PRESENT:

Paul Loomis, Mayor Bill Garner, Vice Mayor Kenneth Carter, Councilmember Barry Gillaspie, Councilmember Al Kunisch, Councilmember Salette Latas, Councilmember Patricia Spoerl, Councilmember

Click here for Item 1

Procurement Administrator Brian Garrity presented the item. He stated that he would discuss the Town's efforts to shop in Oro Valley; the legal ramifications of doing so and how other jurisdictions handle the issue of local preference.

Mr. Garrity explained that the Shop Oro Valley campaign was initiated by Economic Development Manager Amanda Jacobs in 2008. He stated that the campaign was promoted internally to Town employees. He noted that he has reminded staff to shop Oro Valley when the product or service is available.

He highlighted the Town’s current efforts:
~Food for council meetings is purchased locally
~Economic Development distributes local discount coupons
~The Oro Valley Police Department had switched from Costco to Wal-Mart at the Oro Valley Marketplace 

Mr. Garrity discussed the legal implications of "shopping locally."
~Federal regulations prohibit local preferences when spending Federal grant funds
~State preference statute was ruled unconstitutional
  *Construction projects granted to the lowest bid per statute
  *Design services awarded to highest qualified
    -Qualification based selection process

~Local procurement code
  *Formal bids
    -No preference for construction
    -Possible 2% preference for Oro Valley vs. Non-Oro Valley
      `Does not apply to out of state bidders as the Town would not pay sales tax
  *Formal Request for Proposals (RFPs)
    -Qualifications and price
    -Local consideration possible

He noted that local businesses can have an advantage when bidding due to the following factors:
~Local knowledge of codes and ordinances
~Worked with staff previously
~Knowledge of riparian areas

Mr. Garrity listed additional considerations:
~Resources required for administering
~Regional implications
  *Neighboring municipalities might impose preferences making it tougher on Oro Valley businesses.
~Reciprocity ordinances
~Difficulty defining "local"
~Cooperative procurement restrictions
~Fiscal responsibility
  *Awarding bids to the truest low bid
~Limited commercial sources locally

He reviewed a sampling of various municipalities' preference policies:

AGENCY	TYPE
Benson	None
City of Chandler	None
City of Flagstaff	None
City of Goodyear	Tax offset
City of Sierra Vista	None
Lake Havasu City	Tax offset
Mohave County	None
Navajo County	None
Pima County	None
Pinal County	None
Tucson Airport Authority	None

He explained the benefits of a local preference policy:
~Supports local business financially
~Popular among business owners and may promote a "business friendly" image
~Gives local vendors a competitive advantage
~Returns local tax dollars to the Town
~Could create an incentive for business retention and expansion 

AGENCY	TYPE	PERCENTAGE	LOCAL VENDOR DEFINITION
City of Maricopa	Materials & Services < $10k	Up to 5%	Local presence and business license > 6 months
City of Tucson	Small Business Program	Up to 7%	Small Business Administration requirements - local
City of Yuma	Materials & Services > $50k	Up to 5%	Local presence and business license
Town of Fountain Hills	Materials & Services < $10k	Up to 5%	Local presence and business license > 12 months

Mr. Garrity explained the potential drawbacks:
~Discourages competition
~Subjects the Town to legal challenges
~Local vendors have an inherent advantage that would be exaggerated by a preference
~Discourages cooperative procurements
~Not applicable to construction or Federal grants
~Requires compliance verification
~No incentive for local vendors to lower prices
~Could cost more money
~May create reciprocity from regional jurisdictions
~May encourage brokering

It was noted that Federal grants apply "Buy American" requirements, though there has been resistance to this requirement recently.

Mayor Loomis stated his satisfaction with current practices.

It was noted that:
~The Town shops local businesses as much as possible
~The $50,000 threshold for requiring three formal proposals had been adjusted by Council in the past in order to streamline and improve efficiency
  *The State’s threshold was also $50,000

Click here for Item 2

Councilmember Gillaspie introduced the item stating that comments he had received fueled the motivation to tailor training for boards and commissions.

Acting Planning and Zoning Director Paul Popelka presented the item. He noted that the program had retained the same format for the last fifteen years. He stated that the Fall series presented the big picture with emphasis on Planning and Zoning; whereas the Spring series focused on departments. He explained that the purpose of the program was to train citizens to serve on boards.

Mr. Popelka stated that the proposed changes to the program would shorten the Fall series to the "big picture - 101" and would become a course requirement. He stated that the second course would be comprised of special institutes for each board. He noted that currently the course emphasized planning and zoning. He explained that it would place the instruction of specific boards on the sponsoring departments. He stated that the final component would consist of extra classes. He noted that these classes would be helpful for citizens interested in certain topics.

Mr. Popelka requested direction from Council.

Mayor Loomis stated that when the program began it was during the Town’s growing phase. He explained that the Citizen’s Planning Institute (CPI) was created to educate the public and eventually there was a need to train board and commission members. He stated his concern regarding the need for additional resources for specialized training.

Councilmember Spoerl stated that it was a successful program when she attended in the past. She noted that the program should not become too focused as it was important to keep it generalized for citizens that wanted to learn more about the Town. She stated that specialized courses would require a lot of staff time. She suggested combining some of the specialized courses such as Historic Preservation Commission and Art Review Committee and making that one course instead of two.

Councilmember Latas suggested that the citizens’ academy should be generalized for citizens to learn more about their local government and from there offer specialized courses. She suggested having speakers that have served on the various boards with first hand knowledge. 

It was noted that the length of time for Phase II would depend on each board. Mr. Popelka explained that the academy was meant for only those wanting to learn as well as those serving on boards or commissions.

Councilmember Kunisch supported combining some of the boards for training. He also stated his concern regarding the amount of staff time needed to conduct these courses.

Vice Mayor Garner stated that the citizens’ academy should keep a broad overview. He suggested:
~Developing a video of departments to advertise Phase II during the Phase I course.
~The video could be used as a snapshot of each department.
~Recording speakers and use the video when the speaker may not be available.

Councilmember Latas stated that:
~Specialized classes could start out with the basics about the a department.
  *The course could build from there with updates on the issues facing that department.
~It would be useful for continuing education credits for board and commission members. 

It was noted that:
~New laws and amendments specific to boards should be presented.
~Feedback on classes should be obtained.

Mr. Popelka stated that the Phase II classes should:
~Be structured so that classes do not compete against each other.
~Be more specific.
~Qualify for training for existing board and commission members.

It was noted that:
~The current education requirements for members was 16 hours per 2 year term.
~There were a multitude of programs available in Pima County that would satisfy the education requirement.

Mayor Loomis noted that consideration should be given to integrating with the police department’s academy. He stated that the training had proven valuable and significant resources were expended for that purpose.

Mayor Loomis stated that the proposed direction for CPI was positive and should be continued.

Click here for Item 3

Engineering Division Manager Jose Rodriguez introduced the item. Senior Civil Engineer Cheryl Huelle explained that local speed limits were established by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). She stated that when a speed study is conducted, the 85th percentile is examined and the speed limit was set within 5 miles an hour of the 85th percentile.

She reviewed additional factors that were taken into consideration when setting speed limits:
~Roadway geometrics
~Pace speed
~Pedestrian activity
~Reported accidents

Ms. Huelle conveyed the recommendations:
~Woodburne Avenue from Moore Road to Rancho Vistoso Boulevard
  *Increase the 25mph zone to 35mph
  *Post warning speed for 25mph by the park
~La Canada Drive from Lambert Lane to Moore Road
  *Increase from 40mph to 45mph
~Tangerine Road from La Cholla to First Avenue
  *The 85th percentile warranted 50mph however the recommendation was to maintain the posted speed of 45mph due to additional conditions
  *The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will be conducting a comprehensive study of Tangerine Road from Oracle Road to I-10 to set a consistent speed limit

Ms. Huelle informed Council that residents had requested to reduce the speed limit on Campo Bello traffic circle from 25mph to 15mph. She noted that there was heavy horse and pedestrian traffic and recommended approval for the reduction.

Vice Mayor Garner stated that there were concerns that speed limits around Town were  inadequate. He stated that his research proposed that speed limit studies should be conducted every three years. He noted that the standard for most jurisdictions was the 85th percentile. Police Chief Danny Sharp concurred and explained that the 85th percentile was based largely on the recommendations of engineers; however roads were being built better and people drive at a speed that is comfortable.

Mr. Rodriguez noted that part of Tangerine Road had a speed limit of 35mph due to the allowance for golf carts on the road. Chief Sharp added that golf carts were not allowed on roadways with speed limits of 40mph or greater.

Chief Sharp noted that per state statute, vehicles must slow down when nearing horses so as not to spook them. He stated that dust was also an issue on Campo Bello.

Vice Mayor Garner stated that road studies have shown that driving at lower speeds increased accidents by 60%. Chief Sharp added that driving 20mph or more over the speed limit was a misdemeanor.

Mayor Loomis stated that he wanted more feedback from the residents around Woodburne Avenue.

Councilmember Kunisch noted that 35mph is in effect on Woodburne Avenue when children are in school and is reduced to 15mph when children are present. He stated that the residents tend to drive 30-35mph on that street.

Ms. Huelle added that a speed limit program would be implemented. She noted that Public Works would continue to check the speeds and that the next areas on the list were Calle Concordia, Lambert Lane and First Avenue. She stated that the Town Engineer anticipated having all arterials and collectors checked for speed limits in the next five years.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Carter and seconded by Vice Mayor Garner to adjourn at 7:39 p.m.

MOTION carried, 7-0.