Finance Director Stacey Lemos presented responses to questions raised at the May 14th Budget Study Session:
~Item 1: Limitations on park In Lieu Fees were:
*The fees must be spent on a park that serves the residents of the area being subdivided.
*The fees may be used to improve local parks due the Town’s limited number of parks.
*Funds could not be used to develop private parks under the Gift Clause of the Arizona
Constitution.
~Item 2: Analysis of employee per capita ratios for four fiscal years compared with other jurisdictions:
Full Time Employees per 1,000 Residents | FY 04/05 | FY 05/06 | FY 06/07 | FY 07/08 |
| Casa Grande | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 7.8 |
| Goodyear | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.0 |
| Marana | 9.8 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 11.3 |
| Oro Valley | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Prescott | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.4 | 8.3 |
| Sahuarita | 8.1 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 6.8 |
| Sierra Vista | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.4 |
Note: Excludes certain services which are not comparative amongst the jurisdictions
~Item 3: Cost detail of Library expenditures ineligible for reimbursement from Pima County Library District.
Fiscal Year 07/08
| Personnel | $ 19,035 |
| Building Repair & Maintenance | $ 53,000 |
| Grounds Repair & Maintenance | $ 30,000 |
| Travel & Training (excess > $2,500) | $ 5,500 |
| Volunteer Recognition | $ 1,000 |
| Software Maintenance & Licensing | $ 13,600 |
| RFID Tags | $ 23,400 |
| Computer Replacements | $ 12,000 |
| Total | $157,535 |
Library Administrator Mary Hartz-Musgrave stated that Pima County did not use RFID tags.
It was requested that staff return with a history of the RFID tag system and a cost benefit analysis to include labor needed to install the system.
~Item 4: Certificates of Participation used to buy the land needed to build the Library were recently repaid. Excise Tax bonds used to construct the Library have remaining debt service payments that range from $174,000 to $181,000 as shown below:
| FYE | Principal | Interest | Total |
| 2008 | $ 134,352.00 | $ 43,804.35 | $ 178,156.35 |
| 2009 | $ 139,950.00 | $ 38,230.84 | $ 178,180.84 |
| 2010 | $ 149,280.00 | $ 32,134.86 | $ 181,414.86 |
| 2011 | $ 149,280.00 | $ 25,659.84 | $ 174,939.84 |
| 2012 | $ 158,610.00 | $ 18,904.92 | $ 177,514.92 |
| 2013 | $ 164,208.00 | $ 11,720.82 | $ 175,928.82 |
| 2014 | $ 173,538.00 | $ 4,013.07 | $ 177,551.07 |
| Total | $1,069,218.00 | $174,468.70 | $1,243,686.70 |
~Item 5: Comparison of Pima County Library staff salaries and the Town’s Library staff salaries:
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY | Job Title | Min | Mid | Max |
| Library Page | $20,224 | $25,281 | $30,337 |
| Customer Service Rep | $25,888 | $32,360 | $38,832 |
| Library Associate | $30,023 | $37,528 | $45,035 |
| Senior Library Associate | $37,494 | $46,867 | $56,241 |
| Librarian | $43,482 | $54,352 | $65,223 |
| Senior Librarian | $50,425 | $63,032 | $75,638 |
| Library Administrator | $61,439 | $76,798 | $92,157 |
PIMA COUNTY | Job Title | Min | Mid | Max |
| Library Clerk | $18,903 | $ 23,629 | $ 28,354 |
| Library Technical Assistant | $29,567 | $ 35,870 | $ 42,173 |
| Library Associate | $32,677 | $ 40,019 | $ 47,362 |
| Librarian | $35,526 | $ 43,420 | $ 51,314 |
| Librarian I | $43,618 | $ 53,591 | $ 63,565 |
| Librarian II | $49,566 | $ 61,464 | $ 73,362 |
| Librarian III | $54,517 | $ 67,278 | $ 80,038 |
| Library Services Manager | $62,899 | $ 77,719 | $ 92,539 |
| Library Director | $85,342 | $119,059 | $152,776 |
Human Resources Director Sandra Abbey noted the equivalencies between the job titles:
~Library Page and the Library Clerk
~Customer Service Representative and Library Technical Assistant are similar
~Library Associates are the same
~Senior Library Associate is similar to Librarian
~Librarian similar to Librarian I
~Senior Librarian similar to Librarian III
~Library Administrator closest in responsibilities to a Library Services Manager though the Library Administrator has more responsibilities for heading the division.
It was noted that any differences in salaries were paid for by the Town.
~Item 6: Staff recommended that additional concerns regarding the library be
addressed at a future study session.
It was requested that the information include laptops, software and computer services and to schedule the meeting in June.
Human Resources Director Sandra Abbey addressed the new positions and reclassifications. She stated that:
~The new process was approved by Council.
~Reclassifications were conducted by management within the guidelines set by Council.
~New positions are positions that did not previously exist.
~A reclassification is a change in job duties and the former position is eliminated.
~Higher costs are associated with new positions due to the need for new furniture and equipment.
~Reclassifications have less of a cost impact because it does not increase in the number of employees and new equipment is not necessary.
She noted that Building Safety employees warranted reclassification as they studied to achieve new credentials. She stated that those reclassifications were approved by Council in 2006.
Ms. Abbey explained Merit and Step increases:
~Merit Increases
*Employees earn these increases through job performance.
*These increases allow employees to advance through their salary range.
*A 3% merit increase is awarded based on excellent performance ratings.
*A 4% merit increase is awarded for outstanding performance ratings.
*Currently, there are no employees at the top end of their salary range.
~Step Increases
*Used for Police Department personnel and vary between 3-5%.
*There are a maximum of 8 steps depending on the position and can take an employee 3-
7 years to reach the top of their range.
*Currently most police department employees have reached the top of their range.
She noted that Annual adjustments enable the Town to keep pace with inflation.
Ms. Abbey informed Council that Market adjustments were used to:
~Prevent salaries from lagging behind the market
~Avoid large market adjustments
~Prevent salaries from varying more than 10% from the midpoint.
Ms. Abbey noted that the three positions referenced in the budget for a market adjustment were currently 11-13% behind the market midpoint.
It was noted that the recommended cost of living increase of 1.5% should keep the Town competitive. However, the Fraternal Order of Police maintained that a 2.5% increase would be more appropriate.
Three options to fund the additional 1% cost of living increase were presented:
1) 2.5% cut to all General Fund department Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
budgets.
a) Smaller cuts would be made to other Town funds.
b) General Fund O&M Budget = $7.7M x 2.5% = $192,500.
2) Reallocate a portion of the Town Bed Tax revenues to the General Fund.
a) The current allocation of the 6% Bed Tax revenues were noted as follows:
| 2% | Economic Development Marketing | $ 546,357 |
| 2% | Hilton Bed Tax Rebate Commitment | $ 546,357 |
| 2% | Naranja Town Site O&M | $ 546,357 |
| Total FY 08/09 Bed Taxes | $1,639,071 |
3) Renewal and extension of the Utility Sales Tax of 2% which will sunset April 1, 2009.
a) 2% Utility Sales Tax Revenue = $1.3M annually
b) $325,000 projected revenue stream loss in FY 08/09 due to sunset clause.
Town Manager David Andrews stated that retaining the 1.5% cost of living adjustment in the recommended budget would be the best option as he expected FY 09/10 budget to be tighter than this year. With regard to the options presented, he stated that:
~Option 1 would be a last resort.
~Option 2 would be most efficient and require the least amount of effort though this would
be a recurring cost.
*Not all of the Economic Development and Naranja Town Site funds were currently being
spent.
*This would be a one time measure to close the gap.
*This option would be his recommendation if he had to choose from the three presented.
~Option 3 would be unpopular.
Discussion ensued which determined:
~$160k was spent for the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB)
~$50k was spent for Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities
~$25k was spent for the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH)
~$27.5k was spent on the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce
Vice Mayor Kunisch requested information comparing sales tax revenues for the first quarter of FY 06/07 and FY 07/08.
It was noted that the Hilton El Conquistador projected revenues as flat in the coming year.
Mayor Loomis requested figures that factored in growth.
Mr. Andrews stated that the recommended budget was balanced and financially sustainable. He noted that it could be implemented without terminating jobs or programs.
It was noted that midyear budget reviews were conducted as a matter of practice.
Mayor Loomis called for a recess at 6:33 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:41 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More stated that in budgeting for public notices, the increase in postage and printing, increasing the size in posting signs and posting in the Arizona Star were budgeted factors. She noted that 4x8 foot signs have remained in the budget. She informed Council that publishing the ads in the Arizona Star would cost $3,500 more per year than The Daily Territorial and that larger ads would cost up to $40k per year.
Discussion noted the following:
~The Daily Territorial and the Arizona Star published standard legal notices.
~The Estimated cost for the 4x8 foot signs amounted to $11,900 and did not include labor.
*The Planning and Zoning department did not have the capacity to print items this size.
Council Member Gillaspie requested that Staff return with actual costs in total for this item.
Mayor Loomis requested that Staff bring this back to Council as an action item.
It was noted that a future study session will be held regarding notification and that notices were currently posted on the Town's website.
Town Manager David Andrews noted that this item had been budgeted for in the amount of $14k, but was subsequently eliminated. He introduced Assistant Town Manager Jerene Watson to present the item.
Ms. Watson noted that:
~The amount would include a two day training session for 50 people.
~The Town did not have a formalized program for public participation.
~The program would be managed by the Constituent Services Coordinator.
~The program would introduce new ways to engage the public.
~Once implemented there would be minimal cost beyond the initial education.
Council Member Kunisch requested that Library expenditures and the Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County be examined.