Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More introduced the item, noting that the Town’s ordinances required that utility lines be underground. She stated that the exceptions would be:
~For previously existing poles
~Replacement of less than 600 feet of continuous poles or wires
She noted that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for new utility poles and wires.
Government Relations Manager Larry Lucero of Tucson Electric Power (TEP) discussed:
~The importance of grid reliability.
~TEP’s reorganization.
~TEP’s challenges to perform upgrades and keep costs reasonable in the current economy.
Mr. Lucero informed Council that TEP will soon have a new Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. Lucero introduced Ed Beck, Director of Line Siting Services. Mr. Beck noted the following:
~TEP is working toward better outreach.
~The La Cholla CUP repaired two overloaded areas
*There was little change in the look of the road or the poles.
He presented a slide show depicting options for the Tangerine Road CUP cross section.
He noted that replacing the overhead distribution line would cost $250,000 and would be covered by TEP. He stated that to place the lines underground would cost $750,000. He requested that the Town pay for the difference of $500,000 to place the lines underground.
He stated that the proposed substation in Sun City coupled with minor repairs would relieve the overloaded circuits in the Rancho Vistoso area.
Discussion encompassed the following:
~The cost to underground the lines had not changed despite current economic conditions.
~The poles would be taller to meet the height requirements.
~The poles would be moved toward the interior to prepare for the widening of Tangerine Road.
~TEP owns the underlined right-of-way for most of Tangerine Road.
Town Engineer Craig Civalier stated that Tangerine Road lacked funding and that it was unlikely that the Regional Transportation Authority would pay to move the poles.
Mr. Beck stated that historically, the commission has disapproved of enacting special rates for various areas and ordered that one rate be used.
Discussion clarified the following:
~TEP places lines underground for up to a mile from substation feeders in order to relieve congestion.
*The fee is incorporated in the rates.
~If the lines overheat underground, layers of concrete and conduit must be opened in order to remove the cable; otherwise the line can be pulled out.
~Underground lines tend to be more reliable.
~Underground transmission lines need to be cooled.
*As a result, it costs 10 times as much to underground the lines vs. placing the lines overhead.
~The life span of underground cable was 30 years whereas overhead cable is 40+ years.
~The poles would be moved closer to residential property lines.
~Arizona State Land Department indicated to TEP that they do not want the lines moved to the north side of Tangerine Road.
~The new line is needed to improve the reliability of the system between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive.
*Oro Valley Town Code states that all new lines must be underground.
Council requested:
~a more detailed study of moving the lines to the north of Tangerine Road.
~more information about the Sun City substation and the options.
~to have a future study session regarding the information requested in the next couple of months.
~to have a plan before summer 2009.
Mayor Loomis called for a recess at 6:28 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:37 p.m.
Management Intern Russ Newberg presented the item. He stated that according to the Pima Animal Care Center (PACC) evaluation:
~Capacity was exceeded by more than 250%
~Animals were disposed of inhumanely
~Expansion of PACC was being considered
He stated that animal control was mandated. He noted the types of animal shelters:
~Local jurisdictions
~Nonprofit with housing and control contract
~Nonprofit with housing contract
~Nonprofit without contracts
He reviewed the elements to consider:
~Animal Control
*Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Town Code
*Field services
-Oro Valley currently has an IGA with Pima County
~Number of animals to be sheltered
~Size and cost of facility
~Operating cost
Mr. Newberg used the following components to estimate shelter demand:
~Pima County
*21 animals housed per 1,000 people
*Population of 45,000 = 945 animals per year
~Seven-shelter study.
*34 animals housed per 1,000 people
*Population of 45,000 - 1,523 animals per year
He stated the cost for a 3,500 s.f. shelter:
~The International City/County Management Association formula (2000) = $876,750
~Green Valley (283.5/s.f.) = $992,250
~PACC Study ($310/s.f.) - $1,085,000
He reviewed the Operating Costs:
Animal Care & Control Budgets
~ICMA (2004)
*$4 - $7 per person
*Oro Valley = $180,000 - $315,000
~Share of PACC Budget
*$5.1 million with population at 1 million
*$5.10 per person
*Oro Valley = $229,500
He proposed that the operating budget could be funded using the current PACC licensing fees. He stated that the Town of Oro Valley could potentially raise over $230,000 from licensing fees. He noted that the current IGA prohibited the Town from collecting licensing fees.
He stated that the next steps would entail:
~a potential feasibility study.
~potential shelter management considerations.
Council Member Latas reviewed her observations of the PACC:
~Often there is standing water in the facility which contributes to disease.
~Animals not adopted are beheaded via guillotine.
~2/3 of the animals are dumped in the Tangerine Road Landfill
She noted that the Green Valley shelter ensures that all animals in their facility are adopted
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen informed Council that the Town would need to petition the State Legislature in order to issue licenses.
It was noted that:
~under the current IGA with Pima County, the Town was billed $8,023.10 in 2007/2008.
~the license fees paid by Oro Valley animal owners were used to pay for the animal control services the County provides to the Town.
~Pima County billed for services through property taxes.
~Pima County also bills the Town.
~The Green Valley Shelter was funded through private donations, an onsite thrift shop and adoption fees.
Oro Valley Police Chief Danny Sharp stated that 392 calls regarding animals were handled by the Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) over the last 5 years with an average of 7 calls per month. He further noted that PACC was slow to respond to calls and the OVPD often responded to the calls which contributed to the low number of animals picked up by the County.
He clarified that the OVPD was unable to charge Pima County for the animals taken care of on their behalf.
Discussion ensued noting the following:
~Two sites within the Town were proposed for a shelter that the Town would own.
*680 W. Calle Concordia could be converted to a shelter when current operations move to the Municipal Operations Center
*A Town owned parcel near the Oro Valley Country Club
~A 3,500 s.f. facility would allow for expansion.
~There were few shelters in the metropolitan area.
*Most were located far from Oro Valley.
~ICMA suggests that a shelter provide 50 s.f. per cat and 100 s.f. per dog.
~PACC was investing $3 million in bond funds into their current shelter.
*Vice Mayor Kunisch requested the details of what those funds would cover.
Council Member Carter requested to review the bids for the $3 million building.
Action items were noted as follows:
~Investgate licensing requirements
~Acquire a detailed report of PACC costs as well as similar costs from other counties
*Submit the findings to Council in a memorandum.