a full year's distribution will be provided. As always, if you have any questions, please give us a call. 0 1985-86 CITY/TOWN SHARE OF RECENTLY ADOPTED 3c FUEL TAX INCREASE Apache Junction $ 27,543 Nogales $ 43,479 Avondale 12,989 Oro Valley 3,923 Benson 11,616 Page 13,604 Bisbee 19,833 Paradise Valley 17,627 Buckeye 5,461 Parker 7,047 Bullhead City 47,310 Patagonia 2,717 Carefree 2,385 Payson 14,050 Casa Grande 41,505 Peoria 19,570 Chandler 47,185 Phoenix 1,255,772 Chino Valley 7,923 Pima 4,433 Clarkdale 4, 192 Pinetop-Lakeside 6,418 Clifton 11,769 Prescott 55,599 Coolidge 18,993 Prescott Valley 6,332 Cottonwood 12,614 Safford 19,434 Douglas 36,201 St. Johns 9,337 Duncan 1,672 San Luis 5,395 Eagar 7,738 Scottsdale 140,925 El Mirage 6,849 Show Low 11,916 Eloy 17,299 Sierra Vista 69,134 Flagstaff 96,319 Snowflake 9,731 Florence 9,401 Somerton 15,971 Fredonia 2,883 South Tucson 17,265 Gila Bend 2,520 Springerville 4,025 Gilbert 9,091 Superior 12,753 Glendale 154,521 Surprise 5,920 Globe 19,090 Taylor 5,309 Goodyear 4,368 Tempe 170,022 Guadalupe 7,165 Thatcher 9,354 Hayden 3,341 Tolleson 7,049 Holbrook 16,038 Tombstone 4,524 Huachuca City 4,605 Tucson 870,746 Jerome 1,164 Wellton 2,526 Kearny 7,336 Wickenburg 5,621 Kingman 25,664 Willcox 8,991 Lake Havasu City 44, 105 Williams 6,282 Mammoth 5,284 Winkelman 2,939 Marana 4,410 Winslow 21,960 Mesa 242,428 Youngtown 3,584 Miami 7,530 Yuma 117,772 * These revenues are in addition to the estimated HURF distribution sent out on March 26, 1985. Increase effective January 1, 1986. Distribution represents four months of revenue. . I, i i ; 1u3Cr " 6 , _ _ c4f) -rikL JMRoJf.Mr,� ,—s 1IZO ) oQ _ • . (0..t,St.„?.0410 :.__ - „ii ,3 Lii-r 1 lSi�tLIC.D, glisr ea %0 _1 _ .....Fet94.e, t.le,\ z op stifferCOMQJTt2 C44 coJRr> x:441-4) h2010. 0 ci.DisiAft..).31cArrio .) ,( mlk) At, 3300 �� 00 kPto o tvrA 61 t 0 (oTnl � /p loS oe 'tz 110. 0. ti� .Jc � C0Trta .,c> .� 2s gS 0. 11231(9. 9 i# &t.sAc ( ?I( 00 OCIA.NireiG17 rbodcrr(& ( AP; ) 199 • I;LDLCr • ?' °f L��►a�l�j� /00-9'.0 � 3't ( o0 I.L46RC114 1.14,4, 1733 0 � 1.733 00 o0 f COmr. /0 4fiticir.1 .. 400 8- 0 io ,—e IL/ qv./ )f; Sr! 4rT4CI4J • , I 1 * i • ),..,....... 1 f2ot,D, o /1/41 ,,, r � r ,2 �T �r -4- '2 �c 1I21110. 0. ,� �nI e� t,�1�, Rg�7wi2 reo�TRwcT4, ; 7„(i) •o 92420. o j� e�a � tic Lco ..N iizygo. o ft.1 ., 12iio.Je ( 7 ' .) * �.C'sr) yz42o. 0 l 5477-th I cs ( ço1cTA6k kziys� L'1/451L'1/451� e. io7'AL 4 4t20v.t 7 �� - f 4 i ; AltScfiLA•Sroas 1p .o hzs►o. o : . ,�srs 6f SJScno .1, Pr� slis-60 - on H4(Zo. ot} UL.PfO C4 $S ( 1"7T $ 200 . . ' fiLiif t „DC � t�o� .� q .2.�0 se I j g*7-FL • es. •C GAM tA�9 S,/ fl4snLs 9bff$, 74fIC go) IT� o e 14ts11. o l SA,179 (5 100 •0 yzss2. 9 _t rLrs CI-UçHLA)) .Z. o •• htS31. o __+„ 4E,e - Cool N « r0411-. 7-- gA. •• .o 42S,9/. 0 _ ; r 4o-DHSS JO� d ytS.3s0 _ EaroS, ou 00 1 oTAL 4 % I� 'o . .. _ , ._ 0 ffi cr So fri i r s • bro _; pos:A �y� �s oalig 11144Q. 0 . t�, f„-,aa foams fricie.crisu) s:zs- e• e• ,. ._ iHiSc . lAc-i.p. t F €L c+nps l00 r LCol-Sir RLrORTS 2,ro � ...._,.._ . ?JLQr1vty +_dSi flcqo7S _1__ __ _ /‘.0. __.__ . .. _ 0 •• ' . ' C4i, el' ,..,h1,111,....k, __las o_til. _. ..,. . ._. .... _ , . , ..cr 1. _ fL T� ti1 c� CA-14- . J 7. z ?z '.""." -: , :, , 4_ fil RI" -7 7 1 m r ,c1 ale.. 40(fLatA.Aci) - - � Tar�rL 4 23 . -77.t 1 . . __.. ..._ ........... _ ..._ , . • - . _ t - Saora frAs 0 ...1/1c L .. .. 1 cf.'s ( ... ,.... 1 . , t,... .. _ �ssRc�rA>ir- ..g, s q _pp.r it 01.,4 (-) t F.Zr&rel re) 4 113 0, 314 00 04Isj4\j1toe4.,,6,0iS6 S,. . 2- -.. faT RoLMt„ (' APAP1711 1,1) 5_, 1°° (LI ) ) 0 ` 45A I 4w, fox I 01 oJTM /Tit J�CI.� ,. _ CO- . __._ . ,.._ .. _ .., ... .i .0.,"roft L _A...1-r, c _I F.xt---r- 3 1.1..s> cr .0‘. Ci-j> ! ....-- 00 , : 4 ,.6 y 9140,9 --- ...,' le 1 i . i r o . 0 • ,,,.., 144.� oars �_Ch,.. e,�gips , 00 _,._,..,_..._ _....,....... 14 CAS.c..... goAdys re.44 I 44 .77.1_o•4_S. 1 r54, niss. pits) I 2..c.. 00 00 idaieS(As, C4f��s �O W_._. _4_._ ___ 1 _.__ .� 3. .Se. OF,/c e Scie fl, fs i� o .o G O T 4. 15, 0 0. . _ _ _ ...._, .. ..... .... ... .,._ .... __ _. ., _ , _ .. , .....-- 7 412C 10. 0 lit A I. #..)./.• (t . 00 Am Aii.set) I 7-1.0.) . --I 414 5rfs Xi.,)9 r $ /0 00 . , , _ ... , 1 00 _ .......,_ „. __ _ _. .._sciti..).44...s, Ap44.1c%II> -71A41 41.3. 7 II. ace-0 , "r-P A j 11 gr" %...CO o •0 "T-07-4 ii. 4° Ar, ;040 00 _hz9t0 . .D . Or H,I C I CS oo . 4. CAS C ( 3 g E.His C ICS) 4 1Z. SOs_ ( Y •0 , _ q"54)11.4.1( . 0 otgr , :. .)1/ ;A.-4-4 /.30 rest i if)/ • 4 2g. 00 v._ ___ I ( ;c1( ci fOônslri 4 i , 40 10 � 40";1 . o rt1�_�le cj Ii. ti �s�� -rtt,►-41•sa 4 1 ,s-6 a o0 00 g_owr,,u At.•:,�;, _�o,t iOc)(s 4 ‘.‘000 ao . s, .--f-i .x.rs _ ct. it... 10 or",eirs. w . 2-4 0 .. _ _ _,...._ ___ ,..,,_. ; - 1 toe 14 I -T-07.4 1..- ‘S .47. !Z.r0 i ! , i 'i i / Old 137s4 lu'-' 3 7..-• � di , C (4. ; C- (- -/V 46cci \re...,-- -. -7reilk , E.4±1,-vt....z._ cy. YK. /9'fiLic /9�s - tet.. 1%)... at,714.4.4,,, P.4...42... ......,..„ • , . cl/ JL,tL1 kL� di 63 s��- 'O`'` ' &_5- 6, -!:- - ., r;iwq� t- 'c W v /'1 /75" (rte. 6)•1 I 6-11/CA,1-0 /0/ 15", 0-1 /.7 - --((-A iz__: 3 -,-a:r(,,S P 00 �'1'larkzQ ,, 1144 8-1 k�-e.�„ vi.diza..40 709ff— PEk)ea i .o� p....t.x-t.,-.0-1€ ��` yYar1uSZ 34-1s‘5" Co - / 8 0.36_,....„.„ Pb--/ . , _„i .,:. ,; PE-ive6 .iv _-!_v - , g CA nnb rt_a_a-, Z-2-cDc;-:1- �, / (0 kf 3l, 3Z0) LL-.--9ea ____ cp (:,--,, ,_:s�J 9 .5�_3zc.) fit.. i 1 , i 1 F k 4 ...,1 %all .''-t i' - ',, 1 I\1 M Mi (1 i '""l'e 4'4 .'j ; /--- \•4 N) Mi MI Ni Ni _.,.4. , col `-si_ , ti) Zi :-.) el I V° . ..3-- --s —I —1 0.4 4.4 —I 'i NO t 7:-.i il, N z: ! _AZ tn M! 0 ! •‘I 1 c•c N 'N k: %al N ' \j \-1-4 . 4i i s ! i i \ . . ' ::-1 Mi '4 -ti \-1 r--1- ;""'i x _ ......„i ,\I \f): 1 L......, ,...ss, r} i 1 ''' 4 \,..4 z-i, dzi vc4 \-, ,.,--, (NI; NI c•J ,zr, ... 1 c.) 1 IN .3-4, -.4---. zi _-.1-1 —3-1 -.1-1 n: i 0 I :i...4,,4 1 { t 3 i i A sZli ' la' (24 cot dt f.'i C31 tz's°, C-..)$‘ (*--i' C4 ' ,' Qi cs <11 izit Q!. f ' c)! 91 cii cii Qi ei "/ ,,.1 ,..% N,.. ,,,,..'" --...( i --4); .... , ',is! - ----- -1 •,.... . t .a 3 NI . oi 1 t.Z1 ,,,), V-ii z,„i csi v4 ,, . , iit ---.0, \-i \--, :Z 1 ...: . cr. Cri <5.— . L-)1 C ."' L"H \"Iii• % a c. N 4c\ N NI N; I \d) I'll \*') --- tf)il ' ii , - iO 1 s i ...i 4 i. A A q ,-...-3-,) ,.\,....,,z \-,21 ; .....,,,, 1 H. 1 ,... t.--1 .i.---, .t..k. N 1 .c.-: Z ' .i , , O. . N N. „", —i C., ‹sii.. ?<fit \ 'A N N ' '`k! -- — — — — i Ic . Q r " I.: 11 ?) 4 0 ' o O q 2 3 461 ' 13 i 1c3,0 , ci , _cl .z.i d . 6 411., 1 , ..\4 N _\1 " \ i \ t \i")* \ • \ '‘-d) 11 0 • ! N) \Y ‘ " %.--f. ' \ , 1 4 \..vf 4 orl eY \-4 1..) azi,1 44' .c-7 'z. o ' _ - ..: i. z-i. <!--- \ _L .. .'i ft: 4M., t & t`< -. .1 ,w , i 4 \J 01 ,'. Z,) 4t \ I ,A \.; ---.\.- <1 ,-- 'Z'if .--1 . .... -......, - k at . t..... Zit p - 1;‘.. ) c'il c" A ---, :r •-\:;3 ,C1 .12 'N'' \I C: t\ a 1 ' .44, .1 -tt 2 -....1, a--- ..._ .... --) ,.. , . . ...,-- i. 1 '. a .. ‘ _,... 0 z....„ os .,,,i, \.... , \ • c.) ‘-1 Vt rr ...._4 \,i PLANNING & ZONING BUDGET ( 85/86 ) 84/85 85/86 ADVERTISING $ 400 $ 1 , 500 ENGINEERING -0- 5 , 000 , LEGAL 1 , 000 �-; -�-�- OFFICE Postage -0- 500 Copying -0- 1 , 000 Telephone -0- 200 Supplies 1 , 100 1 , 400 TOTAL OFFICE $ 3 , 100 PERSONNEL $55 , 000 $ 41 , 950 PLANNING Project 1 5 , 000 6 , 250 Project 2 5 , 000 Project 3 -0- -0- Project 4 -0- -0- TOTAL PLANNING $ 10 , 000 $ 12 , 500 REPRODUCTIONS 1 , 000 1 , 250 TRAVEL -0- 1 , 000 TOTAL PLANNING & ZONING $ 69 , 100 $ 67 , 550 4,L....„.5 froje..014-A * v., zso mo614, t c)/c/ RECEIVED ; //.,9-‘1'‘ 7;;;# 0,I' .0 //'),..‘C-7- PR (41985 ,Zriii/17,./# i✓ /�/Co'�CF�/� TOWN of ORO VALLEY ,:y ::- - ' -(44-e' e-ia /17a 7/1'. -- N ' /( 40re,dZ Li :ea, 4-7',/ ,,i,de diii,v, /1.-7/67 4*--A, /4, ,,,//,',747/dieo$ 4., 0"-- ,(--;//, -;'.. „,- - _.' il,00,--,A6 /. e'svae,b., ,/,, '--7 -/ //,///:‘, ,)//9/64* iii//‘,/,friip . /41 "-d., ,--7 /4',/,;,7,0404' idflfr ,-/,-,14,44;,--:- ...---- ..',,t g4-0--‘40.- ,-/‘,,/ 447,---.L-frio-- ..,<.1.- -- ,, , . ,. 4.-1.27a.. -/ aotoe ‘e--/, '9, /a*:"h; 4' sio,_ , , , :# ,..,,,/,,,, ,,,,, , , , - . „z, . . - , -..i--,, 2_,-zi ,,-. --I,7-dpeed.d.,?..iea. 04,.,....„ 1 7#7,,vizi -.:, i .14 / ///,,X, ,/,,dia' 47,,„;,11/i/ 7: //, /„," „,,,. ,4., 4\ :./..../ / /err ,. ,,,, . ,,;-.-:, , . ,/,‘/;frittie,,, f",‘,,,,f,,),,' 6.f.1 --Z" ,4i,/e-e://z;:-.7-47 /..-dd-e-t- I ' e 447'..a;/2- .- r'' /„Afe.1, -- -1:,,Ivor 'el -....9,,,,, J /, ,,/,,,,,,,, - / - ,,.. ...d../di„ziei. r, //.....2/7 . ,,,,,,,,, oldaef. A; /45.)1/7.7 , -,-7.4 .-`' ''', ..- -rfp>':,4,e~;(/// '1,- . ,7;adit &, - -,,(00-Aff‘e' 67 , ..-57'/,4:4 --' j, '‘.;-", theve,--. 0 <,,,, - '/ / , _.; ---;b;z.- moi '. / ,-. � "`, �ei f Q • ‘,67L,G, • 4 - /CO 0 vic F>L49 Cz-e1.4)0C- (---0c/ELJ I �,� TOWN CLERK BUDGET (85/86) PERSONNEL * Additional receptionist/secretary ,, $ -h!TurN Eleanor Rogers 16,750 increase to - 17,750 • Linda Frew (P & Z Budget)? $16,750 increase to - ---3970000 Kathi Cuvelier _. l h t ? 20,500 TOTAL $3 ,15O (19% f r in e s -� r i C I U d 24,1 PAPER COMMUNICATIONS $ 6,000 UTILITIES 7,500 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 4,000 PUBLICATIONS & REFERENCE MATERIALS 400 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,000 1100 INSURANCE' /0,c>0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES & MEETINGS 5-Q Qc Audit (fiscal years 83-84/84-85) TOTAL $5,9$0 bp,ooa MILEAGE $ 500 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT Tape recorder/transcriber (2) $ 900 * Typewriter & desk 1,500 File cabinets (2) 200 Storage for closed files 300 ,,�; - * Office partitions 4 miscellaneous 1,000 $3)900W OTHER "%TOT: CONTINGENCY $10,000 TOTAL ANTICIPATED $ 14-5444 (.0,3-54) * Based on potential annexations ARMSTRONG, Town Clerk "I O* td1&4tfr KATHRYN °10 E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor 0a44 JAMES H.PETERSON, Vice Mayor t i HENDERSON&OLLINGER,Attorney DOOLEY JONES&ASSOC.,Engineer JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman � PAULINE LINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman • vi ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate . , WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police LOIS M.LAMBERSON,Councilwoman r AA t 44r, ►VVI ► 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 MEMORANDUM TO : Mayor and Council, 'down of Oro Valley FROM : Warren Hook, 'Ibwn Engineer DATE : May 10, 1985 RE : Oro Valley Highway Department Budget The "backbone" of any highway department is its heavy equipment. At theA resent time, Oro Valley has two dump trucks, a wobble-wheel roller, a roadgrader,rader a front end loader, a pick-up truck, a street sweeper and a flat bed trailer. A description of each piece of equipment is listed separately and attached to this report. All � ieces of equipment require a varying degree of maintenance even if they p are new. The older the equipment is, the more chance there is of something breaking down. We have been maintaining each piece as best we can at a minimum of cost. We do buy used parts at the junk yards whenever possible but You also have to consider the men's time trying to locate the parts. Buying used or rebuilt to save money may seem to be the most economical way Y g tog •o however, many times the parts don't last and we're back to the junk yard again. We can continue to "patch up" this equipment but it will still be old equipment. and subject to breakdown at any moment. Sometimes it's better to buy new parts to insure that they last, but it isn't always advisable to put new parts in old equipment. I have ap lan whereby we can gradually improve and update our highway equipment at the lowest practical cost. Metro to Mayor and Counc i l 5-10-85 page 2 You will note on the individual equipment reports that by making various repairs now on the different pieces of equipment they will last f ran 3 to 5 years into the future. This will provide time to set up a "RESERVE FOR FUTURE PURCHASES" account as shown below. Then at the time a certain piece of equipment has to be scrapped, there will be sufficient monies in the reserve to replace it. Dump Truck, 1973 $ 12,000 over 3 years = $ 4,000.00 each year Grader $ 43,000 over 5 years = $ 8,600.00 each year Loader $ 40,000 over 5 years = $ 8,000.00 each year Pick-up Truck $ 7,000 over 3 years = $ 2,500.00 each year Sweeper $ 36,000 over 3 years = $12,000.00 each year Trailer $ 1,500 over 5 years = $ 300.00 each year Commit $35,400.00 each year Into RESERVE FOR FUTURE PURCHASES ACCOUNT This is assuming the 1963 dump truck is replaced now for $12,000.00. We can buy cheaper but we will be repairing more often (down time) . This is false economy. I want to give the Oro Valley Highway Department a more respectable appearance by painting all our pieces of equipment the "Town Colors" instead of having 16 different non-matching shades. I estimate this will cost a total of $2,000.00 for all pieces of equipment and I have included this in the budget. The "Town Colors" will be established by the Mayor and Council at a later date - but before painting. A point to consider - the concensus seems to be to move the Oro Valley Highway Department - Maintenance Division from the present site to a site more in keeping with its operations. In order to maintain the heavy equipment, Mike and Mitch need an enclosed, locked and, at times, heated area to work in and store their tools in. In my original budget I included $50,000 for a sheet metal type building, a septic system and a fenced-in area for security of about two acres just for this purpose. This item is not in my amended budget. Bear in mind that no matter how good our highway equipment is (even if it's brand new) , we still need a mechanic to maintain it. "PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE" is a lot cheaper in the long run and more efficient than fixing it after it breaks down. Mitch is instructed to "keep the equipment running" so that Mike can carry out his job of maintaining the public rights-of-way and easements. Nemo to Mayor and Counc i l May 10, 1985 page 3 Sometimes Mitch has to work late or on weekends to insure that the equipment is ready for the next work day. There are times when one man or the other might need extra help in his department and because their backgrounds are similar they can help each other. When it's more than the two of them can handle, we hire a third person temporarily. Until Mitch was hired, when a machine broke down, Mike would have to fix it. That meant that Mike was not doing his job and, consequently, the road maintenance suffered. Something to remember - The more roads that are paved in Town, the less we will use the grader and wobble wheel roller. Another reason that once the grader is put into good shape, it should last longer. We will always need a grader, however, for grading the shoulders and washes. I'm going to try renting the wobble-wheel on a daily basis, as we need it, rather than purchase one. W-I:lmf TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Dump Truck 43831 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1963 Chevrolet 3C833P104358 2. Size - 5 cubic yard, GVW 10,180 3. Acquired - 4-9-80 4. Acquired from - Bud Walker 5. Purchase Price - $ 683.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor Needed engine and brakes 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Hauling dirt and rock for washouts. Hauling dirt for shoulders. Remove sand from washes and streets. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $ 2,000.00 ± last year Rebuild transmission; 3 clutches; 3 starters; fuel pump; 6 tires. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Poor Needs new air pump; new steel bottom in bed; new clutch and pressure plate; rebuild front end; micro brake lock at a total estimated cost of $ 1,600.00; 11. Time for replace- ment - Now 12. Additional Comments- To replace this unit with a 5 to 10 year old mid-range of comparable size would cost $ 12,000.00. A brand new one would be $ 34,000.00. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPAR'T'MENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Dump Truck 43832 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1973 Chevrolet C60 2. Size - 6 cubic yard, GVW 12,000 3. Acquired - 11-14-84 4. Acquired from - Wilson Pool and Patio 220 W. Fort Lowell, Tucson, AZ 85705 5. Purchase Price - $ 2,100.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor Needed tires; driveshaft; brakes; kingpins; bushings 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Hauling dirt and rock for washouts. Hauling dirt for shoulders. Remove sand from washes and streets. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $ 1,200.00 + Tires; brakes; driveshaft; timing gear and chain; water pump; starter; alternator; micro brake locks; warning lights; turn signals; replace differential; brakes; 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Fair Needs engine overhaul or replacement and clutch at a total cost of $ 1,500.00 minimum. 11. Time for replace- ment - 3 years hence, if above repairs are made. 12. Additional Comments- Tb omments-To replace this unit with a comparable used model (5 to 10 years old) would be approximately $ 12,000.00. A brand new one would be $ 34,000.00. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Roller 43833 1. Year, Name, S/N - Wobble Wheel Roller 2. Size - 16 wheels 3. Acquired - 7-23-84 4. Acquired from - JJ&G Rentals 5. Purchase Price - - 0 - 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor, but able to perform its function 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Compacting newly graded streets. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - None 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Poor Cannot be used. Has 3 broken wheels out of 4. Needs 16 new tires and bearings. Estimated repair costs $ 2,200.00. 11. Time for replace- ment - Now 12. Additional Comments- Newly graded streets should be followed up with a roller of this type to maintain thero r road cross section and grade. When roads are compacted P � they tend to resist erosion more. Without rolling, we would be grading the streets more. I am investigating trading this in on another used one. I would not recommend spending any money on this machine. Another alternative it to rent this machine on a daily basis as needed. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Grader 43834 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1951 Galion Grader #116 2. Size - 14 foot blade 3. Acquired - 7-23-84 4. Acquired from - JJ&G Rentals 5. Purchase Price - $ 7,000.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Fair 7. Warranty - 30 days 8. Used for - Regrading dirt roads; regrading shoulders periodically; grading new shoulder material; clean out ditches and washes. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $3,000.00 ± Tires; 1 cylinder; hoses; new cutting edge; clutch; brake shoes; rebuilt spools. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Fair It needs a master brake cylinder, entire front end replacement, circle gear, now board, clutch assembly, hydraulic pump at a total estimated cost of $ 7,100.00 if we can buy used. 11. Time for replace- ment - If we make the above repairs, it should last 5 years. If not, it could break down any time. 12. Additional Carments- It is difficult to get parts for this machine because of its age. To replace this machine with one in good condition (10 to 15 years old) would cost $43,000.00. A brand new one would cost $93,000.00. Salvage value could be $ 6,000.00 to $ 7,000.00. I just found out that the brakes are extremely bad and require fluid daily. I instructed Mitch to get thein fixed immediately. He will improvise, since Equipment Record - Grader page 2 they don't make the parts. We can buy the remains of a used machine with good parts for $ 3,500.00 and it will take care of $6,000.00 of the $7,100.00 that we should spend now. Total value of all these parts is over $15,000.00 and we will probably use the balance of them in the next 3 to 5 years. I would like permission to buy these remains (good parts) within the next 2 weeks before they are sold to someone else. This will save money in the long run. With these parts, we can prevent long-term downtime. This will increase the life expectancy of this machine to more than 5 years. At present, it is in a "hazardous condition" until the front end and brakes are fixed. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Front End Loader 43835 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1960 BHL Loader 2. Size - 1 and 1/2 cubic yard bucket 3. Acquired - 9-8-80 4. Acquired from - State of Arizona, Surplus Property 5. Purchase Price - $ 3,260.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Scraping sand from streets after heavy rains; cleaning out drainage washes; loading dui trucks; cutting down banks; constructing roadways. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $ 10,500.00 ± 1 used and 1 rebuilt engine; water purr; 2 starters; 2 injector pumps; rebuilt tilt bucket cylinders; 3 tires; 2 cylinder heads. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Poor because of transmission It needs a new transmission, all final drives, hoist pump, rebuild all hydraulic cylinders, 2 tires and brakes at a total estimated cost of $9,200.00. 11. Time for replace- ment - If we make the above repairs, it cat last 5 years. 12. Additional ts- A good used loader will cost $40,000.00. A brand new one would cost $75,000.00. If above repairs are made the condition will go from poor to good and the life expectancy will be 5 years. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Pick Up Truck 43836 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1979 Ford F15JRFB2433 2. Size - 1/2 ton 3. Acquired - 6-30-83 4. Acquired from - Oro Valley Police Department 5. Purchase Price - $ 6,656.00 (original price by Police Dept.) 6. Condition at Purchase - New to Police Dept. Fair to Highway Dept. in 1983 with 94,000 miles on it 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Light work, reconnaisance, contains portable welder and torch and hydraulic jack; install street signs; post notices. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $ 700.00 ± Tires; remodel bed with jack and acetylene torch; air shocks; 2 power steering pins; brakes; bearings all around; "U" joints; center carrier bearing; valve job; timing chain and gear; fuel pump; water pump. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Fair Engine is weak. It could run one more year with not too much trouble. It uses oil; should be rebuilt or replaced. Possible rebuilt transmission. Total estimated cost $1,800.00. 11. Time for replace- ment - If above repairs are made, 3 years. 12. Additional Comments- This c mtents-This unit has 113,500 miles. To replace it with a used 1982 model would cost approximately $7,000.00. A brand neva one would cost $14,000.00. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPAR'T'MENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Street Sweeper 43837 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1972 Mobil ITE3 SN311542 2. Size - 2 cubic yard collector box 3. Acquired - 2-3-84 4. Acquired from - Secco - 1033 N. 24th, Phoenix, AZ 85008 5. Purchase Price - $15,000.00 $2,000.00 trade-in for used 1964 Mobil ITE sweeper. Total price $13,780.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Pretty good. All physical defects were taken care of. 7. Warranty - 120 days or 150 hours on parts 8. Used for - Sweeping streets 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $4,700.00 ± Bearings; rebuilty rear engine and replaced head; 4 starters; radiator recored; 1 carburetor; 2 neva distributors; clutch pressure plate and release bearing; hydraulic slave cylinder; modified air filter. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Fair It's possible this unit will need a neva transmission at an estimated cost of $2,000.00 11. Time for replace- ment - 3 years hence with above repairs. 12. Additional Comments- The replacement cost for a used sweeper in good condition is $35,000.00. A brand new sweeper will cost $70,000.00. The intense dust that this machine is subjected to leads to many repairs and tends to shorten its life. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Flat Bed Trailer 43838 1. Year, Name, S/N - 1978 Flat Bed 'Mailer 52292 2. Size - 14' by 6' steel with wood bed 3. Acquired - 7-5-84 4. Acquired from - Richard Eckenrodt 5. Purchase Price - $450.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Light hauling; Haul rubbish to dump; Haul rocks and broken concrete to fill in deep washouts. 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $200.00 ± New wood deck; steel sides to increase load capacity; neva hitch. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - Fair 11. Time for replace- ment - 5 years 12. Additional Comments- Electric brakes, brake lights, side lights, fenders should be installed this year at an estimated cost of $350.00. A brand neva unit would be worth $1,500.00. A good used on would be worth $800.00. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT RECORD Street Sweeper 1. Year, Name, S/N - Wayne S/N 931-970 (25 to 30 years old) 2. Size - 1/2 cubic yard 3. Acquired - 7-10-81 4. Acquired from - State of Arizona - Surplus Property 5. Purchase Price - $4,500.00 6. Condition at Purchase - Poor Estimated $9,000.00 minimum to put back in running condition; parts not made anymore. 7. Warranty - None 8. Used for - Sweeping streets 9. Repairs since Acquisition - $3,000.00 ± Rebuilt transmission; upper elevator shaft; bearings; chains; "U" joints; clutch and pressure plate. 10. Condition as of 5-1-85 - This machine is useful only for parts. 11. Time for replace- ment - Now 12. Additional Comments- At the time we acquired our present sweeper (2-3-84) , we wanted to trade this one in. Secco did not want it, but said they would try to sell it for us to someone who would use it for parts. No success. We have tried to unload it several times since, just for parts or whatever. The most we were offered for it was $500.00. I thought it was worth more like $1,000.00. That's why it's still here. The next time we are offered $500.00, I would recommend selling it. Just about everything is worn out on this machine and it's so old, we can't get parts. O O O O O O O >1 O O O O O O O 'Q re) ori .:r �r � I o 0 gin- in- in- in- in- tin- coN in- A � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Zf c+'1 O N Niii NI L6 O C g if)- u)- in- Vim} (J} Ln (Mn- H in- 1 WI .. of � � 8 >, 0 4) in tn N m co m a H H a � Q O O O O O O O id 0 co 0 0 0. 0 co (i)Ri 1/4oN O LI") 00 O rl O .q. C1 N H H N H -� H M N H ai QI U) U) 0 -1-) a) 0 S ct v) ry;�� Cl,j � � ul RI a) 73 1 v §4 I rou) 11 I I � � 2 � �j � �,-1 � � UI -t)-I �(1) NN .� � OM �UNI H rg,... �� N rs')4 a, A � � x 71 • 1 H H r8 H -H r.- 0 -8 Ln 84 .- -i-) -, 0 0 0 ai u) o 0.,4 c) - H a) 8 4-) u) crEi:. ..-1 h c->' Fs 9 ps @ .8 p $ 2° r 0 J w a) co I En � � ul� dN +► +� � CD (ci ..cs . �tY, � '� v A a) aro � o 1 :9 ,-9 '8 k � � � � � O ro >, 8 ,-1 � ' 1 11 (1c) '-c) p,..i Ma � o M � mba a A 4-d $ N 8 + 3 a • r-I N ('7 V' lf1 l0 [� °RC) E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor N0.A4,440 Nkli KATHRYN ARMSTRONG, Town Clerk JAMES H.PETERSON, Vice Mayor HENDERSON&OLLINGER,Attorney JAMES D.KRIEGH,Councilman DOOLEY-JONES&ASSOC.,Engineer PAULINE R.JOHNSON,Councilwoman • ROYAL G.BOUSCHOR,Magistrate LOIS M. LAMBERSON,Councilwoman 4kl V WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police rot tiff 4;t4N V 4/#0.40" CC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Phone (602) 297-2591 MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council, Town of Oro Valley FROM : Warren Hook, Town Engineer DATE : May 10, 1985 RE : Purchase of Grader Parts for our Grader As the "Equipment Record" shows, this machine needs about $7,100.00 worth of parts to bring it to a safe and acceptable condition. JJ&G Rentals, where we bought our grader last year, has the remains of a grader with good parts the same as ours that he will sell us for $3,500.00. If these parts were sold by JJ&G piecemeal the cost would be over $15,000.00 Many of these parts are the ones we need to repair our grader. These parts will account for probably $6,000.00 of the $7,100.00 needed for repair. The balance of the reserve parts will probably be used within the next 3 to 5 years. I would like permission to buy these parts within the next week, if possible, before he sells them to someone else. WH:lf