PRESENT:

Paul Loomis, Mayor Al Kunisch, Vice Mayor Paula Abbott, Council Member K.C. Carter, Council Member Helen Dankwerth, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Council Member Terry Parish, Council Member

Communications Administrator Mary Davis reviewed the goals for the education campaign:
~Provide the residents the opportunity to learn about the Naranja Town Site Master Plan
~Distribute information regarding the November 2008 Bond Election:
  *Bond question as it will appear on the ballot
  *Specific plan elements
  *Information regarding:
    -How the bonds would be paid
    -How secondary property tax would be calculated
    -Provide resources to public to obtain information on the Naranja Town Site Plan and 
     Bond election.

She reviewed the strategies that would be used to accomplish the goals:
~Integrate verbal and visual elements
~Ensure all information is factual and easily understood
~Provide all elements of the campaign in a timely fashion

Ms. Davis presented the methods of implementation:
~Publicity/media
~Paid media
~Update the website (Centerpiece of the campaign)
~Speakers bureau

She reviewed the projected Implementation Schedule, meetings that have been held and meetings scheduled.

Management Assistant Tory Schlievert introduced Yvonne Dawson of Tischler Bise. She briefly discussed her firm’s credentials and clients.

Ms. Dawson presented an overview of the Development Fee:
~Represented new growth’s fair share of capital facility needs.
~Used for capacity expansions of capital facilities.
~A means to provide growth-related infrastructure.
~Citizens create a demand for facilities and must receive a benefit:
  *Timing of improvements
  *Accounting and expenditure controls

She stated that the key tenets of an impact fee were:
~Impact
  *Fees may be used to mitigate conditions created by the development being assessed the fee.
~Benefit
  *Fees must be segregated from other funds
  *Must be spent on facilities for which the fees were charged and within a certain time frame.
~Proportionality
  *Fees must be proportional with the demand created by new development.

Ms. Dawson stated that Development Fees could not be used for existing deficiencies or for Operation and Maintenance expenses.  She noted that the fees must be used for capacity improvements/expansion of capital facilities.

Ms. Dawson presented the following:
~The process for evaluating and gathering information to present to Council.
~Timeline for implementation.
~Demographics
~Development Fees Categories:
  *Parks and Recreation
  *Library
  *Police
  *General Government
  *Transportation

She noted the methodologies used:
~Cost Recovery (past)
  *Oversized and unique facilities
~Incremental Expansion (present)
  *Formula-based approach documents level-of-service with both quantitative and qualitative measures
~Plan-Based (future)
  *Common for utilities
  *Can be used for public facilities with non-development fee funding

Discussion followed regarding:
~House Bill 1406 and the possible moratorium on impact fees.
  *Should the bill pass, impact fees could not be enacted for the first two years following the approval of a development.
~The Transportation Development Fee would replace the Roadway Impact Fee.
~Fees collected must be spent on that which it was collected.
~Monies collected must be spent during a specific time frame; otherwise the fees must be refunded.
~The Arterial Road Infrastructure Improvement Plan
~Collector Road Infrastructure Improvement Plan
~Transportation Input Variables
~Summary of Maximum Supportable Development Fees
~Cost Index

Council Members asked for a review of the assumptions. It was noted that the five year numbers were optimistic. It was requested that more realistic numbers be identified.  It was recommended that land costs should be researched strictly in Oro Valley for the study. 

Water Utility Director Philip Saletta presented:
~Statutory requirements - Notice of Intent
  *Begins formal process to increase development impact fees
  *Does not set or modify fees
  *Establishes public hearing date
  *Makes reports available
~Water Utility Impact Fee Analysis
  *Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee (AWRDIF) Analysis
  *Currently finalizing report
~Impact Fee Analysis
  *Analysis is currently in revision
  *AWRDIF is in revision
  *Potable Water System Development Impact Fees do not need revision
~AWRDIF Analysis
  *Currently set by ordinance to increase incrementally
  *The report proposed to eliminate the incremental increase and provide for one increase
  *Fees based upon meter size
  *Ultimate Fees reduced based on adjustment for elimination of incremental increase
  *Referenced several reports to include:
    -Reclaimed Master Plan
    -USBR Central Arizona Project Report
  *Reports serve as infrastructure improvements plans

Discussion ensued regarding:
~Reclaimed water - renewable water
~Process and schedule
~Fees charged per meter size
~Current ordinance in place for incremental increases
~House Bill 1406
~AWRDIF 2010-2011 time frame 

Operations Division Manager Phil Trenary presented the item. He noted that Buffelgrass was originally planted for Cattle feed and dust control. He stated that Fountain grass was used for landscaping. He explained that neither grass was native to the area but was purposely planted. He stated that Buffelgrass was a problem because:
~It spreads rapidly
~Causes fire damage
  *Burns hotter than a forest fire
  *Returns quickly after a fire.
~Hearty
~Loss of native desert
  *Consumes desert
  *Absorbs groundwater depriving native vegetation
~Must be dug out to kill it.

Mr. Trenary explained the problems with Fountain grass:
~Same grass family as Buffelgrass
~Creates the same problems as Buffelgrass
~Listed as an invasive plant by Town Code

He noted the characteristics of Buffelgrass and Fountain grass:
~Buffelgrass
  *Shrubby grass that grows from a Central crown
  *Clumpy messy appearance
  *Bottlebrush-shaped flower stalks
  *Leaf blade is 1/4" wide with tiny hairs along edges 
~Fountain grass
  *Attractive, robust clumping grass
  *Grows to 3 feet tall
  *Light green clumps in the summer

Mr. Trenary explained how to remove theses grasses:
~Pull and place in a bag when dormant
~Cut down brown dead looking plants
~Spray with Round Up when green and growing 

He informed Council that a multi-department committee had developed an action plan. He stated that the committee created a location map of Buffelgrass and Fountain grass located within Town limits. He noted that the committee would meet with Mayor and Council for direction.

He informed Council that annually they must return to remove new plants that were created by seeds that fell off during removal.

Mr. Trenary stated the committee’s recommendations:
~Develop a resolution and ordinance for the elimination of Buffelgrass and Fountain grass within Town limits.
~Develop an educational program for Town employees and Town citizens to recognize and eradicate the grasses.
~Develop outreach programs with Homeowners’ Associations and other Town citizens
  *Currently forming a group to remove Buffelgrass 
  *Possibly implement an adopt-a-road type program.
~Provide information on the Town’s website
~Continue to update location map
~Become active members of Regional Buffelgrass Working Group consisting of members from other jurisdictions and organizations.
~Sign Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Strategic Plan from Buffelgrass Working Group

Council Members discussed the following:
~Creating a comprehensive plan
  *To look beyond Town borders as the grasses are everywhere.
~The grasses are poor in grazing value
~The possibility of removing the grasses from nurseries. 
~The resources necessary to fund the eradication.
  *Cost would have to be covered by local jurisdictions
~Volunteers
  *Oro Valley residents were great about volunteering. 
~Concerns that the regional groups were needed due to areas outside of Town limits that need to be addressed.

Mr. Trenary noted that his division furnished garbage bags to residents and retrieved them after homeowners have removed the plants. He stated that once the bags have been picked up they would be buried in a landfill.

The following was noted during discussion:
~The lack of manpower to regulate eradication.
~The City of Tucson and Pima County have ordinances barring Buffelgrass.
  *Most major landscapers have been alerted to this.
~Buffelgrass roots were shallow; less than six inches.

Council recommended the following:
~Return to Council with a resolution to ban Buffelgrass.
~Research the cost involved with eradication; i.e. garbage bags and cost to remove from residences
~Continue to work with regional groups
~Work with Communications Administrator to coordinate education and outreach programs. 

Council Member Dankwerth hypothesized that if the Arroyo Grande annexation proceeded and an ordinance was in place for the eradication of these grasses, the Town may not have the resources to comply with the ordinance.

Town Engineer Craig Civalier recommended adding eradication to the Town Zoning code. He stated that it could become part of the Native Plant Preservation Plan. He noted that developers could be made responsible for removal of these grasses. He stated that he has instructed his staff to make the removal of these grasses a condition for approval for development plans during grading. He noted that the Zoning Staff goes to the site and tags plants for removal.

Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero stated that she encouraged developers to show that they have removed it. She noted however, that the Town cannot enforce this since it was not in the Code.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Carter and seconded by Council Member Parish to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.

MOTION carried, 7-0.