1 Tuesday, October 18, 2016 NOTICE of EXECUTIVE SESSION, WORK

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, WORK SESSION AND REGULAR SESSION OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COCONINO COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT

PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 38-431.02

10:00 AM – Executive Session with Work Session immediately following 6:00 PM – Regular Session First Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry

The Board may change the order of the agenda at the time of convening the meeting or at any time during the meeting. Members of the Board of Supervisors will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. Work sessions and regular meetings are open to the public. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation by contacting the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office at 928-679-7144. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

Notice of Option to Recess in Executive Session

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Board of Supervisors and to the general public that, at this meeting, the Board of Supervisors may vote to recess into Executive Session, which will not be open to the public, with the County’s attorneys for legal advice and discussion on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 (A) (3).

As a reminder, if you are carrying a cell phone, computer, two-way radio, or other sound device, we ask that you silence it at this time to minimize disruption of today’s meeting.

ence it at this time to minimize disruption of today’s meeting. 1 Executive Session:

1. Consideration, discussion, and legal advice relating to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Agreement with Goodwill. Pursuant to ARS 38- 431.03(A)(3) & (4) the Board may enter executive session to receive legal advice, and for discussion regarding a contract negotiation and potentially to give direction to legal counsel.” Career Center

2. Discussion and consultation for legal advice with attorney regarding settlement agreement on a tax matter involving Antelope Point Holdings. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3), the Board may vote to enter executive session. County Attorney

Work Session:

3. Presentation and discussion on the annual User Fee Study. Finance

Break

Work Session continues at 1:15 p.m.

4. Discussion and presentation of new models for TeenWorks, a Summer Youth Employment program in Coconino County. Career Center

5. Discussion and presentation of the CSA Legislative Summit Proposals. Government Relations

6. Presentation and discussion regarding the requirement for the County to adopt an Abatement Ordinance pursuant to ARS 11-268. Community Development

7. Presentation and discussion of the content of Chapters 1 & 2 of the Proposed County General Engineering Standards (GES). Public Works

8. Roundtable: To be discussed (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(H), these matters will not be acted upon) • Planning Calendar for 2016 • Future Agenda Items • State and Federal Legislation • County Supervisors Association (CSA) Update • National Association of Counties (NACo) Update • County Manager’s Report • Chair’s Report Reports from Supervisors - (Updates on new projects, district budgets, requests for services and initiatives, updates from County staff) o District 1 – Supervisor Art Babbott o District 2 – Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta

2 o District 3 – Supervisor Matt Ryan o District 4 – Supervisor Mandy Metzger o District 5 – Supervisor Lena Fowler:

Regular Session at 6:00 p.m.

Notice of Option to Recess in Executive Session

Call to the Public for items not on the Agenda

After the pledge of allegiance, the Chairman will call on members of the public to speak on any item or area of concern not listed on the agenda. Items presented during the Call to the Public portion of the Agenda cannot be acted on by the Board of Supervisors. Individual Supervisors may ask questions of the public, but are prohibited by the Open Meeting law from discussing or considering the item among themselves until the item is officially placed on the Agenda. Individuals are limited in their presentations.

Consent Agenda

All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the Board of Supervisors to be routine and will be enacted by a single motion. If discussion is desired on any particular consent item that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.

Speaking During a Public Hearing

After staff and applicant presentations for specific public hearing items, the Chairman will open the public hearing and ask for comments from the public. Those who fill out a speaker's form will be called on first. You do not need to fill out a speaker's form to speak.

As a reminder, if you are carrying a cell phone, computer, two-way radio, or other sound device, we ask that you silence it at this time to minimize disruption of today’s meeting.

ence it at this time to minimize disruption of today’s meeting.

3 Call to Order

Pledge of Allegiance

Call to the Public for Items not on the Agenda

Board of Supervisors Consent Agenda:

9. Approve the minutes from the Board of Supervisors' meetings held on September 9, 2016 and September 27, 2016. Board of Supervisors

10. Ratify and/or approve all warrants, electronic fund transfers, and other payments as listed on the agenda. An itemized list of the below-numbered claims is filed in the official records of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

Run Date Warrant Numbers Computer Register Totals 9/29/16 91702170-91702368 $1,961,932.30 9/29/16 EFT 5635-5759 $157,043.60 10/06/16 91702369-091702533 $892,762.66 10/06/16 EFT 5760-5801 $77,316.09

11. Approve Resolution 2016-55, directing the Coconino County Treasurer to correct the tax roll as noted on Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016 to refund taxes overpaid with interest pursuant to ARS 42-16254. Assessor

12. Approve Community Grant Funding from District 1 in the amount of $500.00 and District 4 in the amount of $250.00 for a total of $750 to Sunnyside Neighborhood Association to support the Sunnyside Market of Dreams Micro- Entrepreneur Program. Board of Supervisors

13. Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $1,500.00 to the Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance to assist with costs for movie license fees and production costs for the Movies on the Square providing free family friendly and safe environment all summer for the community. Board of Supervisors

14. Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $3,500.00 and from District 4 in the amount of $250.00 for a total of $3,750.00 to the Museum of Northern Arizona to help with services associated in presenting the 13th Annual Celebraciones de la Gente/Dia de los Muertos Festival bringing Hispanic/Latino culture, traditions and heritage to the community. Board of Supervisors

4 15. Approve a grant in the amount of $6,000.00 from the Dougherty Foundation to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $6,000 for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post-secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the 2016-2017 academic year. Community Service

16. Approve a grant in the amount of $2,137.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $2,137.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post- secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017. The grant is made up of $1387.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff and $750.00 from the Molly and Joseph Herman Foundation. Community Services

17. Approve a grant in the amount of $2,900.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $2,900.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) Micro Entrepreneur Business Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017. Community Services

18. Approve Independent Contractor Agreement No. 07012016-17, Amendment No. 1 between Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and Arizona Community Action Association (ACAA) to increase funding and the corresponding budget amendment in the amount of $10,000.00 for a total reimbursement ceiling for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 from $68,789 to $78,789.00. Community Services

19. Approve the First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement with Mormon Lake Lodge that defines the solid waste materials the Lodge will accept. Public Works

20. Approve the award of Bid 2017-01, "Ice Control Black Cinders" to Miller Mining Inc. for 7,500 tons of black cinders, in the amount of $118,160.00. Public Works

21. Approve Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services for the Mormon Lake Fire District, Pinewood Fire District, Summit Fire District, Pinewood Sanitary District, City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Unified School District #1, Page Unified School District #8, Sedona-Oak Creek Unified School District #9, and Coconino County Community College District for the November 8, 2016 General Election. Recorder

5 22. Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $20,000 and budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor’s Office for the period of August 2016 through June 2017, by amending the Resolution number previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2016. Superintendent of Schools

23. Approve Resolution 2016-61, ratifying the settlement agreement with Antelope Point Holdings, LLC. Treasurer

The Board will resolve as the Health District Board of Directors.

Public Health District Consent Agenda:

24. Approve ADHS IGA 17-13381, Amendment No. 1, previously approved as ADHS IGA 12-007885 Amendment 10 to provide Healthcare system preparedness services and activities for the Northern Regional Healthcare Coalition for the CCPHSD Emergency Preparedness Program for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017; ADHS has made a change to the IGA number. Health District

25. Approve ADHS IGA 16-099160, Amendment No. 3 between the Coconino County Public Health Services District (CCPHSD) and the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 in the amount of $752,038 to provide tobacco and chronic disease education and prevention services, injury prevention education, family planning, and complete public health accreditation activities. Health District

The Board will resolve as the Board of Supervisors.

Adjourn

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF NOTICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted at the Coconino County Administration Building, 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona, on this Date: ______at ______am / pm (circle one) in accordance with the statement filed by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors with the Clerk of the Board. Dated this ______day of ______, 2016. ______Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

6 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 7, 0216

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Carol Curtis, Career Center Director

SUBJECT: Consideration, discussion, and legal advice relating to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Agreement with Goodwill. Pursuant to ARS 38- 431.03(A)(3) & (4) the Board may enter executive session to receive legal advice, and for discussion regarding a contract negotiation and potentially to give direction to legal counsel.”

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion is not applicable as no action shall be taken during executive session.

BACKGROUND:

Background and information to be presented to the Board during executive session.

ALTERNATIVES:

Information regarding alternatives to be discussed during executive session.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Information to be presented to the Board during executive session.

ATTACHMENTS:

Supporting documents to be provided prior to executive session.

1. 10/18/2016 | Career Center | Executive Session - Workforce Investment 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 12, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Brian Y. Furuya, Deputy County Attorney

SUBJECT: Discussion and consultation for legal advice with attorney regarding settlement agreement on a tax matter involving Antelope Point Holdings, LLC. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3), the Board may vote to enter executive session. County Attorney

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion is not applicable as no action shall be taken during executive session.

BACKGROUND:

Discussion and consultation with attorney to consider the Board’s position, obtain legal advice, and give instructions to counsel regarding settlement agreement on a tax matter involving Antelope Point Holdings, LLC.

ALTERNATIVES:

Information regarding alternatives to be discussed during executive session.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Information to be presented to the Board during executive session.

ATTACHMENTS:

Supporting documents to be provided to the Board prior to executive session.

2. 10/18/2016 | County Attorney | Legal advice re settlement agreement 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: September 26, 2016

TO: Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Board

FROM: Megan Cunningham, Assistant Finance Director

SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion on the annual User Fee Study.

RECOMMENDATION:

Presentation and discussion on the results of the most recently conducted User Fee Study as prepared by MGT of America, Inc. and discuss any necessary changes to the department fee recommendations.

BACKGROUND:

Coconino County entered into a Contract for Services with MGT of America, Inc. for Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study services. The contract was constructed to conduct the user fee study for approximately one-half of all County Departments. Staff feels that conducting a user fee study for half of the departments one year and the remaining half the following year suits the needs of the County, allowing more individualized attention and a more thorough study. In addition to the routine study, departments and MGT were asked to identify any new potential fee areas for consideration. Given the difficult economic times local governments are facing, it is necessary to evaluate full cost recovery potential and new fees to offset the cost of providing services.

Staff is presenting the results of this study for those departments in which a User Fee Study was conducted. The following County departments were included in this study: Assessor, Community Development, Community Services, Public Health Services District, Parks and Recreation, Public Fiduciary, Recorder, and Treasurer. Fees were calculated based on the County’s fiscal year 2015 actual expenditures. MGT works to determine the full cost of each service. Each department then reflects on the actual cost and provides a recommended fee to charge.

A summary of recommended fee changes is provided for each department.

ALTERNATIVES:

The purpose of this agenda item is for staff to present the Board of Supervisors with the results and recommendations of the most recently conducted User Fee Study. At this time it is recommended that the Board ask questions, raise concerns, and make comments regarding the results of the study.

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 71 FISCAL IMPACT:

Implementing the results of the User Fee Study will generally result in positive revenue collections for Coconino County

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

 Summary of Fees for Website  Full Cost Hourly Rates  Cost of Services Study Findings (MGT of America, Inc.)

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 71 County of Coconino

Cost of Services Study Findings

October, 2016

8200 S Quebec, Suite A3, Centennial CO 80112 p: 720.255.6611 www.mgtamer.com

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 71

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

MGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the County of Coconino (County) with this summary of findings for the recently completed cost of services study.

The County routinely performs comprehensive cost of services studies with each department being reviewed every other year. Since the last study, the County has made some minor adjustments to the fee levels, but has largely maintained the fee levels that had been previously adopted. The County is interested in accurately reporting the true cost of providing various fee-related services, and exploring the possibilities of modifying current fees to better reflect the increasing cost of providing services over time. In January 2016, the County contracted with MGT to perform this cost analysis using actual 2015 fiscal year expenditures, staffing and operational information. Additionally, all information was provided through the period ending July 2015. Fees should be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted in accordance with established county policies on user fee cost recovery.

This report is the culmination of the past six months of work between MGT and county management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all management and staff who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to the success of this study.

Study Scope and Objectives

This study included a review of fee-for service activities within the following departments:

 Assessor  Community Development  Community Services  Health  Parks & Recreation  Public Fiduciary  Recorder  Treasurer

The study was performed under the general direction of the Budget Office with the participation of representatives from each department. The primary goals of the study were to:

 Define what it costs the County to provide various fee-related services.

 Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees, while incorporating the County’s cost recovery policies.

Page 1 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 71

 Identify service areas where the County might adjust fees based on the full cost of services and other economic or policy considerations.

 Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.

The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides Coconino County with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on general fund revenues.

The next section is a discussion about economic and policy considerations which may help facilitate the discussion on what cost recovery levels are appropriate for Coconino. To assist in that discussion, MGT offers the following comments relative to what we have seen in other agencies:

 Development-related fees (planning and building) generally should have high cost recovery levels (at or close to 100%). Exceptions may be made for services such as appeal fees, or those provided exclusively to residential applicants.

 Community services fees (Recreation or Community Health) generally have very moderate cost recovery levels. Many programs continue to be provided free of charge, regardless of cost.

 If the proposed fee increase is significant, many agencies will opt to phase in the increase over a period of three to five years.

 Comprehensive reviews should be undertaken every two years, with minor cost of living adjustments made on an annual basis.

Economic & Policy Considerations

Calculating the true cost of providing county services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is an important factor, other factors must also be given consideration. County decision-makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for services will have on the individuals purchasing those services, as well as the community as a whole. The following economic and policy issues help illustrate these considerations.

 It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford.

 A consideration of community-wide benefit versus individual benefit might be of concern for certain services.

 In conjunction with the second point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, code enforcement activities benefit the community as a whole, but the service is driven by the individual or business owner that violates county code.

Page 2 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 71

 Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain services; increasing the price of some services results in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa.

 Public agencies have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries, such as development-related services. However, other services, such as recreation programs, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices.

The following flow chart helps illustrate the economic and policy considerations listed above.

Page 3 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 71

Methodology

A cost of service study analyzes two components of costs: the direct costs associated with providing each fee-for-service activity, and the indirect costs that support these activities. A brief discussion of each of these components follows. (A complete, detailed report of calculations can be provided as an attachment to this report).

Direct Costs. The direct costs associated with fee-for-service activities were analyzed in great detail in this study. MGT worked with staff within each department to develop the analysis that is summarized in this report. The fiscal year 2015 expenditures were used to identify direct costs.

The first step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistics were also gathered in order to develop total annual workload information. Salary and benefit dollars were assigned to the time estimates to come up with the direct staff costs.

Indirect Costs. A proportionate share of other operating expenses and internal department administrative costs were layered onto the direct costs as a departmental overhead. Countywide overhead costs coming from the cost allocation plan were also added in as indirect overhead. These two items were components of the indirect costs: 1) departmental overhead and 2) countywide overhead. The cost of each activity is then compared to the fee currently charged, and the extent of the cost recovery is identified.

Cost Allocation Plan. Many of the costs that support all county programs and services are budgeted in centralized activities such as 1) Finance, which provides payroll, budgeting and, accounting support, 2) Facilities Management, which provides building maintenance and custodial services, and 3) County Manager, which provides public information and general government support services. The costs of these activities and other centralized services are considered indirect overhead that support fee-for-service activities, as well as other programs and functions within the County.

As part of this study, MGT developed an indirect cost allocation plan that identifies and distributes these indirect costs to all operating programs and functions within the County’s organizational structure. The cost allocation plan takes a detailed approach to analyzing indirect costs. MGT interviewed staff and analyzed data within each central activity to determine:

1. What indirect support functions are provided (e.g. payroll, legal services, building maintenance, etc.),

2. How to allocate centrally budgeted personnel and other operating expenses into these functions,

3. Which departments receive benefit from these services (e.g. payroll services benefit all departments that have budgeted staff, maintenance of the County Administration Building benefits all departments that are housed within the Administration Building), and

4. How to identify the best method of allocating these costs to the users (e.g. information technology services are allocated based on the number of users and applications in each department).

Page 4 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 71

The end result of this analysis is the allocation of all indirect costs to all operating departments and programs. The indirect costs are then added to the direct costs to determine the full cost of all county operations – whether fee-related or not. This accounting exercise is important in that it can result in an increase in general fund revenues for reimbursement of support for user fee services and state or federally funded programs.

Study Findings

The study's primary objective is to provide the County's decision-makers with basic data needed for setting fees. This report details the full cost of services, and presents proposed fees and projected revenues based on recommended user fee cost recovery levels. Recommendations were based upon careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, historical cost recovery levels, and market comparisons. The exhibit on the following page displays the costs and revenues of each department/division into the following categories:

Column A, Total Costs – Displays the total costs of each department.

Column B, User Fee Costs – Of the $20.5 million in total costs analyzed, $7.1 million (or 35%) of that total is related to user fee services. It is this $7.1 million that is the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee-related revenues for the County.

Column C, Current Revenues – Based on current individual fee levels, the County generates fee-related revenues of $3.9 million and is experiencing a 54% overall cost recovery level. Within each department, current cost recovery levels range from 3% for Social Services and Senior Services to 233% for Health – Birth Certificates.

Column D, General Fund Subsidy – Current fee levels recover 54% of full cost, leaving 46% or $3.2 million to be funded by other funding sources. This $3.2 million represents an opportunity for the County to increase fees and general fund revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services by the general fund. Note, many fee levels are set by statute and cannot be adjusted.

Column E, Recommend Recovery – It is estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would increase fee revenue to $4,050,254. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 57%.

Column F, Increased Revenue – $161,514 in potential new revenue could be generated. This would represent a 4.15% increase over the revenue currently being collected for these activities by the County on an annualized basis.

Page 5 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 71

County of Coconino User Fee Revenue Analysis Fiscal Year 2015 Current Recommended Total Costs, User Current General Fund Cost Recovery Increased Department/Division Costs (A) Fee Services (B) Revenue (C ) Subsidy (D) Policy (E) Revenue (F)

Assessor $2,211,596 $10,541 0% $21,781 207% ($11,240) $26,182 248% $4,401 Community Development Planning & Zoning, Bldg $3,918,803 $1,518,442 39% $770,878 51% $747,564 $789,502 52% $18,624 Engineering $1,454,928 $117,918 8% $67,106 57% $50,812 $84,685 72% $17,579 Community Services Senior Services $1,052,455 $861,530 82% $27,395 3% $834,135 $29,140 3% $1,745 Social Services $1,008,944 $148,049 15% $4,150 3% $143,899 $4,150 3% $0 Health Birth Certificates $49,694 $42,951 86% $100,020 233% ($57,069) $100,020 233% $0 Clinical Services $1,734,240 $237,237 14% $192,528 81% $44,709 $217,538 92% $25,010 Environmental Services $2,120,850 $1,386,070 65% $911,328 66% $474,742 $953,370 69% $42,042 Guardianship $66,546 $2,087 3% $1,848 89% $239 $1,848 89% $0 Medical Examiner $809,861 $460,636 57% $317,101 69% $143,535 $369,184 80% $52,083 Parks & Recreation $3,965,706 $1,101,504 28% $937,858 85% $163,646 $937,858 85% $0 Public Fiduciary $714,729 $705,567 99% $82,412 12% $623,155 $82,412 12% $0 Recorder $664,179 $443,814 67% $321,580 72% $122,234 $321,580 72% $0 Treasurer $701,206 $109,817 16% $132,755 121% ($22,938) $132,785 121% $30 Grand Total: $20,473,737 $7,146,165 35% $3,888,740 54% $3,257,425 $4,050,254 57% $161,514

Notes: 1) The revenues displayed for Assessor, Community Services, Recorder and Treasurer can vary greatly based on the customer's ability to pay and/or state statutes that define fee levels.

2) Please see footnote on Assessor's user fee summary schedule for discussion on fees that are set at more than cost. 3) The revenues included for the Meals programs within Senior Services reflects donations. Page 6 3. 10/18/20164) | FinanceEnvironmental |User Fee study Services includes Environmental Quality fees that are actually part of the Community Development Department.10/18/2016 Page 9 of 71

Department Summary Charts

The subsequent pages display department results and individual activity analysis. These summaries reflect costs and recommendations for individual services and programs and the various subtotals on these pages directly tie to the exhibit charts discussed earlier in this report.

Page 7 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 71

Assessor

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Assessor - 1001-12 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommen # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue d Subsidy

1 Maps - All per image 74 $5 87% $6 $425 $370 $55 100% $6 $425 $55 2 Copies of Records per page 188 $2 93% $2 $405 $376 $29 100% $2 $405 $29 3 Mobile Home Verification flat fee $10 99% $10 100% $10 4 Sale of Affidavit flat fee 16 $165 38% $431 $6,896 $2,640 $4,256 100% $431 $6,896 $4,256 5 Mobile Home Conversion delete $121 -- remove from fee schedule -- 6 Data Report: Small (non-commercial) flat fee 7 $93 96% $97 $679 $651 $28 100% $97 $679 $28 7 Data Report: Basic (non-commercial) flat fee $186 96% $194 100% $194 8 Data Report: Advanced (non-commercial) flat fee 2 $372 96% $388 $776 $744 $32 100% $388 $776 $32 9 Data Report: Small (commercial) flat fee 2 $1,000 1030% $97 $194 $2,000 -$1,806 1030% $1,000 $2,000 -$1,806 10 Data Report: Basic (commercial) flat fee $2,500 1288% $194 1288% $2,500 11 Data Report: Advanced (commercial) flat fee 3 $5,000 1288% $388 $1,165 $15,000 -$13,835 1288% $5,000 $15,000 -$13,835

Total User Fees $10,541 $21,781 -$11,240 $26,182 $4,401 -$15,641 % of Full Cost 207% -107% 248% 20% -148%

Total Other Services $2,201,054 $2,201,054 $2,201,054 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $2,211,596 $21,781 $2,189,815 $26,182 $4,401 $2,185,413 % of Full Cost 1% 99% 1% 20% 99%

Footnotes: Per A.R.S. 39-121.03 the fee or charge for a copy, printout or photograph of a public record to be used for commercial purposes may recover: 1) A portion of the cost to the public body for obtaining the original or copies of the document 2) A reasonable fee for the cost of time, materials, equipment and personnel in producing such reproduction. 3) The value of the reproduction on the commercial market as best determined by the public body. Data Reports (Svc #'s 9-11 )are provided for commercial purposes.

Page 8 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 71

Community Development Planning & Zoning

Building

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Community Development - Department 4 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Zone Change to G, AR, RR or RS Flat Fee 1 $480 38% $1,280 $1,280 $480 $800 45% $576 $576 $96 $704 2 Zone Change to RM, CN, CG, CH, MP, M-1, M-2 Flat Fee 3 $480 24% $2,020 $6,059 $1,440 $4,619 29% $576 $1,728 $288 $4,331 3 Zone Change to MHP, PRD, PC, PS, OS, RC, P, MR Flat Fee $600 15% $4,007 18% $720 4 Cond Use Permit - Nonprofit Organization Flat Fee 2 $480 35% $1,375 $2,751 $960 $1,791 42% $576 $1,152 $192 $1,599 5 Cond Use Permit - Single Fam Residential Flat Fee 10 $480 35% $1,375 $13,753 $4,800 $8,953 42% $576 $5,760 $960 $7,993 6 Cond Use Permit - Public Utility Flat Fee 5 $720 35% $2,044 $10,221 $3,600 $6,621 42% $864 $4,320 $720 $5,901 7 Cond Use Permit - Multiple Fam Res-RM Zone Flat Fee $720 35% $2,044 42% $864 8 Cond Use Permit - Commercial-G&AR Zones Flat Fee 13 $720 34% $2,113 $27,472 $9,360 $18,112 41% $864 $11,232 $1,872 $16,240 9 Cond Use Permit - Commercial - Comm Ind. Zone Flat Fee 14 $720 34% $2,098 $29,372 $10,080 $19,292 41% $864 $12,096 $2,016 $17,276 10 Cond Use Permit - Renewal of Existing CUP Flat Fee 13 $720 52% $1,375 $17,879 $9,360 $8,519 63% $864 $11,232 $1,872 $6,647 11 Cond Use Permit - Addition to Existing CUP Flat Fee 1 $720 52% $1,375 $1,375 $720 $655 63% $864 $864 $144 $511 12 Cond Use Permit - Cottage Industry Flat Fee 9 $480 35% $1,375 $12,378 $4,320 $8,058 42% $576 $5,184 $864 $7,194 13 Variance Flat Fee 12 $480 34% $1,433 $17,193 $5,760 $11,433 40% $576 $6,912 $1,152 $10,281 14 Plan or Ordinance Amendment Flat Fee 1 $480 31% $1,561 $1,561 $480 $1,081 37% $576 $576 $96 $985 15 Permit - Appeal Flat Fee 2 $360 17% $2,104 $4,208 $720 $3,488 21% $432 $864 $144 $3,344 16 Zoning Violation Appeal to Bd Flat Fee $360 13% $2,804 15% $432 17 Design Review Overlay Flat Fee 1 $480 32% $1,486 $1,486 $480 $1,006 39% $576 $576 $96 $910 18 Administrative Adjustment Flat Fee 22 $60 66% $91 $1,993 $1,320 $673 79% $72 $1,584 $264 $409 19 Adjust For Lot Size Reduction Flat Fee 10 $60 66% $91 $906 $600 $306 79% $72 $720 $120 $186 20 Temp Use Permit Flat Fee 23 $60 63% $96 $2,197 $1,380 $817 75% $72 $1,656 $276 $541 21 Temp Use Permit to P&Z Comm Flat Fee 3 $280 39% $719 $2,157 $840 $1,317 47% $336 $1,008 $168 $1,149 22 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Flat Fee $1,800 48% $3,731 58% $2,160 23 Final Plat Flat Fee $600 74% $805 89% $720 24 Amended Final Plat Flat Fee 1 $240 86% $279 $279 $240 $39 100% $279 $279 $39 25 Abandonment Flat Fee $600 16% $3,731 19% $720

Page 9 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

26 Continuance Flat Fee 3 $120 8% $1,502 $4,507 $360 $4,147 10% $144 $432 $72 $4,075 27 Land Division Permit - new lot Flat Fee 16 $360 77% $469 $7,499 $5,760 $1,739 92% $432 $6,912 $1,152 $587 28 Land Division Permit - no new parcel Flat Fee 10 $120 47% $258 $2,579 $1,200 $1,379 56% $144 $1,440 $240 $1,139 29 Sign Permit Flat Fee 10 $60 38% $157 $1,566 $600 $966 46% $72 $720 $120 $846 30 Lighting Permit Flat Fee 8 $60 20% $297 $2,375 $480 $1,895 24% $72 $576 $96 $1,799 31 Home Occupation Permit Flat Fee 8 $18 $140 $140 $140 32 Mobile Home Permit Statute 40 $230 35% $665 $26,580 $9,200 $17,380 42% $276 $11,040 $1,840 $15,540 33 Building Plan Review (All Combined) Avg Fee 1,378 $194 61% $320 $440,848 $267,522 $173,325 61% $194 $267,522 $173,325 34 Building Permit (All Combined) Avg Fee 1,378 $308 49% $631 $868,816 $424,176 $444,640 49% $308 $424,176 $444,640 35 Code Enforcement Non-fee 1 $214,070 $214,070 $214,070 $214,070 36 Advanced Planning Non-fee 1 $87,673 $87,673 $87,673 $87,673 37 Land Combinations Non-fee 14 $18 $245 $245 $245 38 Liquor License Zoning Review Non-fee 1 $66 $66 $66 $66 39 Admin Support to Environmental Quality X support 1 $32,761 $32,761 $32,761 --- CD costs added to Environmental Quality fees --- 40 Medical Marijuana Dispensary Permit Flat Fee 2 $200 82% $243 $485 $400 $85 99% $240 $480 $80 $5 41 Extension Request Flat Fee 8 $120 80% $150 $1,196 $960 $236 96% $144 $1,152 $192 $44 42 Short Term Vacation Rentals Flat Fee 14 $200 82% $243 $3,397 $2,800 $597 82% $200 $2,800 $597 43 Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Flat Fee 1 $480 12% $3,933 $3,933 $480 $3,453 100% $3,933 $3,933 $3,453 44 Building Permit Renewal Fee New Fee --- Recommended fee is 1/2 the original permit fee --- 45 Flood Control District Non-fee 1 $1,738,517 $1,738,517 $1,738,517 $1,738,517 46 AZPDES X support 1 $105 $105 $105 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 47 Septic Review X support 1 $140 $140 $140 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 48 Floodplain Use Permit X support 1 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 49 SWPPP Review (per page) X support 1 $70 $70 $70 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 50 Septic Review & Inspection X support 1 $140 $140 $140 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 51 Administrative Waiver of Engineering Standards X support 21 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 52 Technical Waiver of Engineering Standards X support 6 $560 $3,358 $3,358 --- CD costs added to Engr fees --- 53 Design Waiver of Engineering Standards X support 3 $560 $1,679 $1,679 --- CD costs added to Engr fees ---

Page 10 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Total User Fees $1,518,442 $770,878 $747,564 $789,502 $18,624 $728,940 % of Full Cost 51% 49% 52% 2% 48%

Total Other Services $2,400,361 $2,400,361 $2,362,108 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $3,918,803 $770,878 $3,147,926 $789,502 $18,624 $3,091,048 % of Full Cost 20% 80% 20% 2% 79%

Footnotes:

Department management recommend that fees be increased by 20% per year (with an eventual goal of 100% cost recovery); fees that are recovering close to 100% of cost are set at 100%. Note the following exceptions:

31 Home Occupation Permit No fee is currently charged for home occupation permits; no fee is recommended.

33 & 34 Building Plan Review & Permits The County adopts the building plan review and permit fee schedules outlined in the International Building Code (IBC), which is updated and published every 3 years. The County is currently using the most recently published schedule (2015), and will propose that the Board consider adopting the updated schedule when published in 2018.

44 Building Permit Renewal Fee Department management and staff recommend a building permit renewal fee be adopted; the fee would be 1/2 the original permit fee.

Page 11 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 71

Community Development Engineering

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

County of Coconino Engineering - Div 6030 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Plan Review (Initial per sheet) per sheet 56 $190 88% $215 $12,064 $10,640 $1,424 100% $215 $12,064 $1,424 2 Plan Review -Additional Review (2) per sheet 47 $100 74% $134 $6,318 $4,700 $1,618 89% $120 $5,640 $940 $678 3 Plan Review- Additional Review (3) per sheet 27 $100 74% $134 $3,629 $2,700 $929 89% $120 $3,240 $540 $389 4 Plan Review- Additional Review (4) delete $100 --- remove from fee schedule --- 5 Plan Review- Additional Review (5) delete $100 --- remove from fee schedule --- 6 Plan Review- Each Subsequent per sheet $100 74% $134 89% $120 7 Commercial Encr Processing Charge Flat fee 19 $300 61% $489 $9,285 $5,700 $3,585 74% $360 $6,840 $1,140 $2,445 8 Encroachment Utility Permit: 200 feet or less Flat fee 18 $300 73% $409 $7,355 $5,400 $1,955 88% $360 $6,480 $1,080 $875 9 Encroachment Utility Permit: 201-300 feet delete $300 --- remove from fee schedule --- 10 Encroachment Utility Permit: 301-500 feet delete $300 --- remove from fee schedule --- 11 Encroachment Utility Permit: 501-1,000 feet delete $300 --- remove from fee schedule --- 12 Encroachment Utility Permit: 1,001-2000 feet delete $300 --- remove from fee schedule --- 13 Encroachment Utility Permit: Over 2,000 feet delete $300 --- remove from fee schedule --- 14 Commercial Driveway Permit Flat fee 1 $250 69% $362 $362 $250 $112 83% $300 $300 $50 $62 15 Encroachment Special Events Non- Profit Flat fee 2 $400 17% $2,381 $4,763 $800 $3,963 20% $480 $960 $160 $3,803 16 Encroachment Special Events for Profit Flat fee $600 23% $2,560 28% $720 17 Grading - Commercial (includes 2 insp) Flat fee 8 $450 72% $622 $4,974 $3,600 $1,374 87% $540 $4,320 $720 $654 18 Grading - Residential Inspection Flat fee 3 $250 47% $534 $1,601 $750 $851 56% $300 $900 $150 $701 19 Grading Subdivision Processing Fee Flat fee 1 $150 74% $203 $203 $150 $53 88% $180 $180 $30 $23 20 Grading Residential Processing Fee Flat fee 2 $65 24% $267 $534 $130 $404 29% $78 $156 $26 $378 21 Grading Commercial Processing Fee Flat fee 9 $150 75% $199 $1,788 $1,350 $438 91% $180 $1,620 $270 $168 22 New Subdivision Insp Fee, per linear foot Per linear ft 11685 $2 78% $3 $29,911 $23,370 $6,541 94% $2 $28,044 $4,674 $1,867 23 Misc Engineering Inspection Fee Flat fee $75 36% $207 43% $90 24 Drainage Report- Simple - In-house Flat fee 2 $1,000 67% $1,492 $2,984 $2,000 $984 80% $1,200 $2,400 $400 $584 25 Drainage Report- Medium - In-house Flat fee 1 $1,500 88% $1,711 $1,711 $1,500 $211 100% $1,711 $1,711 $211

Page 12 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

26 Drainage Report- Complex - In-house Flat fee 1 $3,000 71% $4,228 $4,228 $3,000 $1,228 85% $3,600 $3,600 $600 $628 28 AZPDES Flat fee 1 $170 30% $564 $564 $170 $394 36% $204 $204 $34 $360 29 Septic Review Flat fee 1 $65 23% $279 $279 $65 $214 28% $78 $78 $13 $201 30 Oversize/Overweight Permit Flat fee 1 $257 67% $385 $385 $257 $128 80% $308 $308 $51 $76 31 Floodplain Use Permit Flat fee 1 $150 19% $791 $791 $150 $641 23% $180 $180 $30 $611 32 Special Events Oversight (hourly) Hourly 1 $54 64% $85 $85 $54 $31 76% $65 $65 $11 $20 33 SWPPP Review Flat fee 1 $200 75% $266 $266 $200 $66 90% $240 $240 $40 $26 34 Septic Review & Inspection Flat fee 1 $170 64% $267 $267 $170 $97 77% $204 $204 $34 $63 35 Zone Change to G, AR, RR or RS X-Suppt 1 $16 $16 $16 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 36 Temp Use Permit X-Suppt 23 $16 $378 $378 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 37 Preliminary Subdivision Plat X-Suppt $16 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 38 Final Plat X-Suppt $16 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 39 Amended Final Plat X-Suppt 1 $16 $16 $16 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 40 Abandonment X-Suppt $16 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 41 Continuance X-Suppt 3 $16 $49 $49 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 42 Sign Permit X-Suppt 10 $16 $164 $164 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 43 Lighting Permit X-Suppt 8 $16 $131 $131 --- Engineering costs added to CD fees --- 44 Administrative Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee 21 $259 $5,433 $5,433 39% $100 $2,100 $2,100 $3,333 45 Technical Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee 6 $1,015 $6,093 $6,093 25% $250 $1,500 $1,500 $4,593 46 Design Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee 3 $4,015 $12,045 $12,045 11% $450 $1,350 $1,350 $10,695

Page 13 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Total User Fees $117,918 $67,106 $50,812 $84,685 $17,579 $33,234 % of Full Cost 57% 43% 72% 26% 28%

Total Other Services $1,337,009 $1,337,009 $1,336,254 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $1,454,928 $67,106 $1,387,822 $84,685 $17,579 $1,369,487 % of Full Cost 5% 95% 6% 26% 94%

Footnotes:

Community Development management recommend that fees be increased by 20% per year (with an eventual goal of 100% cost recovery); fees that are recovering close to 100% of cost are set at 100%.

17 Grading - Commercial (includes 2 insp) Community Development management and staff recommend that the charging methodology be changed for these two fees; the proposed methodology is to charge 2.5% of estimated construction valuation with a $350 minimum. 22 New Subdivision Insp Fee, per linear foot

Page 14 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 71

Community Services Senior Services

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 21 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Senior Services - Div 2320 (excl 1001-34-2320) 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommen # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue d Subsidy Suggested 1 Meals on Wheels Donation 17,638 $0.50 3% $20 $352,275 $8,905 $343,370 3% $0.50 $8,905 $343,370 Suggested 2 Congregate Meals Donation 15,623 $0.85 5% $16 $249,716 $13,358 $236,359 5% $0.85 $13,358 $236,359

3 Respite Care Sliding Scale 69 $14.88 3% $584 $40,279 $1,026 $39,252 3% $19.93 $1,375 $349 $38,903

4 Non-Medical Home Care Sliding Scale 2,909 $1.41 2% $75 $219,259 $4,106 $215,153 3% $1.89 $5,502 $1,396 $213,757

5 Case Management Non-Fee 79 $2,417 $190,926 $190,926 $190,926

Total User Fees $861,530 $27,395 $834,135 $29,140 $1,745 $832,390 % of Full Cost 3% 97% 3% 6% 97%

Total Other Services $190,926 $190,926 $190,926 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $1,052,455 $27,395 $1,025,060 $29,140 $1,745 $1,023,315 % of Full Cost 3% 97% 3% 6% 97%

Footnotes:

1), 2) - The department requests a suggested donation of $4 for delivered senior meals. The current fees of $0.50 and $0.85 shown above represents the average fee collected, for a total of $22,262.58. The suggested donation amount i s recommended to remain unchanged. The department also receives grant funding to partially offset the cost of the senior meal program.

3), 4) - Home care fees are currently charged on an hourly rate basis, with the hourly rate adjusted based on monthly income a mount, and capped at $10 per hour. The current fees of $14.88 and $1.41 shown above represents the average fee collected, for a total of $5,132.39. The department recommends adjustments to this sliding scale, as follows:

100% FPL or less donation requested For reference, 2015 Federal P overty Levels (FPL) are defined as follows: 101% FPL to 125% FPL $5 per hour 100% up to $981 month 126% FPL to 150% FPL $10 per hour 125% $981- $1,226/month 151% FPL to 200% FPL $15 per hour 150% $1,225 - $1,475/month 201% FPL or greater $20 per hour 200% $1,475- $1,962/month

Please see attached survey of private pay agencies to see comparison of home care fees.

Page 15 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 22 of 71 Private Home Services Updated 8/16

In-home housekeeping, chores, respite and personal care

Accent Care (Flagstaff, Williams, Page, Sedona, Ash Fork and Yavapai County areas) $16 to $22/hr, 2 hour minimum. (928) 214-7249.

Arizona's Best Caregivers (Flagstaff and Verde Valley) $17/hr, 2 hour minimum. (928) 225-9780 Richard Combs

Comfort Keepers (Flagstaff & outlying areas, Williams, Sedona, Payson, Prescott) $19.25 hour, 3 hour minimum, 2 hour elevated rate. (928) 774-0888 Cindy

ResCare (all areas) $17.50 per hour for companion care; $19-$21/hr for personal care, 2 hour minimum. (928) 556-0195

Harmony Home Care (Verde Velley/Sedona) $20/hr, 6 hour minimum, 24-hr care and hospice available. (928) 282-1901

Meals/Personal Chef Lytle's Ladle (Flagstaff area) $25/hr. or per meal charge plus groceries; less cost for more meals. Michelle (928) 607-3856.

Please note we do not endorse vendors.

Page 16 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 23 of 71

Community Services Social Services

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Social Services (34-2330) 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Volume Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommen # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Billed Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue d Subsidy fee per 1 BBE Program - 12 Week Course participant 32 32 $125 4% $3,314 $106,041 $4,000 $102,041 4% $125 $4,000 $0 $102,041 fee per 2 Financial Literacy Workshop - 2 Hour Course organizatn 11 3 $50 1% $3,819 $42,008 $150 $41,858 1% $50 $150 $0 $41,858

3 Case Management non-fee 2264 0 $0 0% $380 $860,895 $0 $860,895 0% $0 $0 $0 $860,895

Total User Fees $148,049 $4,150 $143,899 $4,150 $0 $143,899 % of Full Cost 3% 97% 3% 0% 97%

Total Other Services $860,895 $0 $860,895 $0 $0 $860,895 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $1,008,944 $4,150 $1,004,794 $4,150 $0 $1,004,794 % of Full Cost 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Footnotes:

2 Financial Literacy Workshop - 2 Hour Course Of the 11 workshops held, 8 were for county departments and 3 for outside organizations. Per County policy, only the outside organizations were charged a fee for the workshop.

Page 17 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 71

Health Birth Certificates

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Birth and Death Certificates 1331-31-3221 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Birth Certificate with Change State 305 $30 116% $26 $7,874 $9,150 -$1,276 116% $30 $9,150 $0 -$1,276 2 Birth Certificate no Change State 4531 $20 259% $8 $34,924 $90,620 -$55,696 259% $20 $90,620 $0 -$55,696 3 Not Certified Copy for External Gov Agency State 10 $5 65% $8 $77 $50 $27 100% $5 $50 $0 $27 4 Court Ordered Release of Cert Copy Vital Re State 10 $20 260% $8 $77 $200 -$123 100% $20 $200 $0 -$123

Total User Fees $42,951 $100,020 -$57,069 $100,020 $0 -$57,069 % of Full Cost 233% -133% 233% 0% -133%

Total Other Services $6,743 $0 $6,743 $0 $0 $6,743 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $49,694 $100,020 -$50,326 $100,020 $0 -$50,326 % of Full Cost 201% -101% 201% 0% -101%

Page 18 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 71

Health Clinical Services

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Clinic Services - Div 3030 & 3070 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Reproductive Health Annual Exam Sliding Scale 98 $100 92% $109 $10,703 $9,800 $903 92% $100 $9,800 $0 $903 2 Reproductive Health Initial Exam Sliding Scale 395 $150 99% $151 $59,769 $59,250 $519 99% $150 $59,250 $0 $519 3 Reproductive Health medical/return visit Sliding Scale 232 $110 115% $96 $22,287 $25,520 -$3,233 115% $110 $25,520 $0 -$3,233 4 IUD insertion (A) Base + 6 $80 49% $162 $971 $480 $491 49% $80 $480 $0 $491 5 Pregnancy Testing Only Sliding Scale 94 $52 184% $28 $2,650 $4,888 -$2,238 184% $52 $4,888 $0 -$2,238 6 TB Skin Testing Sliding Scale 354 $24 91% $26 $9,359 $8,496 $863 154% $41 $14,514 $6,018 -$5,069 8 STD/HIV Testing and Counseling Sliding Scale 268 $80 97% $83 $22,171 $21,440 $731 100% $83 $22,171 $731 $0 9 Child Immunizations (B) Sliding Scale 174 $21 32% $65 $11,385 $3,654 $7,731 32% $21 $3,654 $0 $7,731 10 Flu Immunization Base + 1309 $25 55% $46 $59,785 $32,725 $27,060 66% $30 $39,270 $6,545 $20,515 11 Pneumonia Immunization (C ) 0 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Adult Immunization Sliding Scale 296 $46 60% $77 $22,743 $13,616 $9,127 100% $77 $22,743 $9,127 $0 13 Adult Immunization (travel) - initial Base + 137 $60 85% $70 $9,646 $8,220 $1,426 100% $70 $9,646 $1,426 $0 14 Adult Immunization (travel) - follow up Base + 35 $25 60% $42 $1,459 $875 $584 100% $37 $1,295 $420 $177.23 15 Venipuncture Sliding Scale 162 $22 88% $25 $4,039 $3,564 $475 100% $25 $4,039 $475 $0 16 IUD Removal Sliding Scale 2 $0 0% $43 $85 $0 $85 100% $43 $85 $85 $0 17 Subdural Implant Insertion Base + 1 $0 0% $105 $105 $0 $105 100% $105 $105 $105 $0 18 Subdural Implant Removal Sliding Scale 1 $0 0% $77 $77 $0 $77 100% $77 $77 $77 $0

Total User Fees $237,237 $192,528 $44,709 $217,538 $25,010 $19,798 % of Full Cost 81% 19% 92% 13% 8%

Total Other Services $1,497,003 $0 $1,497,003 $0 $0 $1,497,003 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $1,734,240 $192,528 $1,541,712 $217,538 $25,010 $1,516,801 % of Full Cost 11% 89% 13% 13% 87%

(A) Sliding scale plus actual cost of IUD (B) Sliding scale with Admin fee capped at $21 and immunization provided Base+ means cost of vaccine plus providing the service

Page 19 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 29 of 71

Health Environmental Services (including Environmental Quality fees)

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 30 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Environmental Services - Div 3040 FY2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Fee Description Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Conventional System Permit EQ Permit 60 $595 62% $963 $57,755 $35,700 $22,055 74% $714 $42,840 $7,140 $14,915 2 Alternate System Permit EQ Permit 48 $1,185 88% $1,353 $64,958 $56,880 $8,078 100% $1,353 $64,958 $8,078 $0 3 Alternate System (gravity flow) Permit EQ Permit 17 $665 90% $742 $12,613 $11,305 $1,308 100% $742 $12,613 $1,308 $0 4 Commercial Alternate System (gravity) EQ Permit 2 $960 84% $1,146 $2,291 $1,920 $371 100% $1,146 $2,291 $371 $0 5 Commercial Conventional Permit EQ Permit 3 $930 72% $1,296 $3,888 $2,790 $1,098 86% $1,116 $3,348 $558 $540 6 Commercial Alternate Permit EQ Permit 2 $1,990 90% $2,213 $4,426 $3,980 $446 100% $2,213 $4,426 $446 $0 7 Commercial Conventional Redesign EQ Permit 7 $420 77% $545 $3,818 $2,940 $878 92% $504 $3,528 $588 $290 8 Commercial Alternate Redesign EQ Permit 1 $620 81% $767 $767 $620 $147 97% $744 $744 $124 $23 9 4.23 Permit (in conjunction with another general pe EQ Permit 2 $3,140 94% $3,348 $6,696 $6,280 $416 100% $3,348 $6,696 $416 $0 10 Conventional Redesign Review EQ Permit 20 $335 61% $554 $11,073 $6,700 $4,373 73% $402 $8,040 $1,340 $3,033 11 Alternate Redesign Review EQ Permit 1 $715 70% $1,027 $1,027 $715 $312 84% $858 $858 $143 $169 12 Green Alternate System Permit EQ Permit 4 $420 52% $804 $3,215 $1,680 $1,535 63% $504 $2,016 $336 $1,199 13 Green Alternate Redesign Review EQ Permit 1 $300 54% $554 $554 $300 $254 65% $360 $360 $60 $194 14 Conventional System Repair Permit EQ Permit 3 $305 47% $644 $1,933 $915 $1,018 57% $366 $1,098 $183 $835 15 Alternate System Repair Permit EQ Permit 1 $480 54% $894 $894 $480 $414 64% $576 $576 $96 $318 16 Tank Only Permit EQ Permit 11 $300 56% $539 $5,931 $3,300 $2,631 67% $360 $3,960 $660 $1,971 17 Residential Room Addition/Remodel Review EQ Fee 21 $95 39% $242 $5,091 $1,995 $3,096 47% $114 $2,394 $399 $2,697 18 Commercial Room Additional/Remodel Review EQ Fee 3 $240 65% $369 $1,107 $720 $387 78% $288 $864 $144 $243 19 Well Site Inspection EQ Insp 13 $310 58% $536 $6,962 $4,030 $2,932 69% $372 $4,836 $806 $2,126 20 On-site Inspection EQ Insp 126 $455 51% $900 $113,444 $57,330 $56,114 61% $546 $68,796 $11,466 $44,648 21 Additional Inspection EQ Insp 1 $335 57% $590 $590 $335 $255 68% $402 $402 $67 $188 22 Waste Haulers EQ License 14 $260 52% $496 $6,938 $3,640 $3,298 63% $312 $4,368 $728 $2,570 23 Drinking Water Hauler (per truck) EQ License 28 $240 44% $544 $15,221 $6,720 $8,501 53% $288 $8,064 $1,344 $7,157 24 Permit Re-issue EQ Permit 7 $150 50% $302 $2,113 $1,050 $1,063 60% $180 $1,260 $210 $853 25 Septic File Search EQ Fee 526 $18 20% $92 $48,162 $9,468 $38,694 24% $22 $11,362 $1,894 $36,801 26 Transfer of Ownership EQ Statute 142 $50 33% $153 $21,739 $7,100 $14,639 39% $60 $8,520 $1,420 $13,219 27 Subdivision Review (ADEQ form 511) EQ Fee 1 $155 59% $265 $265 $155 $110 70% $186 $186 $31 $79 28 Consistency Review (ADEQ form 208) EQ Fee 1 $115 53% $217 $217 $115 $102 64% $138 $138 $23 $79 29 Perf Assurance Plan Rev for 3.23 appr sys EQ Fee 1 $140 59% $239 $239 $140 $99 70% $168 $168 $28 $71

Page 20 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 31 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

38 Public Nusiance Complaint EH No Fee 67 $0 0% $218 $14,624 $0 $14,624 0% $0 $0 $0 $14,624 39 Type 3 Food Svc Licenses EH License 503 $390 87% $447 $224,792 $196,170 $28,622 87% $390 $196,170 $0 $28,622 40 Type 2 Food Svc Licenses EH License 200 $280 87% $323 $64,506 $56,000 $8,506 87% $280 $56,000 $0 $8,506 41 Type 1 Food Svc Licenses EH License 123 $235 87% $270 $33,194 $28,905 $4,289 87% $235 $28,905 $0 $4,289 42 Co-located & Catering Svc License* EH License 203 $190 86% $220 $44,719 $38,570 $6,149 86% $190 $38,570 $0 $6,149 43 Additional Follow-up Inspections EH Insp 1 $175 85% $205 $205 $175 $30 85% $175 $175 $0 $30 44 Seasonal Food Svc Type 1 EH License 3 $130 85% $153 $458 $390 $68 85% $130 $390 $0 $68 45 Seasonal Food Svc Type 2 EH License 1 $140 88% $159 $159 $140 $19 88% $140 $140 $0 $19 46 Seasonal Food Svc Type 3 EH License 13 $170 87% $196 $2,551 $2,210 $341 87% $170 $2,210 $0 $341 47 Food Handler Certificate EH Cert 3,566 $20 83% $24 $85,895 $71,320 $14,575 83% $20 $71,320 $0 $14,575 48 Food Manager Certificate EH Cert 635 $55 90% $61 $38,956 $34,925 $4,031 90% $55 $34,925 $0 $4,031 49 Food Manager Recertification EH Cert 20 $30 83% $36 $726 $600 $126 83% $30 $600 $0 $126 50 Duplicate Cert-Food Handler or Manager EH Cert - New 1 $0 0% $24 $24 $0 $24 50% $12 $12 $12 $12 51 Online Certifcate Holder EH Cert - New 1 $0 0% $31 $31 $0 $31 39% $12 $12 $12 $19 52 Back Country River Guide Certificate EH Cert 243 $20 74% $27 $6,581 $4,860 $1,721 74% $20 $4,860 $0 $1,721 53 Body Art Certificate EH Cert 35 $35 81% $43 $1,518 $1,225 $293 81% $35 $1,225 $0 $293 54 Body Art License EH License 10 $260 87% $299 $2,993 $2,600 $393 87% $260 $2,600 $0 $393 55 Trailer Park EH License 75 $135 81% $166 $12,455 $10,125 $2,330 81% $135 $10,125 $0 $2,330 56 School Inspection >500 EH License 10 $200 79% $252 $2,521 $2,000 $521 79% $200 $2,000 $0 $521 57 School Inspection < 500 EH License 33 $125 77% $162 $5,345 $4,125 $1,220 77% $125 $4,125 $0 $1,220 58 Motel/Hotel License EH License 128 $160 81% $197 $25,171 $20,480 $4,691 81% $160 $20,480 $0 $4,691 59 Annual Pool & Spa (operates all year) EH License 119 $225 86% $261 $31,102 $26,775 $4,327 86% $225 $26,775 $0 $4,327 60 Seasonal Pool & Spa (operates seasonally) EH License 62 $155 85% $182 $11,271 $9,610 $1,661 85% $155 $9,610 $0 $1,661 61 Children's Camps Initial License EH Statute- New 1 $50 45% $110 $110 $50 $60 91% $100 $100 $50 $10 62 Children's Camps Renewal License EH Statute- New 1 $0 0% $110 $110 $0 $110 23% $25 $25 $25 $85 63 License Renewal Late Delete 0 $50 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 --- Remove from Envtal Health fee schedule --- 64 Remodel or Construct w/o Approval EH Penalty - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 65 Campground License EH License - New 8 $0 0% $166 $1,328 $0 $1,328 100% $166 $1,328 $1,328 $0 66 Campground Plan Review EH Pln Rev - New 1 $0 0% $208 $208 $0 $208 100% $208 $208 $208 $0

Page 21 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 32 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

67 Type 3 Food Svc Plan Review EH Pln Rev 20 $480 87% $549 $10,976 $9,600 $1,376 87% $480 $9,600 $0 $1,376 68 Type 2 Food Svc Plan Review EH Pln Rev 18 $430 87% $496 $8,927 $7,740 $1,187 87% $430 $7,740 $0 $1,187 69 Type 1 Food Svc Plan Review EH Pln Rev 11 $330 87% $381 $4,196 $3,630 $566 87% $330 $3,630 $0 $566 70 Food Svc Minor Remodel Plan Review EH Pln Rev 16 $265 79% $336 $5,379 $4,240 $1,139 79% $265 $4,240 $0 $1,139 71 Trailer Park Plan Review EH Pln Rev 1 $265 85% $312 $312 $265 $47 85% $265 $265 $0 $47 72 Motel/Hotel Plan Review EH Pln Rev 3 $350 87% $402 $1,206 $1,050 $156 87% $350 $1,050 $0 $156 73 School Plan Review EH Pln Rev 1 $340 86% $394 $394 $340 $54 86% $340 $340 $0 $54 74 Body Art Facility Plan Review EH Pln Rev 2 $310 87% $356 $713 $620 $93 87% $310 $620 $0 $93 75 Pre-opening Inspections (Ownership) EH Insp 9 $285 87% $327 $2,946 $2,565 $381 87% $285 $2,565 $0 $381 76 Minor Pre-Opening Insp EH Insp 36 $125 87% $144 $5,188 $4,500 $688 87% $125 $4,500 $0 $688 77 Temp Food Svc for Non-profit (1 event) EH Permit 4 $75 74% $102 $407 $300 $107 74% $75 $300 $0 $107 78 Temp Food Svc for Non-profit (> 1 event within 6 m EH Permit 1 $115 78% $148 $148 $115 $33 78% $115 $115 $0 $33 79 Temp Food Svc for Profit (1 event) EH Permit 9 $90 88% $102 $916 $810 $106 88% $90 $810 $0 $106 80 Temp Food Svc for Profit > 1 event within 6 mo) EH Permit 162 $140 88% $159 $25,698 $22,680 $3,018 88% $140 $22,680 $0 $3,018 81 Temp Food Svc For-profit samplers and NPH EH Permit 2 $80 77% $104 $209 $160 $49 77% $80 $160 $0 $49 82 Temp Event Group Permit (1 event) EH Permit 3 $90 88% $102 $305 $270 $35 88% $90 $270 $0 $35 83 Temp Event Group Permit (>1 within 6 mo) EH Permit 1 $150 86% $175 $175 $150 $25 86% $150 $150 $0 $25 84 Temp Body Art (7 consecutive days) EH Permit 1 $135 89% $151 $151 $135 $16 89% $135 $135 $0 $16 85 Temp Food Svc Applc Submitted <10 days b/ Even EH Penalty 62 $50 85% $59 $3,629 $3,100 $529 85% $50 $3,100 $0 $529 90 Dog License 1-year Altered AM License 3,400 $12 27% $44 $149,025 $40,800 $108,225 27% $12 $40,800 $0 $108,225 91 Dog License 2-year Altered AM License - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 46% $20 $0 $0 $0 92 Dog License 3-year Altered AM License - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 68% $30 $0 $0 $0 93 Dog License 1-year Unaltered AM License 1,995 $25 57% $44 $87,443 $49,875 $37,568 57% $25 $49,875 $0 $37,568 94 Dog License 2-year Unaltered AM License - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 91% $40 $0 $0 $0 95 Dog License 3-year Unaltered AM License - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 137% $60$0 $0 $0 96 Dog License Duplicate AM Fee 35 $12 26% $47 $1,644 $420 $1,224 26% $12 $420 $0 $1,224 97 Multiple Dogs (up to and including 20 dogs) AM License 24 $120 40% $302 $7,251 $2,880 $4,371 40% $120 $2,880 $0 $4,371 98 Multiple Dogs (up to and including 20 dogs all alter AM License 26 $90 30% $302 $7,855 $2,340 $5,515 30% $90 $2,340 $0 $5,515 99 Dog License Late Fee (up to 1 year deliquent) AM Statute 204 $2 5% $44 $8,942 $408 $8,534 5% $2 $408 $0 $8,534

Page 22 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 33 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

100 Dog License Late Fee (more than 1 year deliquent) AM Statute 25 $12 27% $44 $1,096 $300 $796 27% $12 $300 $0 $796 101 Dog License Late Fee (more than 2 year deliquent) AM Statute 6 $22 50% $44 $263 $132 $131 50% $22 $132 $0 $131 102 Penalty for Lapsed License 1-30 Days Penalty - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 103 Penalty for Lapsed License 31-60 Days Penalty - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 104 Penalty for Lapsed License 61+ Days Penalty - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 105 Rabies Payments ** AM Pass Thru - New 0 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 107 Kennel/Pet Shop Plan Review AM Review 1 $360 33% $1,107 $1,107 $360 $747 33% $360 $360 $0 $747 108 Kennel License AM License 6 $200 24% $835 $5,008 $1,200 $3,808 24% $200 $1,200 $0 $3,808 109 Pet Shop Permit/License AM License 5 $265 29% $924 $4,618 $1,325 $3,293 29% $265 $1,325 $0 $3,293 110 License Renewal Late Fee AM Penalty 1 $50 114% $44 $44 $50 -$6 114% $50 $50 $0 -$6 111 Shelter License AM License 0 $200 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 --- Remove from Envtal Health fee schedule --- 112 Preopening Inspection (kennel, shelter, pet store) AM Fee 1 $285 31% $932 $932 $285 $647 31% $285 $285 $0 $647 113 Additional Follow Up Inspections AM Fee 1 $175 27% $646 $646 $175 $471 27% $175 $175 $0 $471 114 Animal Impound Redemption 1st AM Penalty 87 $50 26% $195 $16,986 $4,350 $12,636 26% $50 $4,350 $0 $12,636 115 Animal Impound Redemption 2nd AM Penalty 26 $100 51% $195 $5,076 $2,600 $2,476 51% $100 $2,600 $0 $2,476 116 Animal Impound Redemption 3rd AM Penalty 3 $200 102% $195 $586 $600 -$14 102% $200 $600 $0 -$14 117 Animal Impound Redemption 4th AM Penalty 1 $400 205% $195 $195 $400 -$205 205% $400 $400 $0 -$205

Page 23 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 34 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Total User Fees $1,386,070 $911,328 $474,742 $953,370 $42,042 $432,700 % of Full Cost 66% 34% 69% 5% 31%

Total Other Services $734,780 $0 $734,780 $0 $0 $734,780 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $2,120,850 $911,328 $1,209,522 $953,370 $42,042 $1,167,480 % of Full Cost 43% 57% 45% 5% 55%

Footnotes:

Environmental Quality fees (#'s 1 - 29): Community Development management recommend that fees be increased by 20% per year (with an eventual goal of 100% cost recovery); fees that are recovering close to 100% of cost are set at 100%.

Penalties for lapsed licences (for Environmental Health or Animal Management establishments) are proposed for Board consideration/discussion.

*Co-located license: A co-located license can be used for additional licensed food service operations under the same ownership and within the same facility (i.e., a type 3 restaurant with a bar) or a type 3 with a catering license or * mobile food business with more than one vehicle.

** At cost incurred.

Page 24 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 35 of 71

Health Guardianship

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 36 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Guardianship 1331-31-3222 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Guardianship Investigations Paid Per Unit 4 $462 89% $522 $2,087 $1,848 $239 89% $462 $1,848 $0 $239 2 Guardianship Investigations Not Paid Non Fee 64 $0 100% $1,014 $64,877 $0 $64,877 0% $0 $0 $0 $64,877

Total User Fees $2,087 $1,848 $239 $1,848 $0 $239 % of Full Cost 89% 11% 89% 0% 11%

Total Other Services $64,459 $0 $64,459 $0 $0 $64,459 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $66,546 $1,848 $64,698 $1,848 $0 $64,698 % of Full Cost 3% 97% 3% 0% 97%

Page 25 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 37 of 71

Health Medical Examiner

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 38 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Medical Examiner - 1331-31-3080 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Death Certificate State 6116 $14 67% $21 $126,932 $85,624 $41,308 96% $20 $122,320 $36,696 $4,612 2 Autopsy Report Copy Fee 36 $9 100% $10 $352 $324 $28 100% $10 $352 $28 $0 3 Autopsy Report Copy No-charge Non-Fee 337 $0 0% $8 $2,718 $0 $2,718 0% $0 $0 $0 $2,718 4 Autopsy Standard Fee+ 43 $2,322 93% $2,495 $107,305 $99,846 $7,459 100% $2,495 $107,285 $7,439 $20 5 Autopsy Extended Fee+ 11 $3,597 93% $3,864 $42,506 $39,567 $2,939 100% $3,864 $42,504 $2,937 $2 6 Autopsy (Std & Ext) Statute Non-Fee 176 $0 0% $3,198 $562,912 $0 $562,912 0% $0 $0 $0 $562,912 7 Autopsy External Fee+ 1 $1,237 93% $1,328 $1,328 $1,237 $91 100% $1,328 $1,328 $91 $0 8 Autopsy External Statute Statute 63 $0 0% $1,328 $83,688 $0 $83,688 0% $0 $0 $0 $83,688 9 Cremation Authorization Fee 489 $26 80% $32 $15,846 $12,714 $3,132 80% $26 $12,714 $0 $3,132 10 Record Chart Review Fee 77 $808 93% $869 $66,933 $62,216 $4,717 100% $869 $66,933 $4,717 $0 11 Facility Use (per hour) Fee 1 $102 93% $109 $109 $102 $7 100% $109 $109 $7 $0 12 Toxicology Admin Fee 84 $183 99% $185 $15,533 $15,372 $161 100% $185 $15,533 $161 $0 13 Fetal Death Certificate State 1 $14 67% $21 $21 $14 $7 96% $20 $20 $6 $1 14 Amended/Correction Death Cert State 1 $30 145% $21 $21 $30 -$9 145% $30 $30$0 -$9 15 Amended/Correction Fetal Death Cert State 1 $30 145% $21 $21 $30 -$9 145% $30 $30 $0 -$9 16 Court Ordered Release Certified Copy Vital R State 1 $20 97% $21 $21 $20 $1 97% $20 $20 $0 $1 17 Not Certified Copy for External Gov Agency State 1 $5 25% $20 $20 $5 $15 25% $5 $5 $0 $15 18 Forensic Investigator Hourly Rate Hourly 0 $0 0% $47.18 $0 $0 $0 100% $47.18 $0 $0 $0 19 Administrative Manager Hourly Rate Hourly 0 $0 0% $64.03 $0 $0 $0 100% $64.03 $0 $0 $0 20 Medical Examiner Hourly Rate Hourly 0 $150 60% $251.04 $0 $0 $0 100% $251.04 $0 $0 $0

Page 26 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 39 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Total User Fees $460,636 $317,101 $143,535 $369,184 $52,083 $91,452 % of Full Cost 69% 31% 80% 16% 20%

Total Other Services $349,225 $0 $349,225 $0 $0 $349,225 % of Full Cost 0%

Department Totals $809,861 $317,101 $492,760 $369,184 $52,083 $440,677 % of Full Cost 39% 61% 46% 16% 54%

Footnotes:

All fees above, set at 100% of cost (excludes Cremation Authorization), are charged to out-of-county agencies.

Hourly Rates for Additional Activities: Fee+: Forensic Investigator I $47.18 Per person materials $13 Administrative Manager $64.03 Per Autopsy $266 Medical Examiner $251.04

All fee calculations include an adjustment for equipment replacement. The adjustment totals $19,962 and adds approximately 2.5% of additional costs.

Death Certificates include various types including Fetal. Amended, Corrected and Amended or Corrected Fetal

Page 27 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 40 of 71

Parks & Recreation

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 41 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

County of Coconino 26 Parks & Recreation 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Policy Annual Increased Recommended # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Flag X - Utility Billing Util Bill 1 $6,249 $6,249 $6,249 $6,249 2 NPX - Utility Billing Util Bill 1 $8,695 $8,695 $8,695 $8,695 3 Amphitheater - Utility Billing Util Bill 1 $19,358 $19,358 $19,358 $19,358 4 Admin General Dept Adm 1 5 Admin CPOS O&M Dept Adm 1 6 Admin Marketing Dept Adm 1 7 Admin Marketing CPOS Dept Adm 1 8 Admin Capital Equipment Cap Impr 1 $935,230 $935,230 $935,230 $935,230 9 Campground Prog & Svcs 1 $2,056 $2,056 $2,056 $2,056 10 Ramadas and Fields Prog & Svcs 1 $19,557 66% $29,656 $29,656 $19,557 $10,099 66% $19,557 $19,557 $10,099 14 Outdoor Recreation Prog & Svcs 1 $26,517 30% $87,740 $87,740 $26,517 $61,223 30% $26,517 $26,517 $61,223 15 Facility Users Prog & Svcs 1 $112,866 78% $145,322 $145,322 $112,866 $32,456 78% $112,866 $112,866 $32,456 16 Stables Prog & Svcs 1 $54,070 128% $42,362 $42,362 $54,070 -$11,708 128% $54,070 $54,070 -$11,708 17 Amphitheater Events Prog & Svcs 1 $46,054 92% $50,314 $50,314 $46,054 $4,260 92% $46,054 $46,054 $4,260 18 Fair Prog & Svcs 1 $528,300 74% $709,754 $709,754 $528,300 $181,454 74% $528,300 $528,300 $181,454 20 NPX Partnerships 1 $85,771 $85,771 -$85,771 $85,771 $85,771 -$85,771 21 FLAGX Partnerships 1 $64,723 $64,723 -$64,723 $64,723 $64,723 -$64,723 22 Bicycle Rental Concession 1 23 General Operations (Parks) O&M - Parks 1 $444,957 $444,957 $444,957 $444,957 24 General Operations (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $179,853 $179,853 $179,853 $179,853 25 Ft Tuthill O&M - Parks 1 $433 0% $110,120 $110,120 $433 $109,687 0% $433 $433 $109,687 26 Amphitheater (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $19,524 $19,524 $19,524 $19,524 27 Fairgrounds (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $40,682 $40,682 $40,682 $40,682

Page 28 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 42 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

28 LYCP (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $116,102 $116,102 $116,102 $116,102 29 Peaks View CP RAMADAS O&M - Parks 1 30 Peaks View (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $11,686 $11,686 $11,686 $11,686 31 Raymond (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $15,120 $15,120 $15,120 $15,120 32 Cost to Cure O&M - Parks 1 $7,148 $7,148 $7,148 $7,148 33 Frontiere O&M - Trails 1 $28,472 $28,472 $28,472 $28,472 34 Sawmill (CPOS) O&M - Parks 1 $8,165 $8,165 $8,165 $8,165 35 Operations & Maintenance - Trails O&M - Trails 1 $204 $204 $204 $204 36 Operations & Maintenance - Natural Area O&M - Nat Area 1 $39,956 $39,956 $39,956 $39,956 37 Fac Dev CPOS Admin Cap Impr 1 $9,942 3% $331,579 $331,579 $9,942 $321,637 3% $9,942 $9,942 $321,637 38 Heritage Fund Grant Cap Impr 1 $23,940 152% $15,795 $15,795 $23,940 -$8,145 152% $23,940 $23,940 -$8,145 39 Racing Racing 1 $14,257 1995% $714 $714 $14,257 -$13,543 1995% $14,257 $14,257 -$13,543 40 AZ Game & Fish Game & Fish 1 $2,281 $2,281 $2,281 $2,281 41 Coop Habitat Improvement - Rogers Lake Cap Impr 1 $5,721 $5,721 $5,721 $5,721 42 Rogers Lake Trail System Cap Impr 1 $35,149 $35,149 $35,149 $35,149 43 CIP, Grants & Special Poject Accounts Cap Impr 1 $6,337 1% $515,744 $515,744 $6,337 $509,407 1% $6,337 $6,337 $509,407

Total User Fees $1,101,504 $937,858 $163,646 $937,858 $163,646 % of Full Cost 85% 15% 85% 15%

Total Other Services $2,864,202 $54,909 $2,809,293 $54,909 $2,809,293 % of Full Cost 2%

Department Totals $3,965,706 $992,767 $2,972,939 $992,767 $2,972,939 % of Full Cost 25% 75% 25% 75%

Footnotes:

MGT and department management recommend no adjustments to fee-for-service programs (#'s 1 - 3, 9 - 18); an overall cost recovery rate of 85% is generally considered an excellent cost recovery level for Parks & Recreation programs.

Page 29 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 43 of 71

Public Fiduciary

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 44 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Public Fiduciary - 1001-34-2320 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Volume Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommen # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Billed Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue d Subsidy 1 Annual Accounting Flat 100 100 $200 12% $1,624 $162,384 $20,000 $142,384 12% $200 $20,000 $142,384 2 Final Accounting Flat 18 18 $350 12% $2,903 $52,258 $6,300 $45,958 12% $350 $6,300 $45,958 3 Decedent Estate-Personal Rep Fee Flat $300 5% $6,284 5% $300 4 Referral/Investigation/Setup Flat 34 13 $400 19% $2,119 $72,060 $5,200 $66,860 19% $400 $5,200 $66,860 7 Indigent Burials Flat 15 $750 52% $1,452 $21,774 $21,774 52% $750 $21,774 8 Sale of Real Property Flat 1 1 $200 18% $1,120 $1,120 $200 $920 18% $200 $200 $920 9 Hourly Assessment for Professional Services Hourly $52 91% $57 91% $52 10 Guardianship Fee - monthly fee Monthly 72 $50 $50 11 Guardianship and Representative Payee - monthly fee Monthly 492 $50 $50 12 Guardianship and Conservatorship Fee - monthly fee Monthly 960 1,014 $50 12% $412 $395,971 $50,712 $345,259 12% $50 $50,712 $345,259 13 Conservatorship Fee - monthly fee Monthly 96 $50 $50 14 Representative Payee - monthly fee Federal 36 $41 $41

Total User Fees $705,567 $82,412 $623,155 $82,412 $623,155 % of Full Cost 12% 88% 12% 88%

Total Other Services $9,162 $9,162 $9,162 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $714,729 $82,412 $632,317 $82,412 $632,317 % of Full Cost 12% 88% 12% 88%

Footnotes:

9) The fee calculations above are based on average hourly rates for the three positions listed below (calculated by weighting the individual hourly rate by classification by the number of FTE within each. A breakdown of the hourly rates by classification are as follows:

Current Rate Proposed Rate Certified Fiduciary ( E ) 49.57$ 56.00$ Public Fiduciary Accountant 46.21$ 49.55$ Public Fiduciary ( E ) 63.18$ 66.10$

14) The current fee for this service is $41 per month, or $78 per month in any case in which an individual is entitled to disability benefits AND has been determined to have an alcoholism or drug addiction condition. This fee is set by the Federal Social Security and Independence Program Act of 1994 and therefore may not be changed by the County.

Page 30 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 45 of 71

Recorder

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 46 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Recorder - 05-1910 2013 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommen # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue d Subsidy

1 Recording Fee - 1st 5 pages Statute 29,912 $10.00 115% $8.69 $259,958 $299,120 -$39,162 115% $10.00 $299,120 -$39,162 2 Recording > 5 pages, each additional page Statute $1.00 12% $8.69 12%$1.00 3 Affidavit of Value Statute 4,713 $2.00 6% $36.19 $170,561 $9,426 $161,135 6% $2.00 $9,426 $161,135 4 Mult Transactions - Add'l Releases Statute $3.00 58% $5.21 58% $3.00 5 Mult Transactions - > 1 Title on a Doc Statute $3.00 58% $5.21 58% $3.00 6 Mult Transactions - Disclosure of Beneficiaries Statute $3.00 58% $5.21 58% $3.00 7 Financing Statement Statute 10 $10.00 115% $8.69 $87 $100 -$13 115% $10.00 $100 -$13 8 Fin Statement - Secured Real Property Statute 74 $13.00 150% $8.69 $643 $962 -$319 150% $13.00 $962 -$319 9 Fin Statement - Assignment Only Statute 7 $10.00 115% $8.69 $61 $70 -$9 115% $10.00 $70 -$9 10 Fin Statement - Assignment & Real Property Statute 10 $13.00 150% $8.69 $87 $130 -$43 150% $13.00 $130 -$43 11 Fin Statement - Continuation, Assign or Amend Statute 36 $10.00 115% $8.69 $313 $360 -$47 115% $10.00 $360 -$47 12 Fin Statement - With Secured Real Property Statute $8.69 13 Fin Statement - Satisfaction, Termination or Release Statute 32 $10.00 115% $8.69 $278 $320 -$42 115% $10.00 $320 -$42 14 Lien Searches Statute $10.00 288% $3.48 288% $10.00 15 Lien Searches - per finding Statute $1.00 29% $3.48 29% $1.00 16 Lien Searches - each copy Statute $1.00 29% $3.48 29% $1.00 17 Affidavit of Labor of Work Performed Statute 15 $15.00 173% $8.69 $130 $225 -$95 173% $15.00 $225 -$95 18 Location of Mining Claim & Notice of Intention to Hold Statute 10 $10.00 115% $8.69 $87 $100 -$13 115% $10.00 $100 -$13 19 Government Agencies - 1st 5 pages Statute $8.00 92% $8.69 92% $8.00 20 Government Agencies - > 5 pages, ea add'l page Statute $0.50 6% $8.69 6% $0.50 21 Maps and Plats Statute 207 $24.00 276% $8.69 $1,799 $4,968 -$3,169 276% $24.00 $4,968 -$3,169 22 Maps and Plats - ea add'l map page Statute 50 $20.00 230% $8.69 $435 $1,000 -$565 230% $20.00 $1,000 -$565 23 Maps and Plats - Govt Agencies Statute $14.00 161% $8.69 161% $14.00 24 Maps and Plats - Govt Agencies - ea add'l map page Statute $10.00 115% $8.69 115% $10.00 25 Copies of Recordings Statute 1,787 $1.00 29% $3.48 $6,212 $1,787 $4,425 29% $1.00 $1,787 $4,425

Page 31 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 47 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

26 Copies of Recordings for Govt Agencies Statute 10 $0.50 14% $3.48 $35 $5 $30 14% $0.50 $5 $30 27 Certification of Document Statute $3.00 86% $3.48 86% $3.00 28 Certification of Document - Govt Agencies Statute $1.50 43% $3.48 43%$1.50 29 Copies of Maps per copy 50 $5.00 96% $5.21 $261 $250 $11 96% $5.00 $250 $11 30 Mylar Copies of Maps per copy $5.00 96% $5.21 96% $5.00 31 CD Images per image 137,847 $0.02 96% $0.02 $2,868 $2,757 $111 96% $0.02 $ 2,757 $111

Total User Fees $443,814 $321,580 $122,234 $321,580 $122,234 % of Full Cost 72% 28% 72% 28%

Total Other Services $220,365 $220,365 $220,365 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $664,179 $321,580 $342,599 $321,580 $342,599 % of Full Cost 48% 52% 48% 52%

Footnotes:

1 Recording Fee - 1st 5 pages Of the $10 fee collected, $1 is collected for postage, leaving the remaining $9 charged for the document recordation.

17 Affidavit of Labor of Work Performed $5 of the $15 fee is passed through to the State; $10 of this fee is kept by the County.

Page 32 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 48 of 71

Treasurer

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 49 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Coconino County Treasurer - Dept 13 2015 Current Recommendations Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Fee Annual Current Annual Annual Recovery Fee @ Annual Increased Recommend # Service Name Current Fee Full Cost Annual Cost Description Volume Recovery % Revenue Subsidy Level Policy Level Revenue Revenue Subsidy

1 Over the Counter Tax Lien List Flat Fee $30 154% $20 154% $30 2 Internet Auction Sales Fee Flat Fee 756 $10 61% $17 $12,482 $7,560 $4,922 61% $10 $7,560 $4,922 3 Internet Tax Lien Auction List Flat Fee $50 32% $156 32% $50 4 Endorsement (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18121 Statute 1,372 $25 208% $12 $16,504 $34,300 -$17,796 208% $25 $34,300 -$17,796 5 Lien Transfer (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18122 Statute 7 $10 154% $7 $46 $70 -$24 154% $10 $70 -$24 6 Redemption (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18154 Statute 1,814 $25 104% $24 $43,641 $45,350 -$1,709 104% $25 $45,350 -$1,709 7 Duplicate C.O.P (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18120 Statute $15 249% $6 249% $15 8 Certificate of Purchase (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18118 Statute 768 $25 104% $24 $18,477 $19,200 -$723 104% $25 $19,200 -$723 9 County Treasurer's Deed (per parcel) A.R.S. 42-18205 Statute 18 $50 192% $26 $469 $900 -$431 192% $50 $900 -$431 10 Taxpayer Information Fund (per tax lien) A.R.S. 42-18116 Statute - Fixed 768 $10 77% $13 $9,999 $7,680 $2,319 77% $10 $7,680 $2,319 11 Assignment From State (per assigned item) A.R.S. 42-18122 Statute - Fixed 3 $10 83% $12 $36 $30 $6 83% $10 $30 $6 12 Treasurer's Deed (per parcel) A.R.S. 42-18262 Statute $50 256% $20 256% $50 13 Bidder Portfolio - Individual Flat Fee 1 $25 36% $70 $70 $25 $45 36% $25 $25 $45 14 Foreclosure Packet (hard copy only) delete $6 -- remove from fee schedule -- 15 Fax Flat Fee $5 26% $19 26% $5 16 Copies Flat Fee $5 52% $10 52% $5 17 Tax Notice - for other than owner Flat Fee $5 67% $7 67% $5 18 Research Fee - 1/2 hour minimum Per Hour 1 $50 62% $81 $81 $50 $31 99% $80 $80 $30 $1 19 Downwind Copies A.R.S. 39-122 Statute 30 $17 $497 $497 $497 20 Tax Master File Comm Value 44 $300 856% $35 $1,543 $13,200 -$11,657 856% $300 $13,200 -$11,657 21 Returned Check Fee Per Check 175 $25 73% $34 $5,962 $4,375 $1,587 73% $25 $4,375 $1,587 22 Postage & Handling, if applicable Per Doc 1 $15 120% $12 $12 $15 -$3 120% $15 $15 -$3 23 Penalty Fee - Delinquent Taxes A.R.S. 42-18107 Statute $5 26% $20 26%$5 24 Account Balance Extract Comm Value $74 405% $300 25 CP Buyers Name & Address List Comm Value $39 384% $150 26 Bidder Portfolio - For All Investors Comm Value $39 768% $300

Page 33 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 50 of 71 User Fee Study Summary Sheet

Note: All public records requests are subject to ARS 39-121.03

Total User Fees $109,817 $132,755 -$22,938 $132,785 $30 -$22,968 % of Full Cost 121% -21% 121% 0% -21%

Total Other Services $591,388 $591,388 $591,388 % of Full Cost

Department Totals $701,206 $132,755 $568,451 $132,785 $30 $568,421 % of Full Cost 19% 81% 19% 0% 81%

Footnotes: Per the County Attorney's opinion (dated 07-19-2001): "Of the statutory fees listed above, the Treasurer may charge no more than the stated amount of $10 per tax lien under A.R.S. 42-18116 (Svc #10) and no more than the stated amount of $10 for an assignment of a certificate of purchase under A.R.S. 42-18122 (Svc #11). In all other cases, the Board may adopt additional charges under A.R.S. 11-251.08 . The limitation that the fee or charge shall not exceed the actual cost of the product or service will apply in those cases."

Per A.R.S. 39-121.03 the fee or charge for a copy, printout or photograph of a public record to be used for commercial purposes may recover: 1) A portion of the cost to the public body for obtaining the original or copies of the document 2) A reasonable fee for the cost of time, materials, equipment and personnel in producing such reproduction. 3) The value of the reproduction on the commercial market as best determined by the public body.

Copies of the Tax Master File (Svc #20) are provided for commercial purposes. Three new fee proposals have been added to this list (#'s 24-26). These services are for providing data that may be used for commercial purposes and as such fall under A.R.S. 39-121.03 and are recommended at greater than actual cost.

Page 34 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 51 of 71 Coconino County Arizona User Fee Study

Eric Parish MGT of America Consulting LLC

Bonny Lynn & Megan Cunningham Coconino County

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 52 of 711 Presentation Objective

Overview of the user fee study project including scope and components.

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 53 of 712 MGT Introduction

 Consulting firm focused on public sector

 Financial Services Division • Cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate and user fee studies • Over 50 user fee studies in the past 5 years

 Project Team • Eric Parish and Erin Payton

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 54 of 713 What is a User Fee

A user fee service is one in which the applicant (personal, business, organization) receives a benefit that does not accrue to non- applicants.

The underlying philosophy is that someone who receives a special service from which he/she will benefit (especially monetarily) should pay all, or a portion of, the full cost of that service unless otherwise decided.

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 55 of 714 What is a User Fee Study

 An accounting analysis

 Identifies the full costs of providing user fee services

 Establishes revenue recovery and cost subsidy policies and decisions

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 56 of 715 Common Reasons for a User Fee Study

 Understand the true cost of providing fee- for-service activities  Ensure compliance governing user fee cost recovery  In response to a legal challenge  Recover general fund revenues  Better management/allocation of resources  Fiscal responsibility

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 57 of 716 User Fee Study Components

1. Inventory current and potential user fees for select departments 2. Calculate full costs of services A. Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs C. Cross departmental support 3. Consider cost recovery/subsidy policies and decisions

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 58 of 717 User Fee Study Components

4. Recommend user fee charges 5. Calculate projected changes in revenue and subsidies 6. Adopt user fee schedule

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 59 of 718 User Fee Study Departments 1. Assessor 2. Community Development 3. Community Services 4. Public Health Services District 5. Parks and Recreation 6. Public Fiduciary 7. Recorder 8. Treasurer

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 60 of 719 Next Steps  Fees will be posted on the County website for 60 days

 A public hearing will be posted and held after the 60 days

 The Board of Supervisors will adopt fees that will be effective February 1, 2016

3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 61 of 1071 Cost CURRENT RECOMMENDED Recovery DEPARTMENT SERVICE NAME FEE DESCRIPTION FEE FEE Level Assessor Maps - All Per Image $ 5 $ 6 100% Assessor Copies of Records Per Page $ 2 $ 2 100% Assessor Mobile Home Verification Flat Fee $ 10 $ 10 100% Assessor Sale of Affidavit Flat Fee $ 165 $ 431 100% Assessor Mobile Home Conversion Delete $ 121 DELETE Assessor Data Report: Small (non-commercial) Flat Fee $ 93 $ 97 100% Assessor Data Report: Basic (non-commercial) Flat Fee $ 186 $ 194 100% Assessor Data Report: Advanced (non-commercial) Flat Fee $ 372 $ 388 100% Assessor Data Report: Small (commercial) Flat Fee $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1030% Assessor Data Report: Basic (commercial) Flat Fee $ 2,500 $ 2,500 1288% Assessor Data Report: Advanced (commercial) Flat Fee $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1288%

PLANNING & ZONING BUILDING Community Development Zone Change to G, SR, RR or RS Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 45% Community Development Zone Change to RM, CN, CG, CH, MP, M-1, M-2 Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 29% Community Development Zone Change to MHP, PRD, PC, PS, OS, RC, P, MR Flat Fee $ 600 $ 720 18% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Nonprofit Organization Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 42% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Single Fam Residential Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 42% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Public Utility Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 42% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Multiple Fam Res-RM Zone Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 42% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Commercial - G & AR Zones Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 41% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Commercial - Comm Ind. Zone Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 41% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Renewal to Existing CUP Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 63% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Addition to Existing CUP Flat Fee $ 720 $ 864 63% Community Development Cond Use Permit - Cottage Industry Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 42% Community Development Variance Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 40% Community Development Plan or Ordinance Amendment Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 37% Community Development Permit - Appeal Flat Fee $ 360 $ 432 21% Community Development Zoning Violation Appeal to Bd Flat Fee $ 360 $ 432 15% Community Development Design Review Overlay Flat Fee $ 480 $ 576 39% Community Development Administrative Adjustment Flat Fee $ 60 $ 72 79%

Page 1 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 62 of 71 Community Development Adjust For Lot Size Reduction Flat Fee $ 60 $ 72 79% Community Development Temp Use Permit Flat Fee $ 60 $ 72 75% Community Development Temp Use Permit P&Z Comm Flat Fee $ 280 $ 336 47% Community Development Preliminary Subdivision Plat Flat Fee $ 1,800 $ 2,160 58% Community Development Final Plat Flat Fee $ 600 $ 720 89% Community Development Amended Final Plat Flat Fee $ 240 $ 279 100% Community Development Abandonment Flat Fee $ 600 $ 720 19% Community Development Continuance Flat Fee $ 120 $ 144 10% Community Development Land Division Permit - new lot Flat Fee $ 360 $ 432 92% Community Development Land Division Permit - no new parcel Flat Fee $ 120 $ 144 56% Community Development Sign Permit Flat Fee $ 60 $ 72 46% Community Development Lighting Permit Flat Fee $ 60 $ 72 24% Community Development Home Occupation Permit Flat Fee $ - $ - 0% Community Development Mobile Home Permit Statute $ 230 $ 276 42% Community Development Building Plan Review (All Combined) Avg Fee $ 194 $ 194 61% Community Development Building Permit (All Combined) Avg Fee $ 308 $ 308 49% Community Development Code Enforcement Non-fee Community Development Advanced Planning Non-fee Community Development Land Combinations Non-fee Community Development Liquor License Zoning Review Non-fee Community Development Admin Support to Environmental Quality X Support Community Development Medical Marijuana Dispensary Permit Flat Fee $ 200 $ 240 99% Community Development Extension Request Flat Fee $ 120 $ 144 96% Community Development Short Term Vacation Rentals Flat Fee $ 200 $ 200 82% Community Development Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Flat Fee $ 480 $ 3,933 100% Community Development Building Permit Renewal Fee New Fee $ - 1/2 original fee

ENGINEERING Community Development Plan Review (Initial per sheet) Per Sheet $ 190 $ 215 100% Community Development Plan Review - Additional Review (2) Per Sheet $ 100 $ 120 89% Community Development Plan Review - Additional Review (3) Per Sheet $ 100 $ 120 89% Community Development Plan Review - Additional Review (4) Delete $ 100 DELETE Community Development Plan Review - Additional Review (5) Delete $ 100 DELETE Community Development Plan Review - Each Subsequent Per Sheet $ 100 $ 120 89%

Page 2 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 63 of 71 Community Development Commerical Encr Processing Charge Flat Fee $ 300 $ 360 74% Community Development Encroachment Utility Permits Flat Fee $ 300 $ 360 88% Community Development Commercial driveway Permit Flat Fee $ 250 $ 300 83% Community Development Encroachment Special Events Non-Profit Flat Fee $ 400 $ 480 20% Community Development Encroachment Special Events for Profit Flat Fee $ 600 $ 720 28% Community Development Grading - Commercial (includes 2 inspections) Flat Fee $ 450 $ 540 87% Community Development Grading - Residential Inspection Flat Fee $ 250 $ 300 56% Community Development Grading Subdivision Processing Fee Flat Fee $ 150 $ 180 88% Community Development Grading Residential Processing Fee Flat Fee $ 65 $ 78 29% Community Development Grading Commerical Processing Fee Flat Fee $ 150 $ 180 91% Community Development New Subdivision Insp. Fee per linear foot Per Linear Ft. $ 2 $ 2 94% Community Development Misc Engineering Inspection Fee Flat Fee $ 75 $ 90 43% Community Development Drainage Report - Simple In-house Flat Fee $ 1,000 $ 1,200 80% Community Development Drainage Report - Medium In-house Flat Fee $ 1,500 $ 1,711 100% Community Development Drainage Report - Complex In-house Flat Fee $ 3,000 $ 3,600 85% Community Development AZPDES Fal $ 170 $ 204 36% Community Development Septic Review Flat Fee $ 65 $ 78 28% Community Development Oversize/Overweight Permit Flat Fee $ 257 $ 308 80% Community Development Floodplain Use Permit Flat Fee $ 150 $ 180 23% Community Development Special Events Oversight (hourly) Hourly $ 54 $ 65 76% Community Development SWPPP Review Flat Fee $ 200 $ 240 90% Community Development Septic Review & Inspection Flat Fee $ 170 $ 204 77% Community Development Administrative Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee NEW $ 100 39% Community Development Technical Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee NEW $ 250 25% Community Development Design Waiver of Engineering Standards New Fee NEW $ 450 11%

SENIOR SERVICES Community Services Meal on Wheels Donation $ 0.50 $ 0.50 3% Community Services Congregate Meals Donation $ 0.85 $ 0.85 5% Community Services Respite Care Sliding Scale $ 14.88 $ 19.93 3% Community Services Non-Medical Home Care Sliding Scale $ 1.41 $ 1.89 3% Community Services Case Management Non-Fee

Page 3 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 64 of 71 SOCIAL SERVICES Community Services BBE Program - 12 Week Course Per participant $ 125 $ 125 4% Community Services Financial Literacy Workshop - 2 Hour Course Per Organization $ 50 $ 50 1% Community Services Case Management Non-Fee

BIRTH CERTIFICATES Public Health Services District Birth Certificate with Change State $ 30 $ 30 116% Public Health Services District Birth Certificate with no Change State $ 20 $ 20 259% Public Health Services District Not Certified Copy for External Gov Agency State $ 5 $ 5 100% Public Health Services District Court Ordered Release of Cert Copy Vital Records State $ 20 $ 20 100%

CLINICAL SERVICES Public Health Services District Reproductive Health Annual Exam Sliding Scale $ 100 $ 100 92% Public Health Services District Reproductive Health Initial Exam Sliding Scale $ 150 $ 150 99% Public Health Services District Reproductive Health medical/return visit Sliding Scale $ 110 $ 110 115% Public Health Services District IUD inseration (A) Base + $ 80 $ 80 49% Public Health Services District Pregnancy Testing Only Sliding Scale $ 52 $ 52 184% Public Health Services District TB Skin Testing Sliding Scale $ 24 $ 41 154% Public Health Services District STD/HIV Testing and Counseling Sliding Scale $ 80 $ 83 100% Public Health Services District Child Immunizations (B) Sliding Scale $ 21 $ 21 32% Public Health Services District Flu Immunization Sliding Scale $ 25 $ 30 66% Public Health Services District Pneumonia Immunizations © Sliding Scale Public Health Services District Adult Immunization Sliding Scale $ 46 $ 77 100% Public Health Services District Adult Immunization (travel) initial Base + $ 60 $ 70 100% Public Health Services District Adult Immunization (travel) follow up Base + $ 25 $ 37 100% Public Health Services District Venipuncture Sliding Scale $ 22 $ 25 100% Public Health Services District IUD Removal Base + $ - $ 43 100% Public Health Services District Subdural Implant Insertion Base + $ - $ 105 100% Public Health Services District Subdural Implant Removal Base + $ - $ 77 100%

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (including Environmental Quality fees) Public Health Services District Conventional System Permit EQ Permit $ 595 $ 714 74% Public Health Services District Alternate System Permit EQ Permit $ 1,185 $ 1,353 100% Public Health Services District Alternate System (gravity flow) Permit EQ Permit $ 665 $ 742 100%

Page 4 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 65 of 71 Public Health Services District Commerical Alternate System (gravity) EQ Permit $ 960 $ 1,146 100% Public Health Services District Commercial Conventional Permit EQ Permit $ 930 $ 1,116 86% Public Health Services District Commerical Alternate Permit EQ Permit $ 1,990 $ 2,213 100% Public Health Services District Commercial Conventional Redesign EQ Permit $ 420 $ 504 92% Public Health Services District Commercial Alternate Redesign EQ Permit $ 620 $ 744 97% Public Health Services District 4.23 Permit (in conjuntion with another EQ Permit $ 3,140 $ 3,348 100% Public Health Services District Conventional Redesign Review EQ Permit $ 335 $ 402 73% Public Health Services District Alternate Redesign Review EQ Permit $ 715 $ 858 84% Public Health Services District Green Alternate System Permit EQ Permit $ 420 $ 504 63% Public Health Services District Green Alternate Redesign Reivew EQ Permit $ 300 $ 360 65% Public Health Services District Conventional System Repair Permit EQ Permit $ 305 $ 366 57% Public Health Services District Alternate System Repair Permit EQ Permit $ 480 $ 576 64% Public Health Services District Tank Only Permit EQ Permit $ 300 $ 360 67% Public Health Services District Residential Room Addition/Remodel Review EQ Fee $ 95 $ 114 47% Public Health Services District Commercial Room Additional/Remodel Review EQ Fee $ 240 $ 288 78% Public Health Services District Well Site Inspection EQ Insp $ 310 $ 372 69% Public Health Services District On-site Inspection EQ Insp $ 455 $ 546 61% Public Health Services District Additional Inspection EQ Insp $ 335 $ 402 68% Public Health Services District Waste Haulers EQ License $ 260 $ 312 63% Public Health Services District Drinking Water Hauler (per truck) EQ License $ 240 $ 288 53% Public Health Services District Permit Re-issue EQ Permit $ 150 $ 180 60% Public Health Services District Septic File Search EQ Fee $ 18 $ 22 24% Public Health Services District Transfer of Ownership EQ Statute $ 50 $ 60 39% Public Health Services District Subdivision Review (ADEQ form 511) EQ Fee $ 155 $ 186 70% Public Health Services District Consistency Review (ADEZ form 208) EQ Fee $ 115 $ 138 64% Public Health Services District Perf Assurance Plan Rev for 3.23 appr sys EQ Fee $ 140 $ 168 70% Public Health Services District Public Nusiance Complaint EH No Fee $ - $ - 0% Public Health Services District type 3 Food Svc Licenses EH License $ 390 $ 390 87% Public Health Services District Type 2 Food Svc Licenses EH License $ 280 $ 280 87% Public Health Services District Type 1 Food Svc Licenses EH License $ 235 $ 235 87% Public Health Services District Co-located & Catering Svc License EH License $ 190 $ 190 86% Public Health Services District Additional Follow-up Inspections EH Insp $ 175 $ 175 85% Public Health Services District Seasonal Food Svc Type 1 EH License $ 130 $ 130 85% Public Health Services District Seasonal Food Svc Type 2 EH License $ 140 $ 140 88%

Page 5 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 66 of 71 Public Health Services District Seasonal Food Svc Type 3 EH License $ 170 $ 170 87% Public Health Services District Food Handler Certificate EH Cert $ 20 $ 20 83% Public Health Services District Food Manager Certificate EH Cert $ 55 $ 55 90% Public Health Services District Food Manager Recertification EH Cert $ 30 $ 30 83% Public Health Services District Duplicate Cert-Food Handler or Manager EH Cert - New NEW $ 12 63% Public Health Services District Online Certificate Holder EH Cert - new NEW $ 12 39% Public Health Services District Back Country River Guide Certificate EH Cert $ 20 $ 20 74% Public Health Services District Body Art Certificate EH Cert $ 35 $ 35 81% Public Health Services District Body Art License EH License $ 260 $ 260 87% Public Health Services District Trailer Park EH License $ 135 $ 135 81% Public Health Services District School Inspection >500 EH License $ 200 $ 200 79% Public Health Services District School Inspection <500 EH License $ 125 $ 125 77% Public Health Services District Motel/Hotel License EH License $ 160 $ 160 81% Public Health Services District Annual Pool & Spa (operates all year) EH License $ 225 $ 225 86% Public Health Services District Seasonal Pool & Spa (operates seasonally) EH License $ 155 $ 155 85% Public Health Services District Children's Camps Initial License EH Statute - New NEW $ 100 91% Public Health Services District Children's Camps Renewal License EH Statute - New NEW $ 25 23% Public Health Services District License Renewal Late Delete $ 50 DELETE Public Health Services District Remodel or Construct w/o Approval EH Penalty - New NEW $ - 0% Public Health Services District Campground License EH License - New NEW $ 166 100% Public Health Services District Campground Plan Review EH Plan Rev - New NEW $ 208 100% Public Health Services District Type 3 Food Svc Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 480 $ 480 87% Public Health Services District Type 2 Food Svc Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 430 $ 430 87% Public Health Services District Type 1 Food Svc Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 330 $ 330 87% Public Health Services District Food Svc Minor Remodel Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 265 $ 265 79% Public Health Services District Trailer Park Plan Reivew EH Plan Rev $ 265 $ 265 85% Public Health Services District Motel/Hotel Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 350 $ 350 87% Public Health Services District School Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 340 $ 340 86% Public Health Services District Body Art Facility Plan Review EH Plan Rev $ 310 $ 310 87% Public Health Services District Pre-opening Inspections (Ownership) EH Insp $ 285 $ 285 87% Public Health Services District Minor Pre Opening Insp EH Insp $ 125 $ 125 87% Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc for Non-profit (1 event) EH Permit $ 75 $ 75 74% Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc for Non-profit (> 1 event within 6 mths) EH Permit $ 115 $ 115 78% Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc for Profit (1 event) EH Permit $ 90 $ 90 88%

Page 6 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 67 of 71 Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc for Profit (>1 event within 6 mths) EH Permit $ 140 $ 140 88% Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc For Profit Samplers and NP EH Permit $ 80 $ 80 77% Public Health Services District Temp Event Group Permits (1 event) EH Permit $ 90 $ 90 88% Public Health Services District Temp Event Group Permit (>1 event within 6 mths) EH Permit $ 150 $ 150 86% Public Health Services District Temp Body Art (7 consecutive days) EH Permit $ 135 $ 135 89% Public Health Services District Temp Food Svc Applc Submitted < 10 days EH Penalty $ 50 $ 50 85% Public Health Services District Dog License 1-year Altered AM License $ 12 $ 12 27% Public Health Services District Dog License 2-year Altered AM License - New NEW $ 20 46% Public Health Services District Dog License 3-year Altered AM License - New NEW $ 30 68% Public Health Services District Dog License 1-year Unaltered AM License $ 25 $ 25 57% Public Health Services District Dog License 2-year Unaltered AM License - New NEW $ 40 91% Public Health Services District Dog License 3-year Unaltered AM License - New NEW $ 60 137% Public Health Services District Dog License Duplicate AM Fee $ 12 $ 12 26% Public Health Services District Mutiple Dogs (up to and including 20 dogs) AM License $ 120 $ 120 40% Public Health Services District Multiple Dogs (up to and including 20 dogs) AM License $ 90 $ 90 30% Public Health Services District Dog License Late Fee (up to 1 year delinquent) AM Statute $ 2 $ 2 5% Public Health Services District Dog License Late Fee (more than 1 year delinquent) AM Statute $ 12 $ 12 27% Public Health Services District Dog License Late Fee (more than 2 years delinquent) AM Statute $ 22 $ 22 50% Public Health Services District Penalty for Lapsed License 1-30 Days Penalty - New NEW $ - Public Health Services District Penalty for Lapsed License 31-60 Days Penalty - New NEW $ - Public Health Services District Penalty for Lapsed License 61+ Days Penalty - New NEW $ - Public Health Services District Rabies Payments AM Pass Thru - New NEW $ - Public Health Services District Kennel/Pet Shop Review AM Review $ 360 $ 360 33% Public Health Services District Kennel License AM License $ 200 $ 200 24% Public Health Services District Pet Shop Permit/License AM License $ 265 $ 265 29% Public Health Services District License Renewal Late Fee AM Penalty $ 50 $ 50 114% Public Health Services District Shelter License AM License $ 200 DELETE Public Health Services District Preopending Inspection (kennel, shelter, pet shop) AM Fee $ 285 $ 285 31% Public Health Services District Additional Follow Up Inspections AM Fee $ 175 $ 175 27% Public Health Services District Animal Impound Redemption 1st AM Penalty $ 50 $ 50 26% Public Health Services District Animal Impound Redemption 2nd AM Penalty $ 100 $ 100 51% Public Health Services District Animal Impound Redemption 3rd AM Penalty $ 200 $ 200 102% Public Health Services District Animal Impound Redemption 4th AM Penalty $ 400 $ 400 205%

Page 7 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 68 of 71 GUARDIANSHIP Public Health Services District Guardianship Investigations Paid Per Unit $ 462 $ 462 89% Public Health Services District Guardianship Investigations Not Paid Non Fee

MEDICAL EXAMINER Public Health Services District Death Certificate State $ 14 $ 20 96% Public Health Services District Autopsy Report Copy Fee $ 9 $ 10 100% Public Health Services District Autopsy Report Copy No Charge Non Fee $ - $ - Public Health Services District Autopsy Standard Fee+ $ 2,322 $ 2,495 100% Public Health Services District Autopsy Extended Fee+ $ 3,597 $ 3,864 100% Public Health Services District Autopsy (Std & Ext) Statute Non Fee $ - $ - Public Health Services District Autopsy External Fee+ $ 1,237 $ 1,328 100% Public Health Services District Autopsy External Statute Statute $ - $ - Public Health Services District Cremation Authorization Fee $ 26 $ 26 80% Public Health Services District Record Chart Review Fee $ 808 $ 869 100% Public Health Services District Facility Use (per hour) Fee $ 102 $ 109 100% Public Health Services District Toxicology Admin Fee $ 183 $ 185 100% Public Health Services District Fetal Death Certificate State $ 14 $ 20 96% Public Health Services District Amended/Correction Death Cert State $ 30 $ 30 145% Public Health Services District Amended/Correction Fetal Death Cert State $ 30 $ 30 145% Public Health Services District Court Ordered Release Certified Copy Vital Records State $ 20 $ 20 97% Public Health Services District Not Certified Copy for External Gov Agency State $ 5 $ 5 25% Public Health Services District Forensic Investigator Hourly Rate Hourly $ - $ 47.18 100% Public Health Services District Administrative Manager Hourly Rate Hourly $ - $ 64.03 100% Public Health Services District Medical Examiner Hourly Rate Hourly $ 150 $ 251.04 100%

Public Fiduciary Annual Accounting Flat $ 200 $ 200 12% Public Fiduciary Final Accounting Flat $ 350 $ 350 12% Public Fiduciary Decedent Estate - Personal Rep Fee Flat $ 300 $ 300 5% Public Fiduciary Referral/Investigation Setup Flat $ 400 $ 400 19% Public Fiduciary Indigent Burials Flat $ 750 $ 750 52% Public Fiduciary Sale of Real Property Flat $ 200 $ 200 18% Public Fiduciary Hourly Assessment for Professional Services Hourly $ 52 $ 52 91% Public Fiduciary Guardianship Fee - Monthly Fee Monthly $ 50 $ 50

Page 8 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 69 of 71 Public Fiduciary Guardianship and Representative Payee - Monthly Fee Monthly $ 50 $ 50 Public Fiduciary Guardianship and Conservatorship Fee - Monthly Fee Monthly $ 50 $ 50 12% Public Fiduciary Conservatorship Fee - Monthly Fee Monthly $ 50 $ 50 Public Fiduciary Representative Payee - Monthly Fee Federal $ 41 $ 41

Recorder Recording Fee - 1st 5 Pages Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Recording > 5 Pages, Each Additional Page Statute $ 1 $ 1 12% Recorder Affidavit of Value Statute $ 2 $ 2 6% Recorder Mult Transactions - Add'l Releases Statute $ 3 $ 3 58% Recorder Mult Transactions - > 1 Title on a Doc Statute $ 3 $ 3 58% Recorder Mult Transactions - Disclosure of Beneficiaries Statute $ 3 $ 3 58% Recorder Financing Statement Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Fin Statement - Secured Real Property Statute $ 13 $ 13 150% Recorder Fin Statement - Assignment Only Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Fin Statement - Assignment & Real Property Statute $ 13 $ 13 150% Recorder Fin Statement - Continuation, Assign or Amend Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Fin Statement - With Secured Real Property Statute Recorder Fin Statement - Satisfaction, Termination or Release Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Lien Searches Statute $ 10 $ 10 288% Recorder Lien Searches - Per Finding Statute $ 1 $ 1 29% Recorder Lien Searches - Each Copy Statute $ 1 $ 1 29% Recorder Affidavit of Labor of Work Performed Statute $ 15 $ 15 173% Recorder Location of Mining Claim & Notice of Intention to Hold Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Government Agencies - 1st 5 Pages Statute $ 8 $ 8 92% Recorder Government Agencies - > 5 Pages, Ea Add'l Page Statute $ 1 $ 1 6% Recorder Maps and Plats Statute $ 24 $ 24 276% Recorder Maps and Plat - Ea Add'l Map Page Statute $ 20 $ 20 230% Recorder Maps and Plats - Govt Agencies Statute $ 14 $ 14 161% Recorder Maps and Plat - Govt Agencies - Ea Add'l Map Page Statute $ 10 $ 10 115% Recorder Copies of Recordings Statute $ 1 $ 1 29% Recorder Copies of Recordings for Govt Agencies Statute $ 1 $ 1 14% Recorder Certification of Document Statute $ 3 $ 3 86% Recorder Certification of Document - Govt Agencies Statutes $ 2 $ 2 43% Recorder Copies of Maps Per Copy $ 5 $ 5 100%

Page 9 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 70 of 71 Recorder Mylar Copies of Maps Per Copy $ 5 $ 5 100% Recorder CD Images Per Image $ 0.02 $ 0.02 100%

Treasurer Over the Counter Tax Lien List Flat Fee $ 30 $ 30 154% Treasurer Internet Auction Sales Fee Flat Fee $ 10 $ 10 61% Treasurer Internet Tax Lien Auction List Flat Fee $ 50 $ 50 32% Treasurer Endorsement (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18121 Statute $ 25 $ 25 208% Treasurer Lien Transfer (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18122 Statute $ 10 $ 10 154% Treasurer Redemption (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18154 Statute $ 25 $ 25 104% Treasurer Duplicate C.O.P (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18118 Statute $ 15 $ 15 249% Treasurer Certificate of Purchase (per certificate) A.R.S. 42-18118 Statute $ 25 $ 25 104% Treasurer County Treasurer's Deed (per parcel) A.R.S. 42-18205 Statute $ 50 $ 50 192% Treasurer Taxpayer Information Fund (per tax lien) A.R.S. 42-18122 Statute - Fixed $ 10 $ 10 77% Treasurer Assignment From State (per assigned item) A.R.S. 42-18122 Statute - Fixed $ 10 $ 10 83% Treasurer Treasurer's Deed (per parcel) A.R.S. 42-18262 Statute $ 50 $ 50 256% Treasurer Bidder Portfolio - Individual Flat Fee $ 25 $ 25 36% Treasurer Foreclosure Packet (hard copy only) Delete $ 6 DELETE Treasurer Fax Flat Fee $ 5 $ 5 26% Treasurer Copies Flat Fee $ 5 $ 5 52% Treasurer Tax Notice - For Other Than Owner Flat Fee $ 5 $ 5 67% Treasurer Research Fee - 1/2 Hour Minimum Per Hour $ 50 $ 80 99% Treasurer Downwind Copies A.R.S. 39-122 Statute Treasurer Tax Master File Comm Value $ 300 $ 300 856% Treasurer Returned Check Fee Per Check $ 25 $ 25 73% Treasurer Postage & Handling, If Applicable Per Doc $ 15 $ 15 120% Treasurer Penalty Fee - Delinquent Taxes A.R.S. 42-18107 Statute $ 5 $ 5 26% Treasurer Account Balance Extract Comm Value $ 300 405% Treasurer CP Buyers Name & Address List Comm Value $ 150 384% Treasurer Bidder Portfolio - For All Investors Comm Value $ 300 768%

Page 10 3. 10/18/2016 | Finance |User Fee study 10/18/2016 Page 71 of 71 MEETING DATE 10/18/2016

DATE: 10/4/2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: M. Carol Curtis - Career Center

SUBJECT: Discussion of new models for TeenWorks, a Summer Youth Employment program in Coconino County.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

No motion is necessary. Staff is seeking board direction on a TeenWorks model for implementation in June 2017. One option that is favored by staff is a hybrid model that includes a traditional work crew and a ‘crew’ working one-on-one with premier employers in a work experience (WEX).

BACKGROUND:

Over 20 years ago, a small summer employment program began in Kachina Village and Mountainaire called Kachina Experience for Youth (KEY) with the intention of decreasing juvenile crime rates in that community. The KEY program was highly successful with the juvenile crime rate dropping that summer by 33%. The program offered youth valuable work experience that would allow them to gain part-time and summer employment through to high school graduation. The program expanded over the next 10 years into the rest of the county including Doney Park, Timberline, Fernwood, Parks, Williams, Fort Valley, Upper Greenlaw, Page, Fredonia, and Leupp. This expansion was renamed TeenWorks and was able to happen with the additional funding approved by the Board of Supervisors, a special grant from the State of Arizona, and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding.

Over 90% of the program’s participants showed dedication to completion and 93% reported learning job skills crucial to obtaining employment in the future. Community partners highly valued TeenWorks for the opportunity to mentor youth while receiving help they could not afford. TeenWorks has been twice recognized with the Governor’s Achievement Award.

4. 10/18/2016 | Career Center |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 9 From 2009 - 2013 the program went unfunded due to economic reasons. A small program called YouthWorks was implemented in 2011 and 2012 for teens aged 17+ with funding from an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Federal grant. These funds were no longer available after 2012.

In 2014 the Board of Supervisors was able to reestablish funding for TeenWorks with a smaller model of the program. During the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016 the TeenWorks program began to reach out and provide work experiences, civic engagement, and an educational component to 14-15 year olds. Through these years, the Coconino Career Center has continued to expand the program through partnerships with County Departments, Coconino Community College, NACET, and the addition of a 3-hour dynamic and interactive workshop built for TeenWorks, A Thriving Entry into the Workforce.

In response to a BOS request, we are presenting new program models that could be provided utilizing the amount funded of $45,495. We have taken into consideration both the number of hours the teens may work and the gross amount earned by participants. The three program models are: 1) Hybrid model where both traditional crew and an internship crew are managed, 2) Straight Internship model where all participants are placed in work internships, and 3) Work Crew model where all participants are placed in work crews.

ALTERNATIVES:

At this time the only identified alternative to the TeenWorks summer employment program is a program that was offered last year by Goodwill of Northern Arizona. Their First Jobs program was opened to 14-18 year olds and included many of the elements provided for in TeenWorks. The future model for the Goodwill First Jobs program is subject to change.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No impact to the County General Fund. The funding for the Summer 2017 program has been approved.

ATTACHMENTS:

PowerPoint

4. 10/18/2016 | Career Center |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 9 Teens Want To Work

Presentation on TeenWorks Coconino Career Center

4. 10/18/2016 | Career Center |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 9 Teens Want To Work

Information on new models for the TeenWorks program as requested by the Board of Supervisors. “If the youth are not initiated into the village they will burn it down just to feel its warmth.” ~Ethiopian Proverb

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 2 4 of 9 Teens Want To Work

 The BOS has funded the Award Winning TeenWorks program for 20+ years.  TeenWorks provides 14 & 15 year-olds hands-on work skills, career guidance and supports community engagement.  The BOS has already approved funding for the June 2017 TeenWorks program.

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 3 5 of 9 Teens Want To Work

§ Traditional Work Crew Model § Visible in multiple communities around the county. § Internship Model § Involves greater number of public/private worksite opportunities. § Hybrid Model § More teen-centered approach with an internship experience or a work crew experience.

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 4 6 of 9 Teens Want To Work

All participants earn $8.25 per hour with a 6-hour work day.

Hybrid Internship Traditional Number of 30 35 24 Participants Gross Amount Earned $833 $831 $891 These participant numbers include teen participation in Page, Fredonia, and the greater Flagstaff area.

With each scenario, the number of participants can be increased, but this increase will have a decrease effect on the amount earned. If minimum wage is increased in Arizona in November, participant numbers will be affected.

Transportation costs directly impact the hybrid and the traditional models.

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 5 7 of 9 Teens Want To Work

The recommended model of TeenWorks will provide a wider community impact by increasing work experiences and career opportunities for local teens.

Programs change lives… …systems, policies, and structures change communities.

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 6 8 of 9 Teens Want To Work

It is recommended that Board direct us to implement the Hybrid model with the addition of 16 yr olds or in June 2017.

4. 10/18/2016October | Career 12, Center 2016 |Teenworks summer youth program work new model 10/18/2016Slide Page 7 9 of 9 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 7, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Todd Madeksza, Director of Governmental Relations.

SUBJECT: Discussion and Presentation of the CSA Legislative Summit Proposals.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

No motion is needed. The presentation is for discussion purposes only

BACKGROUND:

The 2016 County Supervisors Associaiton (CSA) Summit is being held October 25-27th in Coconino County. At the Summit, all fifteen counties convene and discuss policies and legislation of mutual interest. During these discussions, all supervisors will have an opportunity to discuss and debate the merits of several different legislative proposals put forwards by CSA's membership.

This presentation is an initial look at the legisative prpoposals that Coconino County's Board of Supervisors will be asked to weigh in on. This is an opportunity for the Board to ask questions and learn what our internal County Departments review have discovered. The review will also inform staff as to what addtiional due diligence needs to be accomlished in the final week before the Summit.

ALTERNATIVES:

N/A

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

PowerPoint CSA Proposal Analysis

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 43 2016 Legislative Priorities

Government Relations

Coconino County Board of Supervisors

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals Oct. 18, 2016 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 43 Coconino County Calendar

§ August 16 - CSA Outreach and Work Session § Coconino County Legislative Agenda Adoption § August 12 - Internal Deadline § Coconino County Legislative Agenda to CSA § September 15 - CSA Board Meeting § Initial Board Review of Legislative Proposals § October 11 or 18 – CSA proposals work session § October 25 – 27th CSA Summit § December - JLBC Baseline Budget Announced § Jan 9, 2016 – First Day of Session

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 43 2 Budget Forecast ‘17 Session

’16 ’17 ’18 ‘19

Balance $312M $225M $65m $145M Forward Revenues $9.77B $10.16B $10.5B $10.86B

Rainy Day Xfer $0M $0M $0M $0M

Spending $9.51B $9.6B $9.62B $9.82B

Ending Balance $224.9M $65.9M $144.8 M $417.54M

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 43 Coconino County FY 17 Impacts

STATEWIDE COCONINO ENACTED FY 2017 BUDGET COUNTY IMPACT COUNTY

HURF Shift to DPS ($2.2 million) ($85,433)

SVP Costs at ASH ($3.1 million) ($63,637)

100% of Rural RTC Costs ($885,757) ($29,392)

Increased County Share of JP Salaries ($1.2 million) ($66,117)

Increased Superior Court Judge Salaries ($9.4 million) ($6,849)

ACJC Grants to Indigent Defense ($700,300) ($13,362)

Elimination of the County Lottery Revenue ($2.1 million) N/A Elimination of Prop 204 Funding ($4.8 million) N/A ADOR Appropriation Shift ($6.7 million) ($141,935) Cost for Juveniles Housed at ADJC ($3.3 million) ($68,492) Enacted Fiscal Impact ($34.4 million) ($475,218)

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 5 of4 43 CSA Fiscal Priorities

§ Eliminate the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections cost shift.

§ Eliminate any shifts from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) to other state agencies and programs and fully fund HURF.

§ Eliminate county payments for the housing and treatment of Sexually Violent Persons (SVPs) at the Arizona State Hospital.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 43 5 CSA Fiscal Priorities

§ Reestablish the counties’ share of the lottery revenues.

§ Eliminate the Arizona Department of Revenue cost shift.

§ Extend the county “Flexibility Language” to use any source of county revenue, regardless of population, to meet a county fiscal obligation for FY2018

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 43 6 County Proposals

§ Decrease default speed limit –Cochise County § Proposal: Establish that speeds in excess of 45 MPH on unpaved roads are considered unreasonable.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County Public Works supports this proposal.

§ Current primitive road guidelines, drivers are supposed to drive a safe speed for the conditions. According to Public Works, this proposal seems like a reasonable change to statute.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 43 7 County Proposals

§ Federal patent easement abandonment – Cochise County § Proposal: Eliminate the requirement that the County Board get consent from all affected utilities and a majority of property owners abutting a Federal Patent Easement before abandoning that easement.

§ Coconino County Comments: Coconino County Community Development had no concerns with this proposal

Public Works supports this legislation. However, there is some concern about protecting existing relationships with utility companies on Forest Service Roads.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 43 8 County Proposals

§ Public Road Maintenance and Primitive Designation – Cochise County § Proposal: Expand the number of roads that are eligible to be declared as “primitive” by a county board to include all those not constructed in accordance with county standards and opened prior to June 13, 1990; allow a county board of supervisors to maintain roads laid out, opened and constructed to adopt county standards regardless of whether or not the road is part of a platted subdivision. § Coconino County Comments: § Public Works supports this legislation.

§ The issue of ineligibility for County maintenance of primitive roads, under the current A.R.S. language, as having the requirement that was part of a platted subdivision seems unreasonable; with the caveat that the road was built to County engineering standards and at no cost to

5. 10/18/2016the county. | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 43 9 County Proposals

§ Transfer of Juvenile Parole Function – Coconino County § Proposal: Transfers the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections parole functions to county probation departments. § Coconino County Comments: § Coconino County proposed this. According to Juvenile Court, the County has the ability to take on this probationary function without adding additional probation officers.

§ This approach would save the state funds and be better for youth as they would be placed under the care of local probation officers who can spend more time with the juvenile and be better equipped to meet their needs. This could potentially reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars in the long-term.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 4310 County Proposals

§ Eliminate County DUC Pool Payments– Coconino County § Proposal: Eliminate the county payments to the Disproportionate Uncompensated Care (DUC) Pool.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County is bringing this proposal forward again this year.

§ Since the amount counties have contributed amount isn’t based on a specific formula and has not changed since 2003, Coconino County believes it is a blank check written to the State and not being used for its intended purpose.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 4311 County Proposals

§ DPS Data Sharing – Coconino County § Proposal: Require the Department of Public Safety to share criminal history data with county governments for research.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County introduced this proposal due to it taking over 6 years to acquire necessary recidivism data from DPS.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 4312 County Proposals

§ Blighted and Unsafe Property Abatement– Gila County § Proposal: Allow counties to enter into properties that are currently under state control due to unpaid taxes and perform any necessary clean up or demolition to reduce or eliminate the threat to public health and safety.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County Community Development is opposed to this legislation. Coconino County already has issues with abatement and expose to more clean-up or the expectation to clean-up these properties would be too costly.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 4313 County Proposals

§ Negligent Hikers– Gila County § Proposal: Hikers who become stranded due to cases of gross negligence or poor judgement may be charged for the costs associated with search and rescue missions. If public emergency services are called to rescue a stranded hiker, the cost of those services may be billed to the hiker, plus additional liability. § Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County is opposed to this proposal.

§ The Sheriff’s Department has a number of concerns with this proposal.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 4314 County Proposals

§ Resources for Juvenile Dependency Representation – Mohave County § Proposal: Allocate financial resources to the Counties to assist with providing mandated attorney services in juvenile dependency matters.

§ Coconino County Comments: § Juvenile dependency cases in Coconino County have increased by almost 20 percent since 2013. This proposal would bring in additional resources to help manage the increased population.

§ According to the Legal Defender, the number of dependency cases still remains higher, since the creation of the Department of Child Safety. Coconino County has added a part-time Social Services Advocate (0.5 FTE) to address the increased caseload.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 4315 County Proposals

§ Groundwater Task Force – Mohave County § Proposal: Establish a Groundwater Task Force charged with studying and recommending a market-driven management mechanism to sustain statewide hydrological and ecological resources through future land development. § Coconino County Comments: This is interesting. Conceptually it may be a good idea. § Questions: § Who administers such a program? § Who determines Membership? § Is this really about water? Or maybe about real estate and Development Rights? § “The Devil’s in the details”

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 4316 County Proposals

§ Local Government Standing on Surface Water Transfers – Mohave County § Proposal: Allow counties to intervene in matters involving the transfer of surface water and surface water rights out of their area.

§ Coconino County Comments: § One of the more confusing proposals.

§ ADWR “It’s not articulated enough to do an analysis”

§ It is confusing and appears to expand government oversight on water rights.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 4317 County Proposals

§ ADWR Increased Authority for Groundwater Drilling– Mohave County § Proposal: Allow the Arizona Department of Water Resources the authority to deny a drill card in groundwater areas if it is in the public interest (whether defined under a safe yield, water adequacy, depletion, etc.)

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ This legislative proposal is specific and measurable.

§ Stakeholders liked that the criteria is defined.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 4318 County Proposals

§ Local Government Increased Authority for Groundwater Drilling:– Mohave County § Proposal: Require that a drill card in groundwater areas be simultaneously submitted to the local government for review and possible concurrence or objection. § Coconino County Comments: § There was significant worry about the “politicizing” of water approvals. § There should be scientific criteria (measurable) \ § Why don’t they just establish an AMA? § Approvals should require technical information – not approvals based on politics § Information sharing is a good idea § “For review” is better than “For approval”

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 4319 County Proposals

§ Irrigation Method– Mohave County § Proposal: Allow local government to have control over the method of irrigation used for the cultivation of lands in groundwater areas.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ The likelihood of success of this proposal in this legislature made our stakeholder group hesitant to give the measure serious consideration.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 21 of 4320 County Proposals

§ Water Taxing Revenues – Mohave County § Proposal: Allow local government to consider a water pumping tax in addition to all possible taxing revenue for the development of alternative water supplies.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Who is levying? § Cities have the authority – so counties? § What about private wells? § Extremely complex question and a state-wide application § New ADWR division

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 22 of 4321 County Proposals

§ Waste Tire Fund Program – Pinal County § Proposal: Extend the Waste Tire Program and the fees and fund associated with the Program from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2027.

§ Coconino County Comments: § Coconino County is in favor of this legislation. § According to Public Works, when residents bring a tire to any one of our three tire yards the County accepts them and a contractor hauls them to a place where they are re-purposed into other products. The County pays for tire yards and staffing and pay the contractor for the costs. The state in turn remits a portion of the funds that are collected from the sale of new tires to us to pay our expenses. § If Coconino County didn’t have this income, it would have an unexpected expense to the General Fund.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 23 of 4322 County Proposals

§ Gasoline Tax Ballot Measure – Santa Cruz § Proposal: Give counties the ability to regulate or tax large land tracts (of mostly farmland), being acquired by foreign companies to grow alfalfa (a water intensive crop) specifically for export to foreign markets.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ Coconino County has expressed support for increasing revenues to help pay for infrastructure in the past.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 4323 County Proposals

§ Lease of County Buildings Exemption– Santa Cruz County § Proposal: Permit counties to lease or sublease county owned buildings to nonprofit organizations without going to a public auction too seek the highest bid.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ The Coconino County Facilities Department supports this legislation.

§ The current statute makes it extremely difficult for non-profits to receive fundamental County support in the form of a lease even if they provide a substantially positive impact to the community.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 4324 County Proposals

§ Corporation Property Tax Appeals – Yavapai County § Proposal: Require a property owner to submit an affidavit of valuation in a specific time frame in order to expedite court proceeding during a property tax appeal case (on properties valued at more than $4 million, which are not handled in a small claims division of tax court), where the property tax owner is claiming the property tax assessment is inaccurate.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ The Coconino County Treasurer supports this legislation.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 4325 County Proposals

§ Title 36 Courtroom Technology Accessibility – Yavapai County § Proposal: Permit telephonic or video conference testimony during a title 36 hearing (mental health). Currently judges have the option of whether or not to allow it.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ According to the Coconino County Court Administrator, keeping the Title 36 hearings discretionary to judges is better.

§ While this could make sense for the doctors and family members, some courtrooms may not be equipped with the technology or IT staff to make this happen.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 4326 County Proposals

§ IPTA Taxation Authority – Yuma County § Proposal: Permit an intergovernmental public transportation authority (IPTA) the same ability as a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to levy a transportation tax with the approval of the voters if the IPTA is completely within the boundary of the County.

§ Coconino County Comments:

§ This proposal would not affect Coconino County unless NAIPTA became limited to the boundaries of the County.

§ NAIPTA and Coconino County Public Works are in favor of this legislation, however they see it very unlikely to go through.

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 4327 Questions?

5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 29 of 43 CSA Proposal Analysis Flagstaff, October 25-27, 2016

1. Decrease default speed limit –Cochise County

Proposal: Establish that speeds in excess of 45 MPH on unpaved roads are considered unreasonable.

o Background:

o ARS § 28-701(A) prohibits a person from driving a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing

o However, ARS § 28-701(B) establishes a prima facie evidentiary standard that speeds in excess of established limits under certain conditions are too great and therefore unreasonable. These conditions are: . Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing . Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district. . Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.

o According to studies, unpaved roads are not able to handle speed limits in excess of 45 mph under any condition.

o This proposal would change statute to designate a maximum speed of 45 on unpaved roads.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County Public Works supports this proposal.

o Current primitive road guidelines, drivers are supposed to drive a safe speed for the conditions. According to Public Works, this proposal seems like a reasonable change to statute.

Proposal: Eliminate the requirement that the County Board get consent from all affected utilities and a majority of property owners abutting a Federal Patent Easement before abandoning that easement.

Background:

o County Boards of Supervisors had the power to lay out, maintain, control and manage public roads within their jurisdiction.

o One process for managing public roads is provided through abandonment and is utilized for public safety considerations such as road re-alignment or when the use of the route no longer serves its original purpose. The current language of 11-251.16 requires the consent of all utility providers and the consent of the majority of adjoining land owners if the public road easement is to be abandoned. This change effectively stripped a power from the public and gave control to utility providers and adjoining property owners. Further, regarding utility interests, when a public easement is no longer necessary for road purposes, existing utility interests are retained pursuant to 28-7210.

o The proposal would shift the final determination of the public’s need from utility providers (and a minority of constituents), to the Board of Supervisors but keep the utility providers’ and property owner’s input.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County Community Development had no concerns with this proposal

o Public Works supports this legislation. However, there is concern about protecting prior rights on Forest Service Roads.

3. Public Road Maintenance and Primitive Designation – Cochise County

Proposal: Expand the number of roads that are eligible to be declared as “primitive” by a county board to include all those not constructed in accordance with county standards and opened prior to June 13, 1990; allow a county board of supervisors to maintain roads laid out, opened and constructed to adopt county standards regardless of whether or not the road is part of a platted subdivision.

o Background:

o Currently, under A.R.S 28-6706 there are certain types of substandard road which counties can maintain but are not authorized to designate as “Primitive”. o Roads previously not accepted for maintenance, open after June 13, 1975 and prior to June 13, 1990. o Roads accepted for maintenance after June 13, 1985 and open prior to June 13, 1990.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 2 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 31 of 43 o The “Primitive” road designation requires counties to install signage to warn the traveling public of the substandard nature of the road and reduces county liability.

o A.R.S. 28-6705 provides that the county board of supervisors (BOS) may spend monies for maintenance of public roads and streets in the state and counties without limits of an incorporated city or town under two specific criteria: the roads and streets must not have been made at the cost to the county and must be in accordance to engineering road specifications of the BOS.

o This proposal allows any road built to county standard, at no cost to the county, to be eligible for maintenance.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Public Works supports this proposal.

o The issue of ineligibility for County maintenance of primitive roads, under the current A.R.S. language, as having the requirement that is was part of a platted subdivision seems unreasonable; with the caveat that the road was built to County engineering standards and at no cost to the county.

o According to Public Works however, if a road is engineered and constructed to the County standard that doesn't mean it is automatically in the County system for maintenance. it must be an official act of the Board to accept it into the system. Public Works does not want to compromise that requirement.

4. Transfer of Juvenile Parole Function – Coconino County

Proposal: Transfers the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections parole functions to county probation departments.

o Background:

o Currently, juveniles who are released from Adobe Mountain are put on State parole.

o State parole officers are regionalized with less capacity to serve youths and County Juvenile probation departments offer a local approach with higher intensity contact and counseling for the individual. Juvenile probation officers can offer life-style counseling and other strategies to prevent recidivism among the participants in the program.

o Under this proposal, upon release of the juvenile, instead of going to parole, ADJC would cut $4 million by shifting juveniles to county juvenile probation departments.

o Coconino County Comments:

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 3 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 32 of 43 o Coconino County proposed this. According to Juvenile Court, the County has the ability to take on this probationary function without adding additional probation officers.

o This approach would save the state funds and be better for youth as they would be placed under the care of local probation officers who can spend more time with the juvenile and be better equipped to meet their needs. This could potentially reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars in the long-term.

5. Eliminate County DUC Pool Payments– Coconino County

Proposal: Eliminate the county payments to the Disproportionate Uncompensated Care (DUC) Pool.

o Background:

o Since 2003, Counties have made annual Disproportionate Uncompensated Care (DUC) Pool payments to the General fund as authorized by the Arizona State Legislature.

o With the exception of Maricopa County, the amount the Counties have contributed to this pool has remained static and it is unclear how the amount is calculated or how the funding is used.

o Counties in Arizona, except Maricopa County, have paid $2.64 Million per year to the State’s General Fund. Coconino County’s DUC Pool payment was $160,500.

o During the 2015 Legislative Session, Rep Thorpe sponsored HB 2363 -County Contributions; Hospitalization; Medical; Repeal, passed out of the County and Municipal Affairs Committee unanimously but did not go further.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County is bringing this proposal forward again this year.

o Since the amount counties have contributed amount isn’t based on a specific formula and has not changed since 2003, Coconino County believes it is a blank check written to the State and not being used for its intended purpose.

6. DPS Data Sharing – Coconino County

Proposal: Require the Department of Public Safety to share criminal history data with county governments for research.

o Background:

o Currently, if an authorized law enforcement agency requests criminal history data from the Department of Public Safety (DPS), there is no statutory requirement for that agency to relinquish the data in a timely fashion.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 4 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 33 of 43 o County criminal justice agencies are authorized to receive this information but there is no statutory requirement that agencies such as the DPS shall do so. The change in statute would state that the Director of the DPS shall (instead of “may”) establish guidelines to aid and encourage criminal justice agencies to utilize criminal justice information for the study and prevention of crime and for the administration of criminal justice.

o This statutory change will help criminal justice agencies determine better models of success to administer justice, reduce recidivism and save tax payer dollars. The clarifying language will also aid criminal justice agencies in forming partnerships with research entities (e.g. universities, independent researchers) to assist with research capacity.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County introduced this proposal due to it taking over 6 years to acquire necessary recidivism data from DPS.

7. Blighted and Unsafe Property Abatement– Gila County

Proposal: Allow counties to enter into properties that are currently under state control due to unpaid taxes and perform any necessary clean up or demolition to reduce or eliminate the threat to public health and safety.

o Background:

o When communities in a county have properties under state control, counties encounter situations where those properties pose a public health risk or other danger to public safety.

o Real property is tax-deeded to the state of Arizona, Counties do not have authority to perform any work to demolish or clean up properties nor can it take on the associated liability.

o If language is added to the statutes to allow counties the authority to perform work on these properties, the properties could be cleaned up to the extent of ensuring there isn’t an immediate threat to the safety of others, and it would increase the value of the subject property and neighboring properties.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County Community Development is opposed to this legislation. Coconino County already has issues with abatement and expose to more clean-up or the expectation to clean-up these properties would be too costly.

8. Negligent Hikers– Gila County

Proposal: Hikers who become stranded due to cases of gross negligence or poor judgement may be charged for the costs associated with search and rescue missions. If public emergency services are called to rescue a stranded hiker, the cost of those services may be billed to the hiker, plus additional liability.

o Background: 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 5 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 34 of 43 o Sheriffs’ Offices and search and rescue teams are often called to “save” hikers who are not properly prepared and are unable to complete their hikes.

o This costs counties manpower, equipment and resources to perform avoidable rescues. This proposal would pass along the costs of performing these rescues to those who have not prepared properly and have called 911 for help.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County is opposed to this proposal.

o According to the Coconino County Sheriff’s Department –

1. If a hiker fears a bill for a SAR response they may be hesitant to call for help until the situation becomes so bad that they are willing to pay whatever it takes to get out of the situation. That may mean that the weather conditions have worsened, the terrain that they are in has become too dangerous to navigate, or they have wandered for an extended period of time making the search area much larger than if they had called earlier. All of these situations may make the response more dangerous for SAR personnel and/or more complicated to manage and resolve.

2. Not all SAR incidents involve hikers. If this legislation were to move forward there should also likely be “Negligent Hunter”, “Negligent Mountain Biker”, “Negligent Climber”, and “Negligent Endangered Persons (dementia/Alzheimers/Autistic persons/developmentally handicapped) Caretaker” laws advanced since SAR responds to those situations as well. In the past there had been an effort to add a “SAR fee” to hunting and fishing licenses but that was strongly opposed since it singled out a particular group who did not make up the total or majority of subjects of SAR missions.

3. Arizona already has a mechanism for cost recovery for SAR missions. Counties generally can apply for reimbursement for eligible expenses (overtime, fuel, food, communications expenses, etc) to the Arizona Division of Emergency Management and Military Affairs who will then verify the mission is within the state rules and then issue reimbursement based on a formula that takes into account the total amount of expenses born by the agency during the fiscal year.

4. SAR is a legislatively mandated function of the Sheriff’s Office and citizens pay taxes to receive Sheriff’s Office services.

5. Many of the law enforcement incidents that we respond to involve some level of negligence. For example, if my car is burglarized because I left the car unlocked I am not charged for the law enforcement response even though I was negligent in leaving the doors unlocked.

6. The two major search and rescue associations, the National Association for Search and Rescue and the Mountain Rescue Association, have both issued position papers in opposition to charging for SAR response. Our team is a fully accredited member of the Mountain Rescue Association and if our county opted to charge for SAR our accreditation with the MRA may be in jeopardy. 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 6 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 35 of 43 7. The states that have enacted charging for SAR have often been roundly criticized for their attempts to bill subjects of a SAR response since the determination of negligence can sometimes be subjective.

9. Resources for Juvenile Dependency Representation – Mohave County

Proposal: Allocate financial resources to the Counties to assist with providing mandated attorney services in juvenile dependency matters.

o Background:

o The Department of Child Services (DCS), initiated by Governor Brewer, was created in direct response to an excessive backlog of uninvestigated incidents of child abuse and neglect. The legislature established a new agency, with a new director, additional staff and funding to expedite the investigations of existing cases to ensure the safety of at-risk children in this state.

o An indigent defendant is an individual without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a court proceeding.

o When a parent or guardian files for a dependency hearing for a juvenile, counties are financially responsible for those costs by statute.

o Because of the increased staff and additional funding to the department, dependency filings are up 21 percent statewide since the inception of DCS.

o This proposal seeks to allocate additional funds to assist all impacted counties in providing these vital services to ensure that there are no additional delays in providing for the safety of some of Arizona’s most vulnerable citizens.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Juvenile dependency cases in Coconino County have increased by almost 20 percent since 2013. This proposal would bring in additional resources to help manage the increased population.

o According to the Legal Defender, the number of dependency cases still remains higher, since the creation of the Department of Child Safety. Coconino County has added a part-time Social Services Advocate (0.5 FTE) to address the increased caseload.

10. Groundwater Task Force – Mohave County

Proposal: Establish a Groundwater Task Force charged with studying and recommending a market-driven management mechanism to sustain statewide hydrological and ecological resources through future land development.

o Background:

o ADWR lacks authority to regulate water, outside of an Active Management Area.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 7 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 36 of 43 o In the past couple of years, instances of water-intensive farming for export produce have spread across southern Arizona.

o The inability for counties to question such activities, or lack of any other external review process, has resulted in a number of proposals being suggested to address local concerns.

o Coconino County Comments:

o This is interesting. Conceptually it may be a good idea.

o Questions: . Who administers such a program? . Who determines Membership? . Is this really about water? Or maybe about real estate and Development Rights?

o “The Devil’s in the details”

11. Local Government Standing on Surface Water Transfers – Mohave County

Proposal: Allow counties to intervene in matters involving the transfer of surface water and surface water rights out of their area.

Background:

o ADWR lacks authority to regulate water, outside of an Active Management Area.

o In the past couple of years, instances of water-intensive farming for export produce have spread across southern Arizona.

o Currently, Arizona Counties do not have an inherent right to intervene, regarding the transfer of water rights outside of their area.

o Coconino County Comments:

o One of the more confusing proposals.

o ADWR “It’s not articulated enough to do an analysis”

o It is confusing but it appears to expand water rights.

12. ADWR Increased Authority for Groundwater Drilling– Mohave County

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 8 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 37 of 43 Proposal: Allow the Arizona Department of Water Resources the authority to deny a drill card in groundwater areas if it is in the public interest (whether defined under a safe yield, water adequacy, depletion, etc.)

Background:

o Currently, ADWR has no authority to deny, or perform other constraints on an entity’s ability to drill a well.

o There are no statutory requirements for reporting out the amount, quality or purpose of the water being pumped.

o ADWR has not confirmed that they desire the authority.

o Coconino County Comments:

o This legislative proposal is specific and measurable.

o Stakeholders liked that the criteria is defined.

13. Local Government Increased Authority for Groundwater Drilling:– Mohave County

o Proposal: Require that a drill card in groundwater areas be simultaneously submitted to the local government for review and possible concurrence or objection.

o Background:

o ADWR lacks authority to regulate water, outside of an Active Management Area.

o In the past couple of years, instances of water-intensive farming for export produce have spread across southern Arizona.

o The inability for counties to question such activities, or lack of any other external review process, has resulted in a number of proposals being suggested to address local concerns.

o One answer being suggested is increased local participation regarding the approval process by ADWR.

o Coconino County Comments:

o There was significant worry about the “politicizing” of water approvals. . There should be scientific criteria (measurable) \ . Why don’t they just establish an AMA? . Approvals should require technical information – not approvals based on politics

o Information sharing is a good idea

o “For review” is better than “For approval” 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 9 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 38 of 43 14. Irrigation Method– Mohave County

Proposal: Allow local government to have control over the method of irrigation used for the cultivation of lands in groundwater areas.

o Background:

o ADWR lacks authority to regulate water, outside of an Active Management Area.

o In the past couple of years, instances of water-intensive farming for export produce have spread across southern Arizona.

o The inability for counties to question such activities, or lack of any other external review process, has resulted in a number of proposals being suggested to address local concerns.

o Coconino County Comments:

o The likelihood of success of this proposal in this legislature made our stakeholder group hesitant to give the measure serious consideration.

15. Water Taxing Revenues – Mohave County

Proposal: Allow local government to consider a water pumping tax in addition to all possible taxing revenue for the development of alternative water supplies.

o Background:

o ADWR lacks authority to regulate water, outside of an Active Management Area.

o In the past couple of years, instances of water-intensive farming for export produce have spread across southern Arizona.

o The inability for counties to question such activities, or lack of any other external review process, has resulted in a number of proposals being suggested to address local concerns.

o Coconino County Comments:

o Who is levying?

o Cities have the authority – so counties? o What about private wells?

o Extremely complex question and a state-wide application 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 10 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 39 of 43 o New ADWR division

16. Waste Tire Fund Program – Pinal County

Proposal: Extend the Waste Tire Program and the fees and fund associated with the Program from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2027.

o Background:

o In 1990, Arizona Revised Statues (ARS) Section 44-1305 established the Waste Tire Program (Program), which describes the procedures for the disposal of waste tires.

o Each county is required to establish a program. If a county has a population of less than 400,000 persons, the county may join with any other county and pool their financial resources to establish a program.

o The proposal would be to reinstate or amend the repeal of Arizona Revised Statute 44-1302 and 44-1305, both of which are set to be repealed in January of 2018, or to introduce new legislation in order to continue the Waste Tire Fund and Program

o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County is in favor of this legislation.

o According to Public Works, when residents bring a tire to any one of our three tire yards the County accepts them and a contractor hauls them to a place where they are re-purposed into other products. The County pays for tire yards and staffing and pay the contractor for the costs. The state in turn remits a portion of the funds that are collected from the sale of new tires to us to pay our expenses.

o If Coconino County didn’t have this income, it would have an unexpected expense to the General Fund.

17. Gasoline Tax Ballot Measure – Santa Cruz

Proposal: Give counties the ability to regulate or tax large land tracts (of mostly farmland), being acquired by foreign companies to grow alfalfa (a water intensive crop) specifically for export to foreign markets.

o Background:

o There is currently a $0.18 cents per gallon state gas tax on all motor vehicle fuels used, possessed or consumed.

o This fuel tax has not been increased in Arizona since 1991, not reflecting inflation. With more high- efficiency vehicles on the road, and the public driving less, revenues coming into the state are decreasing. At the same time, HURF revenues to counties have consistently declined in the past five years, while the need to fund road maintenance increases.

o Coconino County Comments:

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 11 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 40 of 43 o Coconino County has long expressed support for increasing revenues to help pay for infrastructure.

18. Lease of County Buildings Exemption– Santa Cruz County

Proposal: Permit counties to lease or sublease county owned buildings to nonprofit organizations without going to a public auction too seek the highest bid.

o Background:

o Arizona Revised Statute 11-256 permits the county board of supervisors to lease or sublease any land or building owned by or under control of the county.

o Land or buildings must be leased or subleased at a public auction to the highest responsible bidder, provided that the bid is at least ninety percent of the rental valuation as determined by an appraiser or a market analysis.

o ARS § 11-256.01 allows counties to lease or sublease the same land or property, for an amount less than the fair market value, to a nonprofit organization without holding a public auction, unless another bid is offered that is equal or exceeds the fair rental value of the land or building.

o This change allows counties to lease to non-profits much the same way that they are already allowed to sell property to them, without auction, if the non-profit positively impacts the community as determined by the Board of Supervisors.

o It allows any entity who bids any amount above the amount posted that the non-profit will pay to sweep the lease from the non-profit. The non-profit loses the space and while the county receives revenue from the lease, it is forced into a leasing situation with the highest bidder wherein the county’s ability to impose controls on the lease is restricted.

o This would allow the BOS to determine greatest benefit to the community—the services of the non- profit or the revenue from an auctioned lease. Allows the County to provide substantial non-monetary support to valuable non-profit partners when monetary support capacity is reduced or is unavailable but property is vacant.

o Allows the BOS to more carefully strategize service provision using its real property assets in addition to monetary support and to maximize the use of its real property portfolio and directly benefit the public with non-profit services

19. Corporation Property Tax Appeals – Yavapai County

Proposal: Require a property owner to submit an affidavit of valuation in a specific time frame in order to expedite court proceeding during a property tax appeal case (on properties valued at more than $4 million, which are not handled in a small claims division of tax court), where the property tax owner is claiming the property tax assessment is inaccurate. 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 12 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 41 of 43 o Background:

o Current statute allows taxpayers to appeal decisions of setting the value of their property to Superior Court.

o Taxpayers and attorneys that represent them are under no incentive to litigate appeals in a timely manner. Taxpayers earn interest on tax refunds they may ultimately receive substantially higher than that offered on the open market, and are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation if there is a modest reduction in the valuation of their property.

o A common strategy by taxpayers’ attorneys is to allege that the tax authority’s value is too high, and then refuse to offer a counter-value or to engage in discovery or disclosure while running up attorney’s fees.

o As a result, large tax appeals may drag on for years. When the cases are resolved they usually result in multi-year refunds that are taken from the current-year budgets for many of the political subdivisions in a county as well as the county itself.

o Coconino County Comments:

o The Coconino County Treasurer supports this legislation.

20. Title 36 Courtroom Technology Accessibility – Yavapai County

Proposal: Permit telephonic or video conference testimony during a title 36 hearing (mental health). Currently judges have the option of whether or not to allow it.

o Background:

o Title 36 proceedings are court ordered mental health proceedings and are often referred to as such because the statutes that govern the process are located in Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

o Title 36 requires a proposed patient be examined by two physicians experienced in psychiatric matters. The law also requires that the physicians examining the proposed patient testify at any hearing where court-ordered treatment is sought. Both tasks require physicians to appear on very short notice.

o Coconino County Comments:

o According to the Coconino County Court Administrator, keeping the Title 36 hearings discretionary to judges is better.

o While this could make sense for the doctors and possible family members, some courtrooms may not be equipped with the technology or IT staff to make this happen. 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 13 5. 10/18/2016 | Governmental Relations | CSA Legislative Proposals 10/18/2016 Page 42 of 43 21. IPTA Taxation Authority – Yuma County

Proposal: Permit an intergovernmental public transportation authority (IPTA) the same ability as a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to levy a transportation tax with the approval of the voters if the IPTA is completely within the boundary of the County.

o Background:

o Current statute allows voters to authorize the levy of a one-half cent transportation excise tax as a countywide tax or under an RTA.

o The governing body of one or more municipalities in a county of under 200,000 people may petition the Board of Supervisors to establish the IPTA.

o Any state university or community college that is located in a municipality in the IPTA, or any Native American tribe that has a boundary within the county in which the IPTA is established may become a member.

o While a County BOS, with voter approval may levy a sales tax, statute does not allow for IPTAs to levy a sales tax with voter approval.

o Coconino County Comments:

o This proposal would not affect Coconino County unless NAIPTA became limited to the boundaries of the County.

NAIPTA and Coconino County Public Works are in favor of this legislation, however they see it very unlikely to go through.

DATE: October 6th, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Jay Christelman Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

Proposed adoption of an Abatement Ordinance pursuant to A.R.S. 11-268

RECOMMENDATION:

It is the recommendation of the Coconino County Community Development Director and the Coconino County Attorney’s Office that the proposed Abatement Ordinance should be adopted, is required by Arizona Revised Statute and provides for a clear and concise procedure for the abatement of hazards that constitute a hazard to public health and safety in Coconino County. Furthermore, the ordinance establishes a cost recovery mechanism for the County.

BACKGROUND:

Current enforcement processes for the different divisions of Community Development vary in their perspective routes and are often stymied when either voluntary or compulsory compliance is not achieved.

What stymies the County from rectifying non-compliance by unwilling or unable property owners is the lack of a legal process to abate in the form of an abatement ordinance.

The proposed Abatement Ordinance provides for an abatement method for not only any Division of Community Development, but the entire County, and includes a cost recovery method dictated by Statute including a means to appeal the initial Notice, and any assessment.

In May and again in July of 2015, Community Development hosted work sessions with the Board regarding this proposed Abatement Ordinance. The Supervisors of the Board had several concerns pertaining to the possible use of the proposed ordinance however, many of those areas are specifically required by A.R.S. 11-268 and not subject to revision.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 28 Additionally, the statute narrowly defines those instances that the abatement ordinance may be applied, that being in the case where the violation “…constitute a hazard to public health or a hazard to public safety…” placing a statutory restraint upon its use.

The proposed ordinance includes language that allows the Compliance Manger to solicit a determination of subject experts in the pertinent area of concern so that the veracity of a determination that a hazard exists is established.

Finally, abatement actions are supervised by the Compliance Manager, the Director of Community Development and the Civil Attorney’s Office having the effect of placing a series of checks and balance so as to instill confidence that the process is legal and restrained.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Hazard Abatement Ordinance 2. Abatement ordinance Power Point 3. Arizona Revised Statute 11-268

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 28 Proposed Abatement Ordinance

A.R.S. 11-268

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 28 Objectives for Today

§ Present the final draft of the Coconino County Abatement Ordinance § Review the statutory requirements of the Ordinance § Discuss the Ordinance’s applicability § Answer any questions

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 28 2 Overview

§ The proposed Ordinance is required by statute § This Ordinance contains the minimum requirements of ARS 11-268 § Has a narrowly defined range of application § Hazard to public health & safety § Provides a legal process to abate § Notice of violation can be appealed to BOS § Necessary tool to address problematic 6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 28 3 violations A.R.S. 11-268

§ “The board of supervisors, by Ordinance, shall compel the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings, grounds or lots located in the unincorporated areas of the county to remove rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings that constitute a hazard to public health and safety from buildings, grounds, lots, contiguous sidewalks, streets and alleys.”

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 28 4 A.R.S. 11-268

§ The proposed assessment strictly adheres to the statutory requirements

§ Assessments may be appealed to the BOS

§ Assessment schedule included in packet

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 28 5 Code Enforcement Policy

§ Code Enforcement will continue to seek voluntary compliance with patience and restraint § Abatement will always be a “last resort” after the County has exhausted reasonable means to achieve voluntary compliance or where an eminent danger exists § Abatement would only occur if a hazard to life or health safety has been determined to exist

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 28 6 Weeds…

§ Only a situation determined by a subject expert to be a hazard to public health or safety will be acted upon

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 28 7 Filth

§ The Ordinance may be utilized by all departments of the County § Only when a hazard to public health or safety exists § Determined by

6. 10/18/2016subject | Community Development experts | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 28 8 Dilapidated Buildings

§ Dilapidated Buildings that constitute a hazard to public health or safety § Determined by the Chief Building Official

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 28 9 Rubbish & Trash

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 2810 Public Notification

§ Action will require public hearings at the Commission and BOS levels

§ Publication of the proposed Ordinance on the Coconino County website.

§ Public notification in the newspaper

§ Code Enforcement will be available for community meetings

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 2811 QUESTIONS?

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 2812 ORDINANCE NO. 2016-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR THE REMOVAL OF RUBBISH, TRASH, WEEDS, FILTH, DEBRIS AND DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §§ 11-268.

WHEREAS, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter the “Board”) is required by A.R.S. §§ 11-268 to adopt an ordinance which compels an owner, lessee or occupant of real property to remove rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris, and dilapidated buildings which constitute a hazard to public health and safety (hereinafter the “Abatement Ordinance”); and,

WHEREAS, A.R.S. § 11-268 authorizes the Board to include in the Abatement Ordinance provisions for County removal or abatement of the condition that constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, and for making the actual cost of the removal or abatement an assessment on the lots or tracts of land from which the removal or abatement occurs; and

WHEREAS, the draft version of the Abatement Ordinance has been available for public comment for a period of thirty days, pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-112(D); and

WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to consider adoption of the Abatement Ordinance was published on ______, in accordance with A.R.S. § 11-251.05.

WHEREAS, the Board has held a duly noticed public hearing to receive and consider comments from the public; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, and in compliance with A.R.S. §11-268, to adopt regulations for the removal of rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris, and dilapidated buildings:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board adopts the Coconino County Abatement Ordinance as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______, 2016, by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

______Chairperson, Board of Supervisors

ATTEST: ______Clerk, Board of Supervisors

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______Deputy County Attorney

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 28 Coconino County Abatement Ordinance

SECTION 1: GENERAL

1.01 Title

These regulations shall be known as the “Abatement Ordinance,” may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as the "Ordinance."

1.02 Purpose and Scope

A. This Ordinance establishes the duty of all owners, lessees or occupants of buildings, grounds or lots located in the unincorporated areas of Coconino County to remove rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris, or dilapidated buildings which constitute a hazard to public health or a hazard to public safety from any and all buildings, grounds, lots, or contiguous sidewalks, streets or alleys.

B. This Ordinance provides that if any person with an interest in the property, including an owner, lien holder, lessee or occupant of the buildings, grounds or lots, after notice as provided herein, does not remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings and abate the condition which constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, the County may, at the expense of the owner, lessee or occupant, remove, abate, enjoin or cause the removal of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings.

1.03 Definitions

For the purposes of this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:

A. “County” means Coconino County, or any of its departments, offices or agencies.

B. “Dilapidated building” means any real property structure that is likely to burn or collapse and its condition endangers the life, health, safety or property of the public.

C. “Filth” means foul or putrid matter.

D. The term “Occupant” does not include any corporation or association operating or maintaining rights-of-way for and on behalf of the United States government, either under contract or under federal law.

E. The term “Owner” does not include a state or federal landowner.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 28 F. “Rubbish” means combustible and noncombustible waste materials, except garbage; the term includes the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke and other combustible materials; the term also includes paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, tin cans, metals, mineral matter, glass, crockery and dust and other similar materials.

G. “Weed” means a plant that is not valued where it is growing and is usually of vigorous growth, or that tends to overgrow or choke out more desirable plants.

1.04 Severability

If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or places. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions, or the application thereof to any person or place, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

1.05 Statutory Changes

The statutory citations are those in effect on the date of adoption of this Ordinance amendment. All subsequent amendments to the Arizona Revised Statutes shall be incorporated.

1.06 Computation of Time

Deadlines are calculated according to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. (All deadlines of 10 days or less are based upon business days, all deadlines of 11 or more days are based upon calendar days. The first day (the day of the event that triggers the deadline) is not counted.

SECTION 2: ILLEGAL DUMPING VIOLATION

2.01 Violation and Penalties Established

A. Any person, firm or corporation that recklessly places any rubbish, trash, filth or debris upon any private or public property located in the unincorporated areas of Coconino County not owned or under control of the person, firm or corporation:

1. Is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and;

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 28 2. In addition to any fine which may be imposed for a violation of this Ordinance, is liable for all costs which may be assessed pursuant to this Ordinance for the removal of the rubbish, trash, filth, or debris.

B. One hundred percent of any assessed fine shall be deposited in the general fund of Coconino County, and at least fifty percent of the fine shall be used by the County for the purposes of illegal dumping cleanup.

SECTION 3: CIVIL VIOLATION; PROCEDURE

3.01 Determination of Violation

A. A person, firm or corporation shall have committed a civil violation of this Ordinance if such a person:

1. Is the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings, grounds or lots located in the unincorporated areas of Coconino County, and:

2. Places, permits or provides for rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris, or dilapidated buildings to remain upon property of which they are owner, lessee or occupant, or upon contiguous sidewalks, streets or alleys dedicated and open to the public, and:

3. Said rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings constitute a hazard to public health and safety.

B. The initial determination of a civil violation of this Ordinance shall be made by the Compliance Manager of Coconino County. The Compliance Manager may rely, in making his determination, on professional opinions provided by health officials, fire officials or professionals in other pertinent fields.

3.02 Notice of Violation

A. Upon the determination of the existence of a civil violation of this Ordinance by the Compliance Manager, the County may issue a written Notice of Civil Violation which shall be served upon the owner, any lienholder, occupant or lessee of the property by either personal service, or by certified United States mail at their last known address, or at the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed. If the owner does not reside upon the property, a duplicate of the Notice shall also be sent to the owner at the owner’s last known address.

B. The Notice shall be served at least thirty days before the day set for compliance and shall include the estimated cost to the County for the removal of the hazardous condition if the owner, occupant or lessee does not comply.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 28 C. The Notice shall state that if the owner, lienholder, lessee or occupant of the noticed property abates the hazardous condition, they are required to provide to the County a receipt from a disposal facility to indicate that the rubbish, trash, filth or debris has been disposed of as required by law.

D. The Notice shall provide that if any person with an interest in the property, including an owner, lienholder, lessee or occupant of the buildings, grounds or lots, does not remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings from the property or contiguous sidewalks, streets and alleys, and abate the condition which constitutes a hazard to public health and safety by the date set for compliance, the County, at the expense of the owner, lessee or occupant, may remove, abate, enjoin or cause the removal of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings.

E. The Notice shall also provide that the owner, any lienholder, occupant or lessee shall have 15 days from the date that the Notice was served to file an appeal as set forth in Section 3.03, below, with the Board of Supervisors. The date of mailing the appeal shall be the date of filing. All appeals of Notices of Civil Violation shall be in writing and shall specify the grounds for appeal.

F. The Notice of Violation shall contain a minimum of the following:

1. The telephone number and address of the Community Development Department of Coconino County; 2. The physical address and assessor’s parcel number of the property; 3. A brief description of the hazardous conditions, which constitutes a violation of this Ordinance, and the actions necessary to correct the hazardous conditions; 4. A demand for the removal of the hazardous condition and compliance with this Ordinance; 5. The estimated cost to County for the removal of the hazardous condition if the owner, occupant or lessee does not comply; 6. A date for compliance that is at least thirty (30) days from the date the Notice of Violation is issued; 7. Reference to this Ordinance, to A.R.S. § 11-268, and any other Ordinance or Code under which compliance is sought; 8. A statement informing the violator of the right to appeal the notice of violation to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors; G. Service of the Notice of Violation shall be made as follows:

1. The County shall either personally serve or mail by certified mail the

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 28 Notice of Violation to the owner, any lien holder, occupant or lessee.

2. If the written Notice of Violation is served by certified mail, the Notice shall be mailed to the owner, lien holder, occupant, or lessee’s last known address or the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed.

3. If the written Notice of Violation is served by certified mail and the owner does not reside on the property, or is not the person being served with the Notice of Violation, a duplicate Notice shall also be sent to the owner at the owner’s last known address.

4. In addition to the notice provisions set forth above, the County may post a copy of the Notice of Violation at the property where the violation exists.

3.03 Appeal of Notice of Violation

A. An owner, lien holder, occupant or lessee may appeal a Notice of Violation to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days of the service of the Notice of Violation.

B. Appeal of the Notice of Violation shall be made in writing to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and must include:

1. The Assessor’s parcel number and physical address of the subject property;

2. A clear and succinct statement, not to exceed five (5) pages, of all relevant facts and reasons why the appellant should not be required to abate the hazardous condition that is the subject of the notice, or why the condition does not constitute a hazard to public health or safety.

C. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall schedule the matter for consideration by the Board of Supervisors within sixty (60) days of receipt of the appeal. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall notify the appellant and the Compliance Manager of the date, time and place of the appeal at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.

D. The appeal of a Notice of Violation shall have the effect of suspending compliance date set forth in the Notice of Violation during the pendency of the appeal.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 28 Supervisors. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of these documents to the Appellant and make the documents available to the individual Supervisors for their review prior to the date set for hearing of the appeal.

F. All appeals to the Board of Supervisors shall be recorded and a complete record of the proceedings made. The Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors shall preside at all appeal hearings and shall decide all questions pertaining to procedure.

G. Each party shall be allowed ten (10) minutes to present oral arguments. In addition, each party may submit written memoranda with attached exhibits, at least five (5) days prior to the time set for the hearing. Time limits may be extended at the discretion of the Chairperson. All members of the Board of Supervisors shall be allowed to question all parties appearing before them.

H. Decisions to uphold or overturn the Notice of Violation shall be decided upon motion and majority vote of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Failure to obtain a majority vote to overturn the Notice of Violation shall be construed as upholding the Notice of Violation. The decision of the Board shall be final.

I. In the event that the Notice of Violation is upheld, the Board of Supervisors may establish a new date for compliance and instruct the Compliance Manager to proceed with abatement of the hazardous condition if that condition is not otherwise abated by the date set for compliance.

SECTION 4: ABATEMENT

4.01 County Performed Abatement

A. If any person with an interest in the subject property, including an owner, lien holder, lessee or occupant of the buildings, grounds or lots, after notice as required by subsection 3.02, above, does not remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings and abate the condition which constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, as set forth above, the County may, at the expense of the owner, lessee or occupant, remove, abate, enjoin or cause the removal of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings. B. The abatement of the condition that constitutes a hazard to the public health or safety may be directed by the Compliance Manager of the County if: 1. The hazardous condition described in the Notice of Violation has not been abated by the compliance date set forth in the Notice of Violation, and no appeal of the Notice of Violation has been made within the time period allowed, or 2. After an appeal of the Notice of Violation having been filed, the Board of Supervisors has issued an order upholding the Notice and no further

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 21 of 28 appeals are pending, and the hazardous condition has not been abated by the compliance date set by the Board of Supervisors. C. Before the removal of a dilapidated building, the Compliance Manager of the County, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if the building is of historical value. D. The County may abate a violation within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date set for compliance in the Notice of Violation, if not appealed, or within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date set for compliance by the Board of Supervisors after an appeal hearing. E. If the County removes a dilapidated building pursuant to this Ordinance, the County Assessor shall adjust the valuation of the property on the property assessment tax rolls from the date of removal.

SECTION 5: ASSESSMENTS

5.01 Issuance of Assessment

A. Once the hazardous condition has been removed, abated, or enjoined by the County, the actual costs of abatement, including the costs of additional inspections, incidental costs, and any associated legal fees shall be assessed upon the property from which the hazardous condition was removed, abated, or enjoined.

B. The assessment shall in part consist of an itemized billing for all costs, the dates the costs were incurred, the assessor’s parcel number identifying the property, and a written statement that the assessment may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors in the same manner as set forth in Section 3.03, above.

5.02 Recordation of Assessments

A. The Compliance Manager of the County shall cause the assessment to be recorded in the County Recorder’s office for Coconino County. A copy of the recorded assessment shall be served upon the owner, any lien holder, occupant, or lessee in the manner set forth in subsection 3.02(G), above.

B. Any assessment recorded after the effective date of this Ordinance is prior and superior to all other liens, obligations or other encumbrances, except liens for general taxes and prior recorded mortgages.

5.03 Payment of Assessments

A. Imposed assessments run against the property until they are paid, and such assessments are due and payable to the County in equal annual installments, each

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 22 of 28 due on or before the anniversary date of the recording of the assessment, as follows:

1. Assessments of less than five hundred dollars ($500) shall be paid within one (1) year after the assessment is recorded. 2. Assessments of five hundred dollars ($500) or more but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) shall be paid within two (2) years after the assessment is recorded. 3. Assessments of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more but less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) shall be paid within three (3) years after the assessment is recorded. 4. Assessments of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) shall be paid within six (6) years after the assessment is recorded. 5. Assessments of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more shall be paid within ten (10) years after the assessment is recorded. B. A prior assessment, for the purposes provided in this section of the Ordinance, is not a bar to a subsequent assessment or assessments for such purposes and any number of liens on the same lot or tract of land may be enforced in the same action.

5.04 Foreclosure in lieu of Payment

A. When an annual installment payment of an assessment pursuant to subsection 5.03, above, becomes more than 120 days past due, the County may elect to pursue foreclosure of its lien in order to collect the remaining unpaid portion of the assessment.

B. A sale of the property to satisfy an assessment obtained under the terms of this Ordinance shall be made on a judgment of foreclosure and order of sale. The County may bring an action to enforce the lien in the Superior Court in the County in which the property is located, as set forth above, but failure to enforce the lien by such action does not affect its validity. The recorded assessment is prima facie evidence of the truth of all matters recited in the assessment and of the regularity of all proceedings before the recording of the assessment.

5.05 Appeal of Assessments

A. An owner, lien holder, occupant or lessee may appeal an assessment to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days of the service of the recorded assessment.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 23 of 28 B. Appeal of the assessment shall be made in writing to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and must include:

1. The Assessor’s parcel number and physical address of the subject property;

2. A clear and succinct statement, not to exceed five (5) pages, of all relevant facts and reasons why the appellant should not be held responsible for the abatement of the violation, or why the appellant should not be held responsible for any assessment subsequent to County abatement of the violation.

C. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall schedule the matter for consideration by the Board of Supervisors within sixty (60) days of receipt of the appeal. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall notify the Appellant and the Compliance Manager of the date, time and place of the appeal at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.

D. The appeal of an assessment shall have the effect of suspending payment pursuant to subsection 5.03, above, during the pendency of the appeal.

E. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall also transmit copies of the notice of appeal to the County Attorney and the Compliance Manager. The Compliance Manager shall, within ten (10) days of the Clerk’s transmission, transmit a certified copy of all public records regarding the abatement of the hazardous condition and the costs associated therewith to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of these documents to the Appellant and make the documents available to the individual Supervisors for their review prior to the date set for hearing of the appeal.

G. Each party shall be allowed ten (10) minutes to present oral arguments. Time limits may be extended at the discretion of the Chairperson. In addition, each party may submit written memoranda with attached exhibits, at least five (5) days prior to the time set for the hearing. All members of the Board of Supervisors shall be allowed to question all parties appearing before them.

H. Decisions to reverse or modify the assessment shall be decided upon motion and majority vote of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Failure to obtain a majority vote to reverse or modify the assessment shall be construed as upholding the assessment. The decision of the Board shall be final.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 28 11

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 28 11-268. Removal of rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris and dilapidated buildings; removal by county; costs assessed; collection; priority of lien; definitions A. The board of supervisors, by ordinance, shall compel the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings, grounds or lots located in the unincorporated areas of the county to remove rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings that constitute a hazard to public health and safety from buildings, grounds, lots, contiguous sidewalks, streets and alleys. Any such ordinance shall require and include: 1. Reasonable written notice to the owner, any lienholder, the occupant or the lessee. The notice shall be given at least thirty days before the day set for compliance and shall include the estimated cost to the county for the removal if the owner, occupant or lessee does not comply. The notice shall be either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner, occupant or lessee at his last known address, or the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed. If the owner does not reside on the property, a duplicate notice shall also be sent to the owner at the owner's last known address. 2. Provisions for appeal on both the notice and the assessments. 3. That any person, firm or corporation that recklessly places any rubbish, trash, filth or debris on any private or public property located in the unincorporated areas of the county not owned or under the control of the person, firm or corporation: (a) Is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor unless that person, firm or corporation immediately removes or causes to be removed the rubbish, trash, filth or debris from that property. One hundred per cent of any assessed fine shall be deposited in the general fund of the county in which the fine was assessed. At least fifty per cent of the fine shall be used by the county for the purposes of illegal dumping cleanup. (b) In addition to the fine that is imposed for a violation of this section, is liable for all costs that may be assessed pursuant to this section for the removal of the rubbish, trash, filth or debris. B. The ordinance may provide that if any person with an interest in the property, including an owner, lienholder, lessee or occupant of the buildings, grounds or lots, after notice as required by subsection A, paragraph 1, does not remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings and abate the condition that constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, the county, at the expense of the owner, lessee or occupant, may remove, abate, enjoin or cause the removal of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings. C. The board of supervisors may prescribe by the ordinance a procedure for such removal or abatement and for making the actual cost of the removal or abatement, including the actual costs of any additional inspection and other incidental costs in connection with the removal or abatement, an assessment on the lots and tracts of land from which the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings are removed. D. The ordinance may provide that the cost of removal, abatement or injunction of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings from any lot or tract of land located in the unincorporated areas of the county and associated legal costs be assessed in the manner and form prescribed by ordinance of the county on the property from which the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated buildings are removed, abated or enjoined. The county shall record the assessment in the county recorder's office in the county in which the property is located, including the

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 28 date and amount of the assessment and the legal description of the property. Any assessment recorded after August 6, 1999 is prior and superior to all other liens, obligations or other encumbrances, except liens for general taxes and prior recorded mortgages. A sale of the property to satisfy an assessment obtained under this section shall be made on judgment of foreclosure and order of sale. The county may bring an action to enforce the lien in the superior court in the county in which the property is located at any time after the recording of the assessment, but failure to enforce the lien by such action does not affect its validity. The recorded assessment is prima facie evidence of the truth of all matters recited in the assessment and of the regularity of all proceedings before the recording of the assessment. The assessment provided for in this subsection shall not be levied against state or federal property. E. Assessments that are imposed under subsection D of this section run against the property until they are paid and are due and payable in equal annual installments as follows: 1. Assessments of less than five hundred dollars shall be paid within one year after the assessment is recorded. 2. Assessments of five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars shall be paid within two years after the assessment is recorded. 3. Assessments of one thousand dollars or more but less than five thousand dollars shall be paid within three years after the assessment is recorded. 4. Assessments of five thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars shall be paid within six years after the assessment is recorded. 5. Assessments of ten thousand dollars or more shall be paid within ten years after the assessment is recorded. F. A prior assessment for the purposes provided in this section is not a bar to a subsequent assessment or assessments for such purposes, and any number of liens on the same lot or tract of land may be enforced in the same action. G. Before the removal of a dilapidated building the board of supervisors shall consult with the state historic preservation officer to determine if the building is of historical value. H. If a county removes a dilapidated building pursuant to this section, the county assessor shall adjust the valuation of the property on the property assessment tax rolls from the date of removal. I. If a person, firm or corporation is required to remove any rubbish, trash, filth or debris pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3, the person, firm or corporation shall provide the county with a receipt from a disposal facility to indicate that the rubbish, trash, filth or debris has been disposed of as required by law. J. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Dilapidated building" means any real property structure that is likely to burn or collapse and its condition endangers the life, health, safety or property of the public. 2. Occupant does not include any corporation or association operating or maintaining rights-of-way for and on behalf of the United States government, either under contract or under federal law. 3. Owner does not include a state or federal landowner.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 28 1. Assessments of less than five hundred dollars shall be paid within one year after the assessment is recorded.

2. Assessments of five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars shall be paid within two years after the assessment is recorded.

3. Assessments of one thousand dollars or more but less than five thousand dollars shall be paid within three years after the assessment is recorded.

4. Assessments of five thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars shall be paid within six years after the assessment is recorded.

5. Assessments of ten thousand dollars or more shall be paid within ten years after the assessment is recorded.

6. 10/18/2016 | Community Development | Work session discussion regarding the proposed adoption of an... 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 28 Meeting Date: October 18th, 2016

DATE: September 28, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Scott J. Tkach P.E., Coconino County Engineer

SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the content of Chapters 1 & 2 of the Proposed County General Engineering Standards (GES).

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion is not applicable; this is a discussion item only. Staff is seeking feedback on direction.

BACKGROUND:

The intent of this work session is to get input from the Board of Supervisors regarding the content of Chapters 1 & 2. Staff is not requesting approval of these chapters today but rather introducing them to the Board for input. Staff will be coming back to the Board, periodically over the next several months to present future chapters, and will be seeking the Boards approval and adoption of the entire GES document in June 2017.

The Coconino County Engineering Design & Construction Manual (last updated in 2004) and the Coconino County Drainage Design Criteria Manual (last updated in 2001) are outdated and need to be revised to better reflect changes in national and state engineering standards, as well as to keep pace with changes in engineering and construction methodologies and products. The first two chapters have been vetted through the stakeholder group and their comments/concerns have been addressed by staff. Of note, through this process a Record Drawing (as-builts) Checklist was developed as well as a draft GES Waiver form. The draft waiver form will provide a transparent approach to requesting a variance from the adopted standards, and will have three tiers; Administrative, Technical and Design. The appeal process for the approval of the variance will begin with the Development Services Engineer and can be elevated to the County Engineer for final approval or denial.

Chapter 1 deals with General Conditions and Requirements; specifically, this includes legal authority to require these minimal standards, deviations from these standards, definitions and engineering/construction references. Chapter 2 deals with Construction and Improvement plans; specifically, construction and improvement plan submittal requirements, Right-of-Way transfer of ownership of real property, record drawing (as-builts) requirements, survey requirements, GIS 1

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 67 requirements, CADD standards and State and County regulations and general note requirements.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are available to the Board of Supervisors:

 Participate in the discussion outlined above.  Cancel or reschedule the presentation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

It is expected that this discussion will lead to modification of County policies, which may carry a fiscal impact for the County and developers; however, no impact will result from the discussion.

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Powerpoint Presentation. (Attachment 2). 2. Waiver Request Form. (Attachment 3). 3. Stakeholder Discussion Items. (Attachment 4). 4. Record Drawings Checklist. (Attachment 5). 5. Stakeholder Group List. (Attachment 6). 6. Chapters 1 & 2. (Attachment 7). 7. Future BOS Presentations. (Attachment 8). 8. Document Development Flow Chart. (Attachment 9).

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 67 Engineering Design and Construction Manual Update

Chapters 1 & 2

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards October 18, 2016 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 67 Staff Seeks Input

§ Staff is seeking input from the Board of Supervisors on the approach and content of the Chapters 1 & 2.

§ Staff will be coming back to the Board of Supervisors requesting approval of the Standards (all chapters) in June 2017.

§ Staff will review all Chapters with the Board according to the attached schedule.

§ Current Plan is to seek final approval of the Engineering Standards, by the Board, in June 2017.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page2 4 of 67 Presentation Overview

§ Why is there a need to update the standards § Goals and Outcomes § Definition of Success § Stakeholder’s Participation § General Engineering Requirements – Chapters § Current Status § Content of Chapters 1 & 2 § Next Step in the Process Chapters 6 & 7 § Discussion and Direction

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page3 5 of 67 Reason for the Update

§ Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Criteria - last updated 2004 § Coconino County Drainage Design Criteria Manual – last updated 2001 § Consistency with Federal and State Engineering Standards and updates § Evolution of engineering standard operating procedures and practices. § Better reflect the values of the County: transparency, ease of use, improved turn-around time, better reflect goals of comprehensive plan, and implement industry standards

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page4 6 of 67 Goals/Outcomes

§ Three Documents § Engineering Design Standards § Standard Details § Standard Specifications

§ Design Standards to contain design related information

§ Standard Specifications and Details to contain construction related information

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page5 7 of 67 Definition of Success

§ User friendly, on web, searchable § Compatible with update to Subdivision Ordinance § Cost effective infrastructure (initial capital and long term maintenance expenditures) § Compatible and consistent with MAG, ADOT, AASHTO, MUTCD, FHWA and other Guidelines § Accepted by the County and the Development Community § Allow future updates at regular intervals § Easy to understand, follow and use

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page6 8 of 67 Stakeholders Participation

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page7 9 of 67 Stakeholders

§ Stakeholders Invited to Participate § County Staff § Local Engineering Firms § Contractors § Development Community Representatives § Third Party Utilities § Home Builders § Local Agencies (City of Flagstaff, USFS, NAIPTA, AZ Game & Fish)

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page8 10 of 67 General Engineering Standards - Chapters

§ Engineering Design Standards Chapters: § 1 – General Conditions and Requirements § 2 – Construction Improvement Plans § 3 – Grading and Sediment Control § 4 – Drainage Criteria § 5 – Transportation and Traffic Engineering § 6 – Utilities (Not Owned by Coconino County) § 7 – Landscape and Irrigation § Standard Details – Supplement to MAG § Standard Specifications – Supplement to MAG

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page9 11 of 67 General Engineering Standards - Chapters

§ Process for the Development of the Chapters:

Review by Finalize Document Review by Final Review by Stakeholders Develop Format Develop Draft Chapter Incorporate and Board of Supervisors Stakeholders Finalize Chapter

Start with County Info Compile Chapters Develop Table of Contents Comment Resolution Internal and External

Develop Chapter Format Reference Docs from Other Agencies Utilize Review Template Navigable PDF Response to all comments Upload to County Website Font Style Review against Codes/Ordinances

Identify Graphics/Figures Notification to Industry

Identify Items with Frequent Updates

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201610 Page 12 of 67 Current Status

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201611 Page 13 of 67 Current Status

§ Current Status: § Pre-Final § 1 – General Conditions and Requirements § 2 – Construction Improvement Plans § Completed Initial Review by Stakeholders § 6 – Utilities (Not Owned by Coconino County) § 7 – Landscape and Irrigation § Sent out for Initial Technical Review § 4 – Drainage Criteria

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201612 Page 14 of 67 Current Status

§ Current Status – Continued: § Developing Initial Drafts § 3 – Grading and Sediment Control § 5 – Transportation and Traffic Engineering § Standard Details § Standard Specifications § Final BOS Approval and Adoption

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201613 Page 15 of 67 Chapters 1 and 2

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201614 Page 16 of 67 Chapters 1 and 2

§ Number of comments received – 200+ § Comment Resolution Meeting held – 3/10/16 § Meeting Summary: § Provided stakeholders with a comment resolution matrix including an initial comment disposition § Many comments focused in particular areas which were discussed in detail at the meeting § Developed action items for follow up

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201615 Page 17 of 67 Chapters 1 and 2

§ Major topics discussed: § Deliverables required by the County § County’s Low-Impact Development policies and procedures § Waiver process § Haul route permit requirements § Record drawing requirements § Plat process to be removed and covered in Subdivision Ordinance § Two-year warranty § Survey requirements

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201616 Page 18 of 67 Chapters 1 & 2

§ Low-Impact Development (LID) § Subcommittee created to address the County’s LID standards

§ Use examples from other agencies’ Manuals as a starting point

§ Potentially included as a supplement to the Design Manual

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201617 Page 19 of 67 Chapters 1 & 2

§ Waiver Request Form § Separate form pertaining to the process for deviating from the requirements in the Manual § Allows for special site considerations § Three Waiver Types § Administrative § Technical § Design

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201618 Page 20 of 67 Content of Chapters 1 & 2

§ Record Drawings Checklist § Developed a checklist outlining requirements for future Record Drawings

§ Includes requirements for all types of projects

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201619 Page 21 of 67 Next step in the Process – Chapters 6 & 7

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201620 Page 22 of 67 Next Step in the Process – Chapters 6 & 7

§ Next Board of Supervisors meeting: § Meeting Date – November 15, 2016

§ Meeting Topics – § Chapter 6 – Utilities (Not Owned by Coconino County) § Chapter 7 - Landscape and Irrigation

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/201621 Page 23 of 67

Discussion and Direction

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 67 WAIVER REQUEST FORM for Coconino County Improvements August 2016

Project Name:

Project No.:

Date:

The intent of this form is to provide guidance for deviations from the approved Engineering Design and Construction Manual. Specifically, this outline details the three waiver types (Administrative, Technical and Design) and the respective fees for each type of request, accompanying timelines, the decision appeal process, acceptable justification for a waiver, as well as specific examples of types of waivers. All engineering analysis is required to be sealed by a Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona.

The following is required to be submitted with Waiver Request Form:

 Fees associated with the application.  Administrative Waiver $100  Technical Waiver $250  Design Waiver $450

 Completed and signed Waiver Request Form. County staff will determine if the Waiver Request Form is Technically Complete. If so, a notice of Technical Completion and a receipt for the filing fee will be sent to the applicant within fifteen (15) days of submittal of the form. Also if the form is deemed to not be Technically Complete, the applicant will receive notice within fifteen (15) days of submittal of the form.

2 copies of the following:  Narrative describing the project as well as the proposed deviation submitted with the Waiver Request Form. The narrative shall include the following: a. Section of Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual and/or the Technical Specification or Standard Detail which relates to the proposed deviation.

b. Justification for the proposed deviation - A detailed explanation stating the extraordinary factors that does not allow for the strict adherence to the County standard(s) or code justifying approval according to the Approval Criteria (See Page 4).

c. Any additional documentation and background information that is required to support the request.

 Engineering Analysis including supporting documentation, (i.e. traffic studies, structural analysis, hydraulic and hydrologic assessment, water and sewer reports, typical sections, alternative designs, etc.) for technical or design waivers.

Forms without the required information will not be accepted. If you have questions regarding submittal requirements you may call the Community Development Engineering Team at (602) 679-8850. 1

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 67 Classification (please check the appropriate box)  Administrative Waiver

Minor deviations a) do not involve safety or offsite impacts, b) involve minimal review, c) do not involve broad public interest, d) are similar to other approved modifications, and e) occur routinely.

Examples of Administrative Waiver include:

 Minor access spacing changes when no alternative is feasible  A minor increase in the maximum number of lots served by driveways  Reduced cross sectional requirements, in order to match existing roadway and curbs

A filing fee in the amount of: $100 (Cost Recovery)

 Technical Waiver

Moderate deviations a) require limited engineering analysis and County review, b) have minimal expected safety impacts, c) have minimal potential offsite impacts, and d) generate minimal public interest.

Examples of a Technical Waiver include:

 Use of attached sidewalk in lieu of detached sidewalks based on site conditions  Use of roll curb and gutter in lieu of vertical curb and gutter  Removal of on-street parking  Modification to medians, access locations or lane channelization when no offsite impacts result

A filing fee in the amount of: $205 (Cost Recovery)

 Design Waiver

Major deviation are unique cases that have the potential for significant impacts to the public or County and require extensive analysis and documentation.

Examples of a Design Waiver include:

 Alternative roadway pavement design  Reduced left turn or right turn pocket storage  Cross circulation or roadway spacing changes when the obligation may be passed on to other properties  Design changes concerning traffic or pedestrian safety  Access changes with potential material impacts to other parties  Pre-development versus post-development detention or retention requirements

A filing fee in the amount of: $450 (Cost Recovery)

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 67 The initial ruling will be made by the Community Development Engineering Supervisor. The initial ruling will include a verification that the applicant has appropriately classified the waiver type (i.e. Administrative, Technical, or Design). Appeals can be made to County Engineer by including a copy of the waiver request and all supporting documents and calculations, along with a letter describing in detail the reasons for the appeal.

Failure to comply with the approved or conditionally approved waiver will be cause for

1. Denial or revocation of engineering plan approvals and permits.

2. Withholding or release of financial assurances.

3. Removal and reconstruction.

4. Delay of final inspection.

5. Delay or denial of final approval.

6. Denial of occupancy certificates (temporary and permanent).

7. Notice to surety or other financial institution and/or legal action for forfeiture of financial assurances.

8. Code enforcement.

9. Any other applicable penalties as provided by law.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 67 Approval Criteria (for County use)

In reviewing a Waiver request, the County shall consider the applicable factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:

Yes No

Does the waiver violate or circumvent Federal or State regulations?

Would granting the waiver create an undesirable precedent?

Will the proposed alternative provide a reasonable alternative to the current Standards and comparable level of protection to the public and County staff?

Does the strict application of the code requirement or Standard place an undue burden on the property inconsistent with the burden placed on other properties in similar situations under similar circumstances?

Does the strict application of the code requirement or Standard have an unreasonable adverse impact on the property owner’s ability to the reasonably use their property?

Will the proposed alternative adversely impact the operation and maintenance of the drainage, transportation or utility infrastructure?

Is the proposed alternative consistent with the adopted regional, area or neighborhood plan?

Did applicant provide necessary documents to evaluate the proposed variance? See list of some possible documents under Engineering Analysis on Page 1.

Does the proposed waiver create a public health and safety issue?

Does the proposed waiver create undo financial hardship to the general public?

All circumstances of the situation will be considered.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 67 09-27-16

MAJOR DISCUSSION ITEMS WITH STAKEHOLDER GROUP

1. Deliverables required by the County  Construction Plans, Drainage Report, Soils Report, CC&Rs, Will- Serve letter, etc.  Electronic copies – PDF’s  Haul Route permit requirements for specific projects 2. County-wide CAD Standards 3. Engineering Waiver Process  Who makes ruling?  What is the appeal process? 4. Record Drawing Requirements 5. Right of Way Plan Requirements 6. Plat Process  Will be reviewed from the Standards and covered in the Subdivision Ordinance 7. County’s Low-Impact Development policies and procedures 8. Two Year Warranty  As opposed to a One Year Warranty required by MAG  Other Forms of Financial Assurance 9. Survey requirements a. ALTA Surveys, Horizontal and Vertical datum, County Benchmarks, etc. 10. General Notes included on every plan set

Stakeholder Meeting Date: March 10, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 29 of 67 RECORD DRAWINGS CHECKLIST for Civil Improvements for Coconino County September 2016

Project Name:

Project No.:

Date:

All items listed below shall be provided on Record Drawings unless identified with N/A.

General (applies to entire plan set)

______Record Drawings plan set shall contain all improvement plan sheets from the approved design/construction plan set (cover sheet to last sheet including details). The Record Drawings shall contain all horizontal and vertical design information, sizes, thicknesses, and material types of improvements shown on the design/construction plan set (even if unchanged during construction). Includie supplemental sheets for exhibits, ESIs, etc issued during construction, as appropriate.

______All plan sheets shall be certified and sealed by a Professional Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor with knowledge of practice in the field of practice for the elements they are certifying. Refer to Arizona Revised Statute 32-152.

______If the entity preparing the record drawings is different from the Design Engineer / Firm, provide contact info on cover sheet.

______Place “Record Drawing” lettering and date in lower right hand corner of all sheets.

______Improvements deleted in the field shall be crossed out with an “x” and labeled “not built”.

______Major Improvements changed from the approved design plans shall be reflected and clearly called out by “clouding”.

______Plan sheets that represent improvements that were not changed from the approved design plans shall have “Per Plan” indicated clearly for the elements that were actually constructed without variance from the original design plans.

______All elevations shall be based on the same benchmark as the project plans.

Sanitary Sewer Plans

______Sanitary Sewer improvements built exactly per design plan shall have the elevations/stations/locations identified as constructed “per plan”. As built improvements which vary from the original design information on the plans shall be marked “AB”.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 30 of 67 ______Stations and offsets for all services and lateral stub-outs (station and invert elevation)

______Manhole stations, cleanout stations, pipe invert elevations (in and out) and manhole rim elevations shall be determined by field surveying.

______Pipe lengths and diameters indicated on both plan and profile.

______Recalculate longitudinal pipe slopes for all pipe segments.

______Stations and length of pipe encasements/extra protection.

______Utilities discovered during construction including type, size, station, offset & elevation.

______Lift Station, force mains, sewage valves, air valves, etc. locations and details.

Water Plans

______Water system improvements built exactly per design plan shall have the elevations/stations/locations identified as constructed “per plan”. As built improvements which vary from the original design information on the plans shall be marked “AB”.

______Stations and offsets of all water services including landscape and fire lines.

______Stations and offsets of all fire hydrants.

______Stations and offsets of all valve boxes, blow-offs, reducers, and air release valves.

______Stations and offsets of all bends, tees, and dimensions and type of joint restraints.

______Profile view of all pipeline vertical alignments, including stations of all fittings, depth to finish grade, and pipe separation dimensions.

______Stations and length of pipe encasements/extra protection.

______Utilities discovered during construction including type, size, station, offset & elevation.

______Booster station details, tank details, control valve details, system logic and/or SCADA details

Grading and Drainage Plans

______Grading and Drainage improvements built exactly per design plan shall have the elevations/stations/locations identified as constructed “per plan”. As built improvements which vary from the original design information on the plans shall be marked “AB”.

______Stations, offsets, inverts for storm sewer pipes at inlets, outlets and manholes shall be determined by field surveying.

______Recalculate longitudinal pipe slopes for all pipe segments.

______Flow line slopes and elevations.

______Stations and offsets, Culvert lengths, headwalls, slopes and pipe size and material.

______Channel lengths, stations, locations, slopes, cross sections and materials.

______Constructed and design Storage volumes for detention/retention facilities.

______Building pad elevations, swales, berms, slopes and footing and top of retaining walls.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 31 of 67 ______Details and Inverts of outlet structure(s), headwalls and weir elevation(s).

______Location and depth of underdrain system and cleanouts and pond liners, as applicable.

______Cut and Fill, import and export volumes.

______Areas of non-engineered fill placement

Street/Trail Plans

______Street/Trail projects built exactly per design plan shall have the elevations/stations/locations identified as constructed “per plan”. As built improvements which vary from the original design information on the plans shall be marked “AB”.

______Stations and offsets of all survey monuments.

______Location and area/limits of geogrid, chemical stabilization, interlayers or other pavement enhancements.

______Location and approximate area of unsuitable material removal and replacement.

______Sleeve/conduit/casing types, sizes, locations and stations.

______Centerline, edge of pavement (or top of curb), Vertical and horizontal curve data.

______Stations, offsets, and elevations of all curb angle points and curb return radii.

______Stations, offsets, bottom elevation and wing dimension of all catch basins.

Street Lights and Traffic Signal Plans

______Locations of all street illumination lights.

______Locations of all traffic signal poles, cabinets, J-boxes and related conduits.

______Abandonment of existing conduits and facilities.

Miscellaneous

______Unforeseen underground structures exposed during construction such as vaults, pipes or culverts.

______Dry utilities and and/or their conduits with depth and location based on surveyed positions or swing ties (2 minimum) to permanent structures or other acceptable method of measurement.

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 32 of 67 General Engineering Standards – Stakeholder’s List

Name Organization Email Phone Address City State Zip Chris Dusza Civiltec Engineering, Inc. [email protected] (623) 582-0970 9299 W. Olive Ave. Peoria AZ 85345 Don Walters [email protected] (928) 779-4545 PO Box 31235 Flagstaff AZ 86003 Doug Dusty Hare Capstone Homes - Realtor [email protected] (928) 853-8510 3605 S. Flagstaff Ranch Rd. Flagstaff AZ 86005 Guillermo Cortes Shepard-Wesnitzer, Inc. [email protected] (928) 773-0354 Hannah Griscom AZ Game & Fish - Region II [email protected] (928) 774-5045 3500 Lake Mary Road Flagstaff AZ 86005 Jeff Swan Woodson Engineering & Surveying Inc [email protected] (928) 774-4636 John O'Brien USFS [email protected] (928) 527-3578 Judy Adams USFS Lands Team Leader, CNF [email protected] (928) 203-7506 PO Box 20429 Sedona AZ 86341 Julie Leid Peak Engineering [email protected] (928) 8148208 110 N. Agassiz Street Flagstaff AZ 86004 Les Butters Flagstaff Engineer [email protected] (928) 699-3191 3515 N. Lost Creek Trail Flagstaff AZ 86001 Melissa Holper Kinney Construction Services, Inc. [email protected] (928) 779-2820 121 E. Birch Ave., Suite 500 Flagstaff AZ 86001 Paul Turner Turner Engineering, Inc. [email protected] (928) 779-1814 528 W. Aspen Ave. Flagstaff AZ 86001 Loras Rauch Contract Planning Services, Inc. [email protected] (480) 221-3764 17203 E. Calaverous Ave Fountain Hills AZ 85268 Richard Shroads Civiltec Engineering, Inc. [email protected] (928) 771-2376 Tim Kinney Kinney Construction Services, Inc. [email protected] (928) 779-2820 Joe Rumann Coconino Community Development [email protected] (928) 679-8852 Aric Stewart Coconino Public Works - Engineering [email protected] (928) 679-8340 Scott Tkach Coconino Public Works - Engineering [email protected] (928) 679-8351 John Carr Coconino Community Development [email protected] (928) 679-8881 Britt DeMuth [email protected] (928) 774-4409 PO Box 498 Flagstaff AZ 86002 Sean Untalan USFS [email protected] (928) 527-3575 1824 S. Thompson Street Flagstaff AZ 86001 Bill Linck Entellus [email protected] (602) 244-2566 3033 N. 44th St, Suite 250 Phoenix AZ 85018 Mike Bonar Entellus [email protected] (602) 244-2566 3033 N. 44th St, Suite 250 Phoenix AZ 85018 Ryan Sauer Entellus [email protected] (602) 244-2566 3033 N. 44th St, Suite 250 Phoenix AZ 85018 Brian Wilcox Entellus [email protected] (602) 244-2566 3033 N. 44th St, Suite 250 Phoenix AZ 85018 Kate Morley NAIPTA [email protected] (928) 679-8903 3773 N. Kaspar Dr. Flagstaff AZ 86004 David Wessel City of Flagstaff [email protected] (928) 213-2650 211 W. Aspen Ave Flagstaff AZ 86001 Rick Barrett City of Flagstaff [email protected] (928) 213-2675 211 W. Aspen Ave Flagstaff AZ 86001

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 33 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Table of Contents

1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ...... 5 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT ...... 5 1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY ...... 5 1.2.1 State and Federal Codes ...... 5 1.2.2 County Code and Ordinances ...... 5 1.2.3 Applicability ...... 6 1.2.4 Severability ...... 6 1.3 PROJECT CLASSIFICATIONS ...... 6 1.3.1 Public Works ...... 6 1.3.2 Community Development ...... 6 1.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ...... 7 1.4.1 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan ...... 7 1.4.2 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan ..... 7 1.4.3 Subdivision Ordinance ...... 7 1.5 DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS...... 7 1.6 DEFINITIONS ...... 7 1.7 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9 1.8 REFERENCES ...... 10 1.8.1 County References ...... 10 1.8.2 State References ...... 11 1.8.3 Federal References ...... 11 2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS ...... 13 2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 13 2.2 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS ...... 13 2.2.1 Plan Requirements - General ...... 13 2.2.2 Plan Requirements - Subdivision ...... 15 2.2.3 Cover Sheet Requirements ...... 15 2.2.4 General Notes, Quantity and Index Sheet Requirements ...... 16 2.2.5 Horizontal and Vertical Control Requirements ...... 16 2.2.6 Plan and Profile Sheet Requirements ...... 17 2.2.7 Detail Sheets Requirements ...... 17 2.3 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL ...... 17 2.3.1 Plan Review ...... 17

i Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 34 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.3.2 Plan Review Comments ...... 18 2.3.3 General Submittal Requirements ...... 18 2.3.4 Utility Company Approvals ...... 19 2.3.5 First Submittal Deliverables ...... 19 2.3.6 Second Submittal Deliverables ...... 20 2.3.7 Final Submittal ...... 20 2.4 SUBDIVISION PROCESS ...... 21 2.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY ...... 21 2.5.1 Right-of-Way Phase ...... 21 2.5.1.1 RESEARCH FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ...... 21 2.5.1.2 DOCUMENT PREPATION ...... 21 2.5.1.3 NEGOTIATION ...... 22 2.5.1.4 CONDEMNATION ...... 23 2.5.1.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATION ...... 23 2.5.2 Right-of-way Plans ...... 23 2.5.2.1 RIGHT–OF-WAY PLAN REQUIREMENTS ...... 24 2.6 RECORD DRAWINGS REQUIREMENTS ...... 25 2.6.1 Record Drawings Submittals ...... 25 2.6.2 Record Drawings Disclaimer ...... 26 2.6.3 Record Drawings Certification ...... 26 2.6.4 Letter of Completion ...... 26 2.6.5 Two Year Warranty ...... 27 2.7 SURVEY REQUIREMENTS ...... 27 2.7.1 General Information ...... 27 2.7.1.1 SURVEY STANDARDS ...... 27 2.7.2 Survey Datums ...... 27 2.7.2.1 HORIZONTAL DATUM ...... 27 2.7.2.2 VERTICAL DATUM ...... 27 2.7.2.3 META DATA ...... 28 2.7.3 Monuments ...... 28 2.7.3.1 EXISTING MONUMENTS ...... 28 2.7.3.2 NEW MONUMENTS ...... 28 2.8 GIS REQUIREMENTS ...... 28 2.9 CAD STANDARDS ...... 29

ii Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 35 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.10 STATE AND COUNTY REGULATIONS ...... 29 2.10.1 Environmental Analysis and Mitigation ...... 29 2.10.2 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) ...... 29 2.10.3 Storm Water Quality ...... 29 2.11 GENERAL NOTES ...... 30

iii Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 36 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

List of Figures

No table of figures entries found.

List of Tables

No table of figures entries found.

iv Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 37 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT

The laws of the State of Arizona and its political subdivisions, as presently constituted, require permits from various regulatory agencies for most activities involving construction, engineering, surveying, and associated practices. At the County-level these activities will, more often than not, involve infrastructure design and construction. The manual has been created to provide standards, specifications, and recommendations associated with good engineering practice and pertaining to hazard mitigation, public health, safety, and welfare in Coconino County.

The intent of these standards is to present clear and concise direction regarding technical requirements, policies, and processes needed to facilitate consistent uniform improvements through both the plan preparation and construction phases. However, the information presented is not intended to supersede sound engineering judgment. Accordingly, development of new technologies creative and innovative use of materials, system design, or construction practices may be accepted by County plan review personnel upon finding that public health, safety and welfare is duly protected via a variance process.

It is also recognized that the use of standard designs and materials, especially for public facilities and works, is often more desirable than not when viewed from the perspective of efficiency of maintenance, repair, or replacement or about public safety.

It is anticipated that the primary users of these standards, specifications, and recommendations will be Engineers and Contractors licensed in the State of Arizona.

1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY

1.2.1 State and Federal Codes

The Engineering Design and Construction Manual is not intended to interfere with, repeal or do away with law or right, or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute, or other provision of law except as provided in this Manual. Where any provision of this Manual imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other provision of law, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes higher standards upon the development and use of land shall control.

1.2.2 County Code and Ordinances

It is the purpose of the Coconino County Code and Ordinances, to outline and establish the minimum acceptable standards for infrastructure improvements to define the responsibility of the Professional Engineer/developer in the design, construction and financing of public improvements, and to establish procedures for review and approval of engineering plans.

The Engineering Design and Construction Manual supplements requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Floodplain

5 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 38 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Management Overlay Zone, Stormwater Ordinance, Building Ordinance, and other regulations for land development within the County. Refer to the County website for the Comprehensive Plan.

The Engineering Design and Construction Manual shall govern all projects within the unincorporated County limits.

1.2.3 Applicability

This manual shall apply to all newly constructed transportation, utility, and right-of- way facilities and improvements within the County.

This manual shall apply to modifications of street features or existing facilities which are within the scope of reconstruction, widening or narrowing, or to the extent they are expressly referred to in the Comprehensive Plan and associated Area Plans.

This manual shall apply to every new placement and every planned, non- emergency replacement of existing utility poles, underground facilities, and other utility system structures within the County right-of-way. Every effort shall be made to meet the standards during emergency replacements.

1.2.4 Severability

If any part of these standards as approved by the County Engineer shall be found invalid, all other parts shall remain in effect.

1.3 PROJECT CLASSIFICATIONS

1.3.1 Public Works

Public Works Projects or Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are projects that are installed as part of a Capital Improvement Plan. CIP projects are typically County funded projects, often in public right-of-way, that are managed by County staff and designed in-house or by Professional Engineers. Ultimately, construction of a CIP project is awarded by the County.

1.3.2 Community Development

Community Development projects are projects with construction improvements that are to be installed as part of a new private land development. Engineering and construction requirements are outlined in this Manual as well as the County codes and ordinances. Refer to the County website for specific information regarding the Community Development Processes. The website includes the applications, permits and a detailed flowchart outlining each step in the process.

6 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 39 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

1.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

1.4.1 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan

The County Comprehensive Plan was developed to provide the County with a vision to guide growth and development. At the same time, the Comprehensive Plan serves as a roadmap for the future by establishing goals and policies to direct growth responsibly, solve problems and improve the quality of life for County residents. The developer/Professional Engineer shall review the County Comprehensive Plan to assure their proposed construction improvement reflect and implement the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to the County website for the Comprehensive Plan.

1.4.2 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan

The Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan identifies current and future community parks, their capital improvement and other infrastructure needs, and sets the direction for undertaking parks projects that will enhance the County’s recreational opportunities afforded by a well-developed parks system. The current Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan is available on the County website.

1.4.3 Subdivision Ordinance

The most recent Coconino County Subdivision Ordinance can be found on the County’s website.

1.5 DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS

The County Engineer may approve a Waiver that would allow deviations from these standards under the criteria outlined Waiver Request Form. All known deviations must be approved prior to approval of the Engineering Plans for construction. See the Coconino County website for the Waiver Request Form.

1.6 DEFINITIONS

When referred to in these Standards or in contract documents, the following definitions shall apply:

Board of Supervisors: The Coconino County Board of Supervisors acting under the authority of the laws of the State of Arizona.

Building Official: An employee of Coconino County acting as the Building Official under the authority of the County Engineer or the Director of the Coconino County Community Development Department.

Clear Zone: The total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. The

7 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 40 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

desired width is dependent upon the traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry.

Client Directed Work: Work not defined in the contract to be paid under a Contract Allowance.

County: Coconino County, a political subdivision, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arizona.

County Clerk: The authorized person who performs the duties of clerk for the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

County Engineer: A holder of a valid license to practice engineering in the State of Arizona who is authorized by Coconino County to act as the “County Engineer” or other Professional Engineer as authorized by the County. Refer to ARS Title 11 – Counties for more information.

Computer-aided design: Software used by architects, engineers, drafters, artists, and others to create technical drawings or plans.

Construction Plans or Engineered Plans: A set of plans and specifications prepared, signed, and sealed by a Professional Engineer.

Design: Plans created to show proposed modifications to real property.

Hazard Mitigation: Minimizing the possibility of harmful effects to the community development and public safety.

Improvement: Any alteration to real property.

Land Division: Real property proposed to be divided into five or fewer parcels on fractional interests (see the Coconino County Subdivision Ordinance for a complete definition).

Legal Description: A description of real property prepared and sealed by a land surveyor licensed by the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration.

Private Roadway: A roadway that is located on in either an easement or the right- of-way that has not been accepted for ownership or maintenance by the County.

Record Drawings: Construction drawings, documents or plans sealed and signed by a professional registered in the State of Arizona (usually a Professional Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor) which depict the locations of actual improvements. As-constructed plans are also called and known as “As-Builts” or “As-Constructed Plans”.

Registered Land Surveyor: A person who has a current surveying registration granted by the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration.

8 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 41 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Right-of-Way Plans: Plans showing property lines, proposed right-of-way lines, acquisition and residue areas, and all improvements needed for the appraisal and acquisition functions.

Road: A general term denoting a way for vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right-of-way.

Staff: Employees of Coconino County.

Subdivision: Refer to the Coconino County Subdivision Ordinance for definition.

Working Days: The number of days necessary to successfully complete all construction work. Working days are generally any day except Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. On accelerated projects, all calendar days may be specified as working days.

Additional definitions are included in the latest Maricopa Associations of Governments Uniform Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction.

1.7 ABBREVIATIONS

Whenever the following abbreviations are used in these specifications, standard details or on the plans, they are to be construed the same as the respective expressions represented.

AAC Arizona Administrative Code AEC Arizona Electric Code AGA American Gas Association AGC Associated General Constructors of America, Inc. Asph Asphalt CAD Computer-aided design CCR Coconino County Records CD Community Development CE County Engineer CS Curve to Spiral FCC Federal Communications Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration IBC International Building Code Lat Latitude MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration RLS Registered Land Surveyor ST Spiral to Tangent UPC Uniform Plumbing Code

9 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 42 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Additional abbreviations are included in the latest Maricopa Associations of Governments Uniform Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction.

1.8 REFERENCES

All references herein shall be to the editions or versions of documents in effect at the time a complete application for the required Permit is accepted by the County unless a Developer is otherwise vested by applicable law.

When a publication is specified, it refers to the most recent date of issue, including interim publications, unless a specific date or year of issue is provided.

1.8.1 County References

All design and construction in Coconino County whether public or private shall be done in accordance with the principals, practices and standards in the current version of the following publications:

 The Coconino County Subdivision Ordinance

 The Coconino County Zoning Ordinance

 The Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual

Other standards which will apply when appropriate shall include but not be limited to the current versions of the following:

 The Coconino County Comprehensive Plan

 The Maricopa Association of Governments – Uniform Standard Specifications and Details (MAG)

 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

 Standards, Practices, and Rules imposed by other Regulatory Agencies

The County Engineer and/or staff must review and approve all engineering plans, specifications, and documents for public works improvements and private improvements which require County authorization or permits.

All work on property owned or controlled by Coconino County will require an Encroachment Permit. All private development work within the County’s jurisdiction will be conveyed by the plat process. Inspections of the construction of public and private improvements by the County and written acceptance of the construction by the County Engineer or designated staff is required for all County permitted work.

10 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 43 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

1.8.2 State References

All design and construction in Coconino County whether public or private shall be done in accordance with the principals, practices and standards in the current version of the following publications except as required by this manual or other County regulations or ordinances:

 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Highway Construction

 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Roadway Design Standards and Guidelines, latest edition; Roadway Design Standards

 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Construction Manual, latest edition; Construction Manual

 The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Standards and Specifications

 Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Standards

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) requires that permits be issued by ADOT for any work performed in State rights-of-way.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) approval to construct both water and sewer systems must be obtained prior to approval of construction plans by the County Engineer and prior to issuance of County permits.

Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) Permit required prior to approval of construction plans.

Permits from controlling State Agencies will be required prior to the issuance of construction permits by Coconino County.

1.8.3 Federal References

The following specifications and guidelines shall be applicable when specifically cited in these Standards, when required as a Development condition, and/or when required by state or federal funding authority:

 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), applicable standards and specifications as determined by the Professional Engineer

 The following American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publications

o Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, as adopted and supplemented by the State of Arizona

o Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges

11 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 44 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

o Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

o Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries and Traffic Signals

o Roadside Design Guide

o Guide for Planning, Design & Operation of Pedestrian Facilities

o Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

 The American Water Works Association Standards (AWWA)

 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standards and Specifications

 The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Codes and Standards

 Federal Emergency Management Agency Guidelines and Standards

 The International Building Code Standards

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls all work affecting “The Waters of the United States”.

The Environmental Protection Agency controls pollution (noise, air, water, sewage).

Permits from controlling Federal Agencies will be required prior to the issuance of construction permits by Coconino County.

All design construction shall attempt to meet and conform to current ADA Guidelines, where practical.

12 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 45 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS

2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The purpose of this Chapter is to present information, minimum specific guidelines, and provide minimum design criteria and guidance regarding the preparation of all types of improvement plans. This includes related work such as land surveying, use of GIS Data, preparation of Record Drawings, deliverable format and the general process for plan submittal review to the County.

While this Chapter addresses the general requirements for all plan types, additional requirements are also listed in other Chapters relating to the specific type of improvement proposed.

Engineering plans are required for construction of any new improvements within existing or proposed public rights-of-way or easements. Engineering plans are required for all subdivisions and most projects requiring review and permit by the County. Plan requirements may be waived by the County Engineer for projects of a minor nature.

The majority of work involving construction and/or design will fall under the regulations and authority of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration. Plans, drawings, specifications, estimates, legal descriptions and other work produced by non-registrants will not be accepted or reviewed by Coconino County Staff. All work must bear the seal and signature of the registrant and conform to the code and rules of the Board of Technical Registration.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 Plan Requirements - General

All improvement plans must comply with the following requirements:

1. All design must be in accordance with the current Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual, Standard Specifications, Standard Details and General Notes.

2. All plans must follow the current Coconino County CAD Standards.

3. New street right-of-way or utility easements must be coordinated through the Public Works Department; except if they are in conjunction with a subdivision plat in which case they shall be coordinated through the Community Development Department as part of the subdivision plat process.

4. All water and sewer utility design must be per latest ADEQ requirements and submitted to them for approval.

5. All improvements within proposed detention basins and/or roadway parkways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County policy and standards.

13 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 46 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

6. All jurisdictions (City, County, and State) in which this project falls shall be shown on plans. Projects that are adjacent to limits of municipalities, County or State shall delineate the location of the limits and identify the jurisdictions on all applicable sheets.

7. Plans shall differentiate between the existing and proposed improvements and show all existing germane facilities.

8. Utilities identified by a current Bluestake, certified Record Drawing Plans, utility company data and/or location testing shall be shown on the plans complete with line sizes, types (i.e., water, sewer, gas, electrical, telecommunication, etc.) and locations. A distinct line type shall be created for each type of utility that notes the size of the utility and type of line. All pothole information shall be shown on the plans.

9. The engineering plan sheets shall be 24”x36” in size on good quality white paper and in reproducible black ink.

10. Engineer scale and scale bar shall be required with horizontal scale of 1” = 40’ and vertical of 1”=4’, or larger unless otherwise approved by the County.

11. A Professional Engineer licensed and in good standing with the State of Arizona shall prepare the Engineering Plans. The Engineering Plans must be signed and stamped by the responsible Professional Engineer, or clearly marked “PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION” per Arizona State Board of Technical Registration requirements prior to submittal to the ADEQ.

12. The Engineering Plans’ title block shall be located in the lower right corner or along the right margin of the drawing and include the project name, permit number, Consultant/Developer’s name, and the name, address, seal, date and signature of the responsible Professional Engineer.

13. All final Engineering Plans submitted to the County shall be high resolution bond paper drawings and shall be clear, legible, contain a north arrow, and be drawn to scale. Electronic copies of the final approved Engineering Plans shall be provided to the County in PDF format. Where modifications to existing streets and utilities are to be constructed, existing features shall be “screened or ghost lined.” New construction and/or improvements shall be indicated with heavy bold lines using standard CAD symbols and layers. Final real property documents shall be submitted in hard copy or an electronic copy which is non-alterable.

14. The Engineering Plans must include right-of-way information including existing and proposed survey monuments. The street centerline, easements, and other pertinent data shall be referenced to existing monuments.

15. The County Engineer may require other plan elements in addition to those described above.

14 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 47 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.2.2 Plan Requirements - Subdivision

All Subdivision construction plans must comply with the following requirements:

1. All comments made at the Subdivision Technical Review and conditions imposed as part of the Preliminary Plat approval shall be incorporated into plans.

2. The improvement plans must include a general master utility layout for the subdivision as one of the sheets in the total set of plans.

3. The developer is required to comply with the County Storm Water Regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines for storm water discharge.

4. Small scale subdivision sheet index map (north to top or to right side of sheet).

2.2.3 Cover Sheet Requirements

A cover sheet should be included for each category of construction plans submitted. The cover sheet should include the following when applicable.

1. Concept Approval Note:

“The County approves these plans for concept only. The County shall not be liable for errors or omissions of the Engineer of Record (EOR).

2. Vicinity Map (including a north arrow).

3. Project title, Address, and any applicable Coconino Project information.

4. Consultant/Developer names and addresses.

5. Professional Engineer’s seal and signature. Proper use of electronic signature for digital submittals is required.

6. Signature Block Requirements:

 Public Improvements: Coconino County Engineer

 Private Improvements: Community Development Engineering Supervisor

7. Block for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality approval (file number and date), if applicable.

8. Completed signature blocks for representatives from all potentially affected utility companies.

9. Applicable Notes.

15 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 48 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

10. Index of the sheets.

11. List of all regulatory agencies which have been notified and/or have issued permits.

12. List the benchmark(s) used on the project, including any County benchmark.

13. A note: “Call the Arizona 811, Blue Stake Center 1-800-782-5348 (1-800- STAKE-IT), 48 hours before you dig for location of all underground utilities.”

14. Revision dates with descriptions of the revision.

2.2.4 General Notes, Quantity and Index Sheet Requirements

The General Note sheet shall contain the latest applicable County notes for the improvements proposed. Refer to Section 2.11 for General Notes.

On a quantities sheet, provide a detailed list of quantities broken down by sheet. If the project is to be phased, separate quantities must be provided for each phase. If the project includes both public and private improvements, separate quantities shall be provided accordingly.

An index sheet to a set of detailed plans in excess of two sheets should be presented. On a separate key index sheet, provide a graphical index referencing the sheets for all improvements included with the project (i.e., paving, storm drain, etc.).

2.2.5 Horizontal and Vertical Control Requirements

Horizontal Control Plans shall include the following:

1. The origination point of all horizontal position systems shall be based on physical survey points or monuments and identified on the plans.

2. Position systems shall be designed to proceed from south to north, west to east, left to right.

3. All plan sheets shall be stationed in 100-foot intervals at a minimum.

4. Bearing and distance on all horizontal control need to be clearly identified on each sheet. Bearing and distances need to be identified for each change in bearing.

5. Projects will require Temporary Benchmarks (TBM) established by a surveyor when it is necessary to maintain vertical control. Vertical control shall be per Section 2.7.2.2. For site plans at least three temporary benchmarks (TBM) shall be established and shown on the plans. For alignment plans (e.g., Roadways, Waterlines, Drainage Channels) a TBM shall be established near the beginning of the project, near the end of the project and at least every 600 linear feet along the project alignment and shown on the plans. All TBM’s shall be per latest approved County datum.

16 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 49 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.2.6 Plan and Profile Sheet Requirements

Plan and Profile sheet requirements are:

1. Standard single plan and profile will be required. The County will not accept double plan and profile unless approved by the County Engineer or his designee.

2. Plans must show sizes, types and locations of all existing and new utilities, including services, paving, curb, sidewalk, fire hydrants, valves, manholes and all miscellaneous items of construction, such as street sign posts, driveways, etc.

3. Clearly differentiate between new and old improvements (existing 6 inch pipe versus proposed 6 inch pipe) per the most recent Coconino County CAD Standards.

4. Plans should be stationed from left to right with north being towards the top or right side of the sheet, whenever possible. Storm Drain, channel and sewer plans should be stationed from downstream to upstream, whenever possible.

5. Plan view and profile view must align.

2.2.7 Detail Sheets Requirements

Detail sheets are supplemental sheets that depict special construction details required to clarify some aspect of the proposed improvements.

Coconino County or MAG Standard Details are not required on the detail sheets unless the detail is being modified. The modifications shall be clearly identified and the detail shall be titled “Modified Coconino County or MAG Detail” and include the detail reference number.

2.3 CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL

In order to obtain applicable permits (Civil Construction, Grading, etc.) for all projects, engineering plans shall be submitted through the County Community Development Department.

At the time of submittal of plans for private development projects, plan check fees, as per current adopted fee schedules, shall be paid.

2.3.1 Plan Review

Prior to issuance of any permit for construction, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer or his authorized representative. Such review is intended to assure general compliance with County Standards.

Upon completion of the review, the Professional Engineer will be notified by email or telephone when to pick up their submittal.

17 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 50 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.3.2 Plan Review Comments

The project’s plan review comments (including redlines) shall be addressed by correction or clarification response. If there is a discrepancy concerning a redline comment, contact the County plan review staff. The redline set of plans shall be returned with the next improvement plan submittal.

Include a separate tabulation of review comments addressing each comment and correction measure provided. The tabulated review comments shall depict the comment, comment originator, sheet number of the comment, and disposition to the comment. Upon completion, the table shall be forwarded to County staff for review prior to the comment resolution meeting. During the comment resolution meeting, final disposition will be determined. Subsequent submittals shall then reflect all necessary changes as outlined by the direction in the disposition table. The subsequent submittal shall include a copy of the comment disposing table and final disposition with a set of the revised documents.

Failure to identify all of the changes may result in the return of the plans with an additional review required, and may require additional review fees based on the approved fee schedule.

2.3.3 General Submittal Requirements

The Consultant/Developer must comply with the following County submittal requirements:

1. A Letter of Transmittal, in duplicate and signed by the Professional Engineer, shall accompany all improvement plan submittals. The letter of transmittal shall indicate the following:

 Date of delivery of submittal

 The review number (1st review, 2nd review, etc.)

 The number and type of plans which are being submitted

 The number and type of all required standard forms being submitted

 Engineering permit number

2. The “red lined” checked prints and checklists from the previous review shall accompany all succeeding reviews (no exceptions). Likewise a copy of the preliminary reports and/or studies shall accompany submittals of all subsequent reports and/or studies.

3. The submittal is to include a copy of the project’s Geotechnical/Soils Report for County review. Any areas of expansive soil may require special treatment during project construction. The Professional Engineer shall include any special requirements on the plans.

4. All Private Development plans submitted to the County shall be submitted at

18 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 51 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

the Community Development Department; do not hand-carry any plans to Department Directors or Plan Reviewers. Without a copy of the transmittal letter stamped “received,” plans are not in the review process. All review fees must be paid at the time of submittal.

5. All Private Development projects must have approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, Drainage Study, a copy of conditions or stipulations, Title Report, Schedule B items, Vesting Deed, and other required documents prior to improvement plan submittal.

2.3.4 Utility Company Approvals

Local Utility Companies shall sign the cover sheet of construction or improvement plans. By signing this sheet the utility confirms that they have seen the plans, are aware of the scope of the project, and have identified existing and proposed utilities and their potential conflicts in relation to the project.

The County Engineer shall not approve construction plans until all potentially affected utilities have signed or the Professional Engineer has written correspondence from each utility confirming no conflicts or resolution of conflicts. Utilities which will commonly be contacted are cable TV, gas, electric power, telephone, sewer and water.

A full set of improvement plans with the “Utility Location and Conflict Notice” shall be submitted to each appropriate utility company in parallel with each submittal.

2.3.5 First Submittal Deliverables

The first review shall include 3 sets of the following (unless otherwise indicated):

• Construction Plans (Grading, Drainage, Paving, Water, Sewer, Streetlight, Traffic Signal/Interconnect, Signing and Striping, Landscape, Erosion and Sediment Control, etc.)

• Final Drainage Report (a complete report, not an addendum to the Preliminary Drainage Report).

• Traffic Impact Analysis

• Transportation Geometrics

• Final Geotechnical/Soils Report – 1 copy

• Sewer and Water Report

• Approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - Engineer to use standard BMP detail sheet. Contractor will be responsible for obtaining NOI and Permit.

• Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost - 1 copy

19 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 52 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

• Project Specifications – 1 copy

• Water Provider “Will Serve” letter for private development or subdivisions

All items shall be signed and stamped by the responsible Professional Engineer. Electronic submittals shall be made with 3 discs, with all information in PDF format included on each disc.

First reviews that are incomplete and do not contain all of the above itemized plans, reports, studies and required forms will not be accepted.

2.3.6 Second Submittal Deliverables

The second review and all subsequent reviews shall include 2 sets of the following (unless otherwise indicated):

• Construction Plans (Grading, Drainage, Paving, Water, Sewer, Streetlight, Traffic Signal/Interconnect, Signing and Striping, Landscape, Erosion and Sediment Control, etc.)

• Final Drainage Report (a complete report, not an addendum to the Preliminary Drainage Report).

• Traffic Impact Analysis

• Transportation Geometrics

• Final Geotechnical/Soils Report – 1 copy

• Sewer and Water Report

• Approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - Engineer to use standard BMP detail sheet. Contractor will be responsible for obtaining NOI and Permit.

• Signed Utility Conflict Notices from all Utilities - 1 copy

• Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost - 1 copy

• Project Specifications – 1 copy

• Water Provider “Will Serve” letter for private development or subdivisions

• Previous redline set and checklists – 1 copy

2.3.7 Final Submittal

Upon approval of the civil plans, but prior to the issuance of a permit for construction, 1 set of plan originals shall be submitted to the County for signatures. One signed original set will be returned to the Consultant for their records.

20 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 53 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

It may be possible to combine the various types of plans (i.e. grading plans, ROW plans, street plans, etc.) on some projects. However, the Professional Engineer shall obtain written approval from the County Engineer or Community Development Engineering Supervisor prior to generating plans.

2.4 SUBDIVISION PROCESS

Refer to the Coconino County Subdivision Ordinance for all subdivision requirements including but not limited to Preliminary Plats and Final Plats.

2.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY

The Coconino County’s current Policy Statement in regards to Right-of-Way is as follows:

“It is the goal and obligation of the County's Right of Way Section to treat property owners fairly and consistently. Encourage acquisition by agreement so as to minimize litigation. It is the County's Right of Way staff's responsibility to protect the rights of the owners whose property is required for County projects and still remain fiscally responsible to Coconino County.”

2.5.1 Right-of-Way Phase

The Right of Way phase involves all of the work necessary to obtain the required Right of Way property, utility easements, access easements and temporary construction easements for the construction of the project. A “typical” process involves the following steps:

2.5.1.1 RESEARCH FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY

As part of the initial topographical survey for projects, the Registered Surveyors create a scaled ROW Base Map which depicts the existing property limits and identifies the parcel numbers and names of the current property owners. An inspection of the proposed new “right of way” should include an environmental evaluation and determination of whether any permits might be needed from government agencies. Title reports are then ordered for the parcels where “right of way” is needed. The Right of Way Agent needs to know what easements and liens exist on the property and know what the difficulties might be, if any. Research also includes learning what you can about the owners you may be contacting for roadway acquisition.

2.5.1.2 DOCUMENT PREPATION

Create a file for all the parcels you will need right of way from

 Have a registered surveyor perform the survey, write legal descriptions and create the drawings for each portion of parcel needed for the project.

 Order appraisals from a certified appraiser, if appropriate, or if the project is

21 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 54 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

government funded. This will determine the fair market value of the property.

 Generate a Market Valuation Worksheet using comparable market data from the appraisal. From this worksheet, you can break down the land value into square feet as needed for partial acquisition or easement summaries. Small acquisitions values can be determined using local sales comparables.

 A formal written letter to each parcel owner with a detailed explanation of the project sets the stage for a good negotiation, whether your first contact is in person or if the initial acquisition package is mailed via Certified Mail.

 The “Summary Statement of Offer to Purchase” lists the terms of the just compensation in an easy to understand document.

 Type the conveyance deed. Every attempt should be made to obtain the right of way in fee as opposed to an easement.

 If a mortgage is held on the property, you will need to have a “Consent to Share Information with Third Parties” document signed by the owner. If it is a Fannie Mae loan you will need to have them sign the FNMA release. Same with Freddie Mac, etc.

 Include a W9 for signature. The County Finance Department will use the W9 to create a vendor number for payment.

 There may be additional documents you need depending on the type of acquisition or loan on the property or if you suspect that an Administrative Adjustment will be needed because of parcel size reduction.

At this point, if the project is federally funded, all these documents along with 100% Construction plans and the “Environmental Clearance” must be reviewed by the ADOT liaison. The ADOT liaison oversees Local Public Agency projects for the Federal Highway Administration and will issue an “Authorization to Proceed”.

2.5.1.3 NEGOTIATION

Getting the Right of Way:

 The Right of Way agent negotiates with parcel owners for needed Partial Acquisitions, Easements, Utility Easement and Temporary Construction Easements.

 “Fair Market Value” must be offered for land acquired in fee for right of way. The County’s policy is to offer 90% of fee value for an easement.

 Settlement Agreements are often arranged as an incentive for right of way in addition to just compensation. (new driveways, fencing, etc.) A list of all Settlement Agreements must be provided to the project manager and the contractor.

22 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 55 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

 Settlement Agreements for Federal projects must be approved by the “ADOT Liason”.

Federally funded projects must adhere to the Uniform Act. Those procedures can be found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 24. There are requirements for Certification of Right of Way, Appraisals, Offer Letters, Summary Statements, Contact Logs, Just Compensation, Authorization to Proceed, Condemnation, Administrative Settlements and Relocation. Every step in the process must be documented and a federal audit expected.

If a mortgage is held on the property, you must get a release from the lender. The steps include a requirement letter from the lender that lists all the documents they must have in order to process the consent to partial release or easement. This process may take months in some cases. The lender may require that any just compensation be used as a pay down on the loan.

2.5.1.4 CONDEMNATION

Unfortunately at times, the Right of Way Agents are unable to successfully negotiate a settlement with a property owner for one reason or another. The first course of action is always to determine if the engineer could re-design around the property. If that is not possible, the County has the legal right to make the declaration that the property is of “Public Use and Necessity.” The County will instruct the county or hired attorney to proceed with “Eminent Domain Proceedings” in order to set up a date and time to appear before a court of law to receive a ruling on the case on whether the required property can be condemned for the good of the public. The property owner may grant the county a “Possession and Use” agreement, which will allow the project to proceed while the property owner and the County await a resolution by the Court System. Very few condemnation proceedings make it to the court system before a compromise can be reached.

Condemnation within the County shall follow the Uniform Act procedures.

2.5.1.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATION

Once the Right of Way agent has obtained all the required right-of-way acquisitions, Utility Easements, Temporary Construction Easements, Settlement Agreements and any other documents associated with Acquisitions and Condemnation for the project, the ADOT liaison will issue a Right of Way Certification, confirming all the right of way has been secured and allowing construction to move forward.

For Federal projects, refer to the Uniform Act.

2.5.2 Right-of-way Plans

Right-of-way plans shall be submitted for all construction projects involving right- of- way whether public or private. Right-of-way plans shall consist of a title sheet, ownership record sheet, vicinity map, and plan sheets, or be a part of the construction plans. All sheets shall include the Owner’s Name and Parcel Number.

23 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 56 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

All sheets shall be sealed by a Registered Land Surveyor.

Right-of-way plans are to be used in conjunction with the acquisition and disposal of property and property rights. They shall contain sufficient data to allow them to be used as a sole source for the field location of all public right-of-way and property lines affected by the right-of-way changes shown on the plans. Except as authorized otherwise, they shall be based upon a previously recorded record of survey drawing prepared for the given project.

For those projects where new right-of-way is not required, the existing right-of-way location and dimensions will still be needed for roadway design, except as authorized otherwise. The description of the existing right-of-way shall be based upon a result of survey prepared for the given project and shall be shown on the construction plans.

2.5.2.1 RIGHT–OF-WAY PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Right-of-way plans shall include the following:

1. Right-of-way control and monument physical description

2. All existing and proposed right-of-way limit lines

3. Appropriate ties to intersecting property lines and changes in right-of-way width

4. Any new or existing easements of record, either temporary or permanent

5. For each parcel to be acquired:

 A parcel identification number (Assessor’s parcel #)

 The property ownership lines

 The County Recorder’s numbers for affected parcels including all existing right-of-way and easements

 The area in square feet or acres of the part to be acquired and of each remainder of a partial acquisition

 Bearings and distances around the perimeter of all takings

6. All section lines shall be shown with bearings and distances

7. Thorough descriptions of all sectional control

8. Basis of bearings relative to a recorded instrument or established by field surveying methods

The size, form and arrangement of right-of-way plans shall conform to the general requirements for construction plans and should contain sufficient dimensional and

24 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 57 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

angular data to permit ready identification and correlation with the legal descriptions of all parcels.

2.6 RECORD DRAWINGS REQUIREMENTS

1. Record Drawings shall be produced for all construction on publicly owned or publicly controlled property including easements and rights-of-way. Record Drawings shall be sealed and signed by a Professional Engineer or land surveyor registered in Arizona. “Red lined” or Hand Annotated paper copy reproductions will not be accepted. Record Drawings shall be submitted in Digital Format.

2. All Record Drawings shall contain the following certificate sealed and signed by the Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor:

“I hereby certify that the Record Drawing measurements as shown or noted hereon were made by myself or under my supervision and are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

3. The following records are required for County owned facilities or facilities that will be transferred to the County, including, but not limited to, test results, permits, certifications, registrations and reports such as:

• Property legal descriptions, survey, registration and certification

• Well abandonment registration and certification

• Drywell registration and drilling log for each drywell

• Acknowledgement of completion to satisfaction of other jurisdiction or agency requirements (water, sewer, cable, etc.)

• Refer to most recent Coconino County Record Drawings Checklist for additional requirements.

2.6.1 Record Drawings Submittals

All Record Drawings shall have a Letter of Transmittal attached in order to document who is submitting them. This is necessary in order to process the plans and for contact information when the review is complete. Plans will not be reviewed if transmittal documentation is missing.

Record Drawings submitted for review shall consist of

1. Two blackline paper sets (copied from the original plans, not a permit set)

2. Two electronic copies (CD’s) as requested by the County, containing all the original signatures.

One set will be reviewed and returned if there are County comments. All comments must be addressed. Two revised plan sets will be required with each resubmittal

25 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 58 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

along with the previous redlined review set until final County approval is obtained.

If the project is developed in phases, Record Drawings for each phase shall be submitted once the work is complete in that phase. Letters of Completion and Acceptance or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued until all items out of tolerance as noted in the walk-through punch-list have been corrected and all final Record Drawings have been submitted and approved by the County.

2.6.2 Record Drawings Disclaimer

The County assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of Record Drawing information provided as a public record.

2.6.3 Record Drawings Certification

The County Engineer will accept applicable improvements following final inspection and receipt of approved Record Drawings. It is the responsibility of the developer, Professional Engineer and contractor to coordinate timely submittals of the Record Drawings in order to affect a Final Letter of Completion.

Furthermore a Final Letter of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued to the developer of the project until all affected roadways are restored to their previous condition or better and all applicable signing and pavement markings have been installed and inspected by the County staff. All survey monuments will need to be installed or replaced if destroyed before a Final Letter of Completion.

2.6.4 Letter of Completion

A Letter of Completion for improvements will be issued when all of the following conditions have been met.

Paving

1. All concrete and asphalt work has been completed and approved.

2. Manhole rings, covers and water valve boxes have been brought to grade and approved.

3. Record Drawings have been submitted and approved.

4. Pavement striping is completed and all street and regulatory signs are in place.

5. All monuments are in place and all destroyed monuments are re- established.

Detention Facilities

1. As facilities are completed and functional.

All Record Drawing measurements and data are to be taken and collected by the

26 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 59 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Engineer of Record, their designee or land surveyor.

2.6.5 Two Year Warranty

The Contractor shall guarantee the work against defective workmanship and materials for a period of two years from the date of its final acceptance under the contract, ordinary wear and tear and unusual abuse or neglect excepted

Other forms of financial assurance may be provided as approved by the County Engineer.

2.7 SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

2.7.1 General Information

All surveying and mapping activities associated with projects which will be reviewed and permitted by Coconino County shall comply with the rules and specifications of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration. In general this means that these activities must be performed by or under the responsible charge of an Arizona Registered Land Surveyor or registrant in a category appropriate to the activity.

The intent of this section is to ensure all projects that involve surveying activities will apply consistent methods and standards pertaining to ground surface measurements within the County.

2.7.1.1 SURVEY STANDARDS

All land survey work will be performed within the guidelines of the Arizona Boundary Survey Minimum Standards as well as all Arizona Revised Statutes and the Arizona Administrative codes pertaining to land surveying and boundary law and MAG Standard Specifications pertaining to all land and property monuments.

Refer to Federal Survey Standards for projects adjacent to Federal lands.

2.7.2 Survey Datums

2.7.2.1 HORIZONTAL DATUM

The horizontal datum for use in the County is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) or the current datum as defined by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS).

2.7.2.2 VERTICAL DATUM

The vertical datum for use in the County is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) or the current datum as defined by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS).

27 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 60 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

2.7.2.3 META DATA

Metadata shall be included which defines the coordinate system used whether assumed or tied to the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). When tied to the NSRS the epoch date shall be noted such as NAD 83(2011). When a projection system is used other than Arizona State Plane such as a Low Distortion Projection (LDP) provides necessary information to re-create that projection. The projection should be defined such that grid distances are equivalent to “ground” distances within the project area.

2.7.3 Monuments

2.7.3.1 EXISTING MONUMENTS

Prior to any construction activity the Contractor shall retain a Registered Land Surveyor (RLS) with current registration in the State of Arizona to reference the monumented private property corners, right of way markers, centerline monuments, geodetic monuments and PLSS monuments depicted on the Plans.

Any monuments to be re-monumented by the RLS as a part of the Work will be identified as such in the Plans and shall be paid for as a part of the Work.

Any monuments that are disturbed or displaced by construction shall be reset by the RLS at Contractor’s cost and not charged to the County or the Owner.

2.7.3.2 NEW MONUMENTS

Type A frame and cover monuments shall be installed at section corners, one quarter corners, and center of sections and also at all centerline intersections, P.C.’s, P.T.’s of each curve for minor arterial and major collector streets. Type B monuments shall be used on all other streets and shall also include centers of cul- de-sacs. Reference the current Coconino County Standard Details Manual.

The Surveyor will comply with the requirements of Arizona Boundary Survey Minimum Standards as it relates to filing a Record of Survey, Results of Survey, or Corner Record with the County Recorder.

2.8 GIS REQUIREMENTS

The Coconino County Geographic Information Systems (CCGIS) is using GIS technology for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced data and information. GIS data submitted to the County shall comply with the Arizona Spatial Data Accuracy and Geo-Referencing Standards available from the Arizona Professional Land Surveyors (APLS).

The goals of the CCGIS are:

1. Coordinate the GIS activities for County departments

2. Provide shared services for municipalities

28 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 61 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

3. Promote data standards for the GIS user community in Coconino County.

More information is available on the CCGIS website.

2.9 CAD STANDARDS

Refer to the current Coconino County CAD Standards.

2.10 STATE AND COUNTY REGULATIONS

2.10.1 Environmental Analysis and Mitigation

Coconino County will require projects to comply with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as, all other Federal, State, and local regulations. Coconino County shall require such compliance of all parties, both public and private.

For private development, the Developer is to obtain any required environmental permits or clearances.

2.10.2 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

ADEQ regulates water quality and the quality of storm water discharges. All improvements whether Public Works or Community Development shall adhere to ADEQ regulations.

ADEQ also regulates all drywells constructed in the County. Prior to drilling, installing or abandoning a drywell, permission must be obtained from ADEQ. It is the responsibility of the Professional Engineer or drywell owner to obtain the required ADEQ Drywell Registration. For additional information regarding this aspect of ADEQ, refer to ADEQ Drywell Registration on the ADEQ website.

All utility design falling under the auspices of ADEQ shall be design per the latest ADEQ requirements and submitted to them for approval prior to the issuance of the County permit.

2.10.3 Storm Water Quality

Projects disturbing 1 acre or more are subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction sites under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) general permit for Arizona. Owners, developers, engineers, and/or contractors are required to prepare all documents required by this regulation, including but not limited to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Termination (NOT).

As prescribed by the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) General Permit for Discharge from Construction Activities to the Waters of the U.S., any development project in Coconino County which will disturb 1.0 contiguous acres or greater, shall complete a Notice of Intent (NOI). See AZPDES for details.

29 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 62 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Stormwater runoff from construction sites cannot include pollutants such as phosphorous and nitrogen, pesticides, petroleum derivatives, construction chemicals, solid wastes, and sediment that adversely affect water quality. Refer to the most recent Coconino County Stormwater Ordinance and the Coconino County Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) for additional information.

2.11 GENERAL NOTES

The latest version of Coconino County’s General Notes can be found on the Coconino County Public Works website. These Notes will be periodically updated by the County. At the time of the publication of these Standards they were as follows:

1. Approval of these plans by the County Engineer is for a two-year period, subsequent to the date of approval. If construction work is not started within the two-year period, or has been discontinued for any reason for longer than two year, the plans shall be resubmitted for review and re-approval in accordance with Arizona Technical Board of Registration.

2. Plan review by the County does not extend to material quantities shown on the plans.

3. An encroachment permit, issued by the Public Works Department is required for all work in County rights-of-way or easements. For construction of any improvements a grading permit will be required.

4. The County shall be notified forty-eight (48) hours prior to beginning different phases of construction so that County Inspector may be scheduled.

5. For construction purposes, the following precedence of standards will prevail: Current Coconino County Public Works Engineering Department Standards; current International Building Code (IBC), Project specific plans and specifications; ADOT Standards; and MAG Standards — or other specifications approved by the County Engineer and with generally accepted good construction practice. All work and materials which do not conform to the standards and specifications are subject to removal and replacement at the contractor’s expense.

6. Any work performed without the knowledge and approval of the County Engineer or his authorized representative, is subject to removal and replacement at the contractor’s expense.

7. The County Engineer or authorized representative may suspend the work by written notice when, in their judgment, progress is unsatisfactory, work being done is unauthorized or defective, weather conditions are unsuitable, or there is danger to the public health or safety.

8. The County Engineer may order any or all materials used in the work to be tested according to the ADOT Material Testing Requirements, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards. The Contractor

30 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 63 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

shall, at their expense, hire a qualified testing laboratory to perform Quality Control (QC) during all phases of construction, as stated in Coconino County Standards, or as directed in the Special Provisions.

9. Local Fire Department, County Engineering Division and other emergency responder’s approval is required for obstruction of access or water system shutdown – submission of traffic control plans are required.

10. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of the streets and of partially completed portions of the work until final acceptance of the work. Any roads required to be closed for the construction activity shall be reopened within a reasonable time or upon order of County Engineer. The regulation and control of this traffic shall be as directed by the County Engineer or his authorized representative.

11. Approval of a portion of the work in progress does not guarantee its final acceptance. Testing and evaluation may continue until written final acceptance of a complete workable unit. Any defects which appear in the work within two years from the date of acceptance and which are due to improper workmanship or inferior materials supplied shall be corrected by or at the expense of the owner/developer or the contractor.

12. Acceptance of completed public improvements will not be given until defective or unauthorized work is removed, and final clean-up is complete.

13. Location of underground utilities before work is begun is to be accomplished in accordance with ARS 40-361-22.

14. If work is done on private property in relation to a project constructed under these standards, the contractor will provide the County with written authorization from the property owner to do so.

15. The establishment and use of temporary construction yards shall require written authorization from the County Public Works Department.

16. County approval of these plans is for concept only. All liability resulting from errors or omissions is the responsibility of the permittee and/or his consultants and employees. Coconino County does not verify or guarantee the measurements, calculations, ownership, or conclusions indicated by the creator of these plans.

Water and Sewer Plan Notes:

1. Rough grading shall be completed within 0.1 feet of plan grade prior to installation of underground utilities.

2. No trench shall be filled with bedding material or backfilled until the excavation and pipe laying, respectively, have been approved by the County Engineer’s authorized representative.

3. A water pressure test is required of all water lines and a hydrostatic or air test

31 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 64 of 67 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

is required of all sewer lines. Tests are to be conducted after backfilling is complete and compacted. All testing will conform to standards established by the responsible utility.

4. Water line disinfection is to be accomplished as outlined in Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) ―Bulletin No. 8 or per requirements of the local utility.

5. In order to protect public water systems from possible contamination, a water main shall not:

a) Infringe upon an area which is within six feet of either side of a sewer main and shall not be below, at the same level as, or less than two feet above the top of the sewer main, unless extra protection is provided. Extra protection shall consist of constructing the sewer main with mechanical joint ductile iron pipe or with slip-joint ductile iron pipe. If joint restraint is provided it shall consist of encasing both the water and sewer mains in at least six inches of concrete.

b) Under any circumstances, infringe upon an area which is within two feet of either side of or two feet below the sewer main.

6. No water pipe shall pass through, or come into contact with any part of a sewer manhole. The minimum horizontal separation between water mains and manholes shall be six feet, measured from the center of the manhole.

7. The minimum separation between force mains or pressure sewers and water mains shall be two feet vertically and six feet horizontally under all conditions. Where a sewer force main crosses above a water line, or less than six feet below it, the sewer main shall be encased in at least six inches of concrete for 10 feet on either side of the water main.

8. All distances are measured perpendicularly from the outside of the sewer main to the outside of the water main. These separation requirements do not apply to building plumbing or individual house service connections.

9. No water settling of trench fill material is allowed.

10. All water and sewer design and construction shall conform to the current Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requirements. When ADEQ. requirements are in conflict with these standards, the more restrictive shall apply.

11. Tracer wires and tapes shall be installed prior to testing the water or sewer main.

12. Cathodic Protection shall be required as instructed by the County.

32 Date

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 65 of 67 Future General Engineering Standards (GES) Board of Supervisors Presentations

Board of Supervisors Current Status Presentation Dates

Pre-Final……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10/18/16 1 – General Conditions and Requirements 2 – Construction Improvement Plans

Completed Initial Review by Stakeholders…………………………………………………….11/15/16 6 – Utilities (Not Owned by Coconino County) 7 – Landscape and Irrigation

Sent out for Initial Technical Review……………………………………………………………..03/14/17 4 – Drainage criteria

Developing Initial Drafts 3 – Grading and Sediment Control……………………………………………………..01/17/17

5 – Transportation and Traffic Engineering…………………………………………04/25/17

Standard Details………………………………………………………………………………..05/23/17 Standard Specifications

Final BOS Approval and Adoption………………………………………………………………….06/20/17

09/27/16

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 66 of 67 DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART

Repeating Process for Each Chapter or Group of Chapters

Review by Incorporate and Review by Final Review by Finalize Document Develop Format Develop Draft Stakeholders Finalize Chapter Board of Supervisors Stakeholders Chapter

Start with County Info Internal and External Develop Table of Comment Resolution Compile Chapters Contents Reference Docs from Other Utilize Review Template Develop Chapter Response to all Navigable PDF Agencies Format comments Font Style Review against Upload to County Codes/Ordinances Website Identify Notification to Industry Graphics/Figures Identify Items with Frequent Updates

7. 10/18/2016 | Public Works | Engineering Design Standards 10/18/2016 Page 67 of 67 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: September 28, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

SUBJECT: Roundtable: To be discussed (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(H), these matters will not be acted upon) • Planning Calendar for 2016 • Future Agenda Items • State and Federal Legislation • County Supervisors Association (CSA) Update • National Association of Counties (NACo) Update • County Manager’s Report • Chair’s Report Reports from Supervisors - (Updates on new projects, district budgets, requests for services and initiatives, updates from County staff) o District 1 – Supervisor Art Babbott o District 2 – Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta o District 3 – Supervisor Matt Ryan o District 4 – Supervisor Mandy Metzger o District 5 – Supervisor Lena Fowler

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

This item is a discussion item only and does not require a motion nor is this item to be acted upon.

BACKGROUND:

This item is set to allow time for the Board of Supervisors and staff to present updates to each other regarding various projects and activities.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternative would be to not hold a roundtable discussion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no fiscal impacts.

8. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Roundtable 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS:

There are no attachments.

8. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Roundtable 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 5, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

SUBJECT: Approve the minutes from the Board of Supervisors' meetings held on September 9, 2016 and September 27, 2016.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve the minutes from the Board of Supervisors' meetings held on September 9, 2016 and September 27, 2016.

BACKGROUND:

The Board of Supervisors held a special session on September 9, 2016 and a regular, executive and work session on September 27, 2016. Minutes are required to be prepared for each meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

Approve or move to amend any portion of the minutes.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

Minutes – September 9, 2016 (Special Session) Minutes - September 27, 2016 ( Regular Session and Work and Executive Session)

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 16

OFFICE OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COCONINO COUNTY, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES

September 9, 2016

First Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona

Vice Chairwoman Metzger called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.

Present: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta and Supervisor Art Babbott appeared in person; Chairwoman Fowler and Supervisor Matt Ryan appeared telephonically.

Also Present: Deputy County Manager Neal Young, Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen, Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya, Clerk of the Board Wendy Escoffier and Recording Specialist Valerie Webber.

Special Session

1. Canvass the Election Results for the August 30, 2016 Primary Election. Recorder

Recorder Patty Hansen provided an overview of the Primary Election results to the Board; which included statistical information regarding voter turnout, the number of provisional ballots and ballots that were not counted for various reasons. She answered questions asked by individual Board members.

Motion: Canvass the Election Results for the August 30, 2016 Primary Election, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

September 9, 2016 – Special Session Minutes 1 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 16

2. Approve the cancellation of Elections for the Special Districts eligible to be held on November 8, 2016, for the districts that had no candidates or less than to the number of candidates to be elected, and appoint the candidates that have filed in each precinct and declare them as being “elected” as defined in statute. Recorder

Recorder Patty Hansen provided an overview of the purpose of cancelling the special districts elections and answered questions asked by individual Board members.

Motion: Approve the cancellation of Elections for the Special Districts eligible to be held on November 8, 2016, for the districts that had no candidates or less than to the number of candidates to be elected, and appoint the candidates that have filed in each precinct and declare them as being “elected” as defined in statute, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

3. Approve the cancellation of Elections for the Coconino County School Districts eligible to be held on November 8, 2016, for the districts that had no candidates or less than to the number of candidates to be elected, and appoint the candidates that have filed in each district and declare them as being “elected” as defined in statute. Superintendent of Schools

Chief Deputy Superintendent of Schools Tina Wells provided information to the Board regarding the request to cancel elections for the Coconino County School Districts eligible to be held on November 8, 2016. She answered questions asked by individual Board members.

Motion: Approve the cancellation of Elections for the Coconino County School Districts eligible to be held on November 8, 2016, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta. The motion passed unanimously.

As there was no further discussion, Vice Chair Metzger adjourned the meeting at 11:49 a.m.

______Mandy Metzger, Vice Chair

ATTEST: ______Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

September 9, 2016 – Special Session Minutes 2 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 16

OFFICE OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COCONINO COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT

REGULAR SESSION MINUTES

September 27, 2016

6:00 PM First Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry

Roll Call.

Present: Chairwoman Lena Fowler, Vice Chair Mandy Metzger and Supervisor Art Babbott. Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta was present telephonically. Absent/Excused: Supervisor Matt Ryan.

Also Present: County Manager Cynthia Seelhammer, Deputy County Manager Mike Townsend, Deputy County Manager Neal Young, Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya, Interim Public Works Director Lucinda Andreani, Deputy Public Works Director Mike Lopker, Community Development Director Jason Christelman, Governmental Relations Director Todd Madeksza, Parks and Recreation Director Dustin Woodman, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Wendy Escoffier and Recording Specialist Valerie Webber.

Chairwoman Fowler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Call to the Public for items not on the Agenda

Alonzo Hoage, resident of 5577 Big Game Trail, Flagstaff, Arizona, expressed his concerns with issues regarding zoning ordinance violations. He requested guidance as to issues that are not being addressed; specifically the noise ordinance. Mr. Hoage advised 15 complaints have been filed with the Zoning Commission.

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 1 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 16

Recognition:

4. Recognition of Coconino County as winner of NACo's 2016 Achievement Award for the Navajo Nation Road Maintenance Video. Public Works

5. Recognition of the 2016 3CMA Savvy Award for the Navajo Nation Road Maintenance Video. Public Works

County Manager Cynthia Seelhammer introduced staff members of the Public Works Department and stated that County has been the recipient of two prestigious awards; NACo's 2016 Achievement Award for the Navajo Nation Road Maintenance Video and 2016 3CMA Savvy Award for the Navajo Nation Road Maintenance Video.

Interim Public Works Department Director Lucinda Andreani expressed her appreciation and recognition of various staff members who played key roles in the production of the Navajo Nation Road Maintenance Video; she introduced staff that was present. Director Andreani presented further statements regarding the diverse team and commitment that it took to create the video.

Individual Board members expressed their appreciation of staff and named persons recognized in the making of the video and importance of the road maintenance.

Cheryl Lee Francis expressed her appreciation of the recognition and presented statements to the Board regarding her videography.

Individual Board members recognized named staff. The Board members and said staff posed for a photo opportunity.

Board of Supervisors Consent Agenda:

Motion: Approve Board of Supervisors Consent Agenda Items #6 through #19, with Items #11 and #12 removed at the request of staff, Action: approve, Moved by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

6. Approve the minutes from the Board of Supervisor’s meeting held on August 23, 2016. Board of Supervisors

7. Ratify and/or approve all warrants, electronic fund transfers, and other payments as listed on the agenda. An itemized list of the below-numbered claims is filed in the official records of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

Run Date Warrant Numbers Computer Register Totals 09/08/16 91701663-91701790 $482,516.49 09/08/16 EFT 5434-5463 $56,776.99 9/15/16 91701791-91701985 $1,885,929.99 9/15/16 EFT 5464-5506 $102,551.40

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 2 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 16

8. Approve Community Grant Funding from District 1in the amount of $2,000 and District 2 in the amount of $500.00 to Literacy Volunteers of Coconino County/The Literacy Center to provide literacy services to adults in the Coconino County criminal justice system. Board of Supervisors

9. Approve a new road, “BASIN TRAIL”, be added to the recorded subdivision Lockett Ranches to comply with the Street Naming and Standard Addressing Ordinance approved in 2007 by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Community Development

10. Approve Intergovernmental Agreement No. ADES15-089142, Amendment No. 4 between Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and AZ Department of Economic Security (ADES)/Division of Aging & Adult Services (DAAS) to increase funding and corresponding budget amendment in the amount of $28,800.00 for a total cumulative reimbursement ceiling for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 from $678,169.00 to$706,969.00. Community Services

11. Separated: Award RFP number 2016-114, to Flagstaff Snow Park LLC., for development, operation, and management of a snowplay area at Fort Tuthill County Park. Parks and Recreation

Director Woodman thanked various persons present who helped develop the RFP and addressed Items 11 and 12. He presented changes that were made to the draft Use Permit at the request of the Board during an earlier work session.

Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya provided clarification of the modifications made to the proposed Use Permit and the intent of said changes.

Motion: Award RFP number 2016-114, to Flagstaff Snow Park LLC., for development, operation, and management of a snowplay area at Fort Tuthill County Park, :Action approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

12. Separated: Approve and execute Use Permit CCPR-2016-1, between Coconino County and Flagstaff Snow Park LLC., for development, operation, and management of a snowplay area at Fort Tuthill County Park; beginning upon date of commencement and lasting for ten years, with two additional five-year renewal options. Parks and Recreation

Supervisor Art Babbott recognized and expressed his appreciation of Joshua Crane and Johnathan Allan of Flagstaff Snow Park, LLC.

Supervisor Archuleta recognized and expressed her appreciation of the contribution and support from Friends of the Park.

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 3 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 16

Motion: Approve and execute Use Permit CCPR-2016-1, between Coconino County and Flagstaff Snow Park LLC., for development, operation, and management of a snowplay area at Fort Tuthill County Park, beginning upon date of commencement and lasting for ten years, with two additional five-year renewal options, as amended and discussed on the record, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta. The motion passed unanimously.

13. Approve the fall 2016 disposal of surplus property by on-line auction firm Public Surplus based on Contract Number 161468 with the City of Tucson. Public Works

14. Approve the appointment of election board workers for the November 8, 2016 General Election. Recorder

15. Approve Resolution 2016-48, an agreement between Coconino County Superintendent of Schools and Flagstaff Arts and Leadership Academy, to provide special education services for a period of ten years beginning September 27, 2016 and effective through fiscal year 2026. Superintendent of Schools

16. Approve Resolution 2016-49, an agreement between Coconino County Superintendent of Schools and Haven Montessori, to provide special education services for a period of ten years beginning September 27, 2016 and effective through fiscal year 2026. Superintendent of Schools

17. Approve Resolution No. 2016-36, accepting the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $20,000 and budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor’s Office for the period of August 2016 through June 2017. Superintendent of Schools

18. Approve a Budget Adjustment for Coconino County for partnership funding of grant award- “Quantitative Reasoning in Arizona ITQ” (Improving Teacher Quality grant. Approve IGA and accept the partnership of the CCESA with Northern Arizona University (NAU). The award amount is $106,344.00, the grant period is from October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017. Superintendent of Schools

19. Approve Resolution No. 2016- 47, accepting the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $30,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Williams Unified School District, August 2016 to June 2017. Superintendent of Schools

Motion: Resolve as the Health District Board of Directors, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 4 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 16

Health District Consent Agenda:

Motion: Approve Health District Consent Agenda Item #20, Action: approve, Moved by: Director Art Babbott, Seconded by: Director Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

20. Approve Budget Amendments and Transfers between PHSD cost centers to resolve FY16 negative Ending Fund Balances totaling $28,321.77. Health District

Motion: Resolve as the Board of Supervisors, Action: approve, Moved by: Director Art Babbott, Seconded by: Director Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

Public Hearing/Action Items:

21. Public hearing, discussion and possible adoption of Resolution 2016-36, amending the adopted fee schedule for the Willard Springs Transfer Station. Public Works

Presenters: Deputy Public Works Director Mike Lopker.

Director Lopker presented information regarding the changes in the schedule of service provided by Willard Springs Transfer Station and the proposed amended fee schedule.

Chairwoman Fowler opened the public hearing.

Scott Bowen, 17265 Creekside Place, Munds Park, advised the Board that he supports the transfer station and proposed amendment to the adopted fee schedule. He presented a letter to the Board.

Chairwoman Fowler closed the public hearing.

Motion: Adopt Resolution 2016-36, amending the adopted fee schedule for the Willard Springs Transfer Station to take effect November 1, 2016, Action: approve, Moved by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

22. Public Hearing and consideration of Resolution 2016 – 54 for Case No. SUB 06- 013, a request to amend three conditions of the approval for the preliminary plat for the Ranch at the Peaks. Community Development

Presenters: Community Development Principal Planner Bob Short.

PowerPoint: Ranch at the Peaks Subdivision Modification to the Conditions of Approval.

Principal Planner Bob Short presented a PowerPoint presentation that provided information regarding the applicant’s request to amend the preliminary plat for the Ranch at the Peaks

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 5 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 16

Subdivision and staffs’ recommendations. He answered questions asked by individual Board members.

Attorney for the applicant, Esq. James Speed of Kjellgren and Speed, PLC, addressed the Board regarding the applicant’s request and provided further clarification as to questions regarding private access and a request to replace a fence that was previously removed.

Engineer Kent Hodson with Mogollon Engineering clarified that a fence was removed from the back end of Snow Bowl Estates; he provided information as to the location of said fence and the open space easement.

Supervisor Babbott requested Mr. Spade relay a request for the applicant to consider replacing the fence as discussed.

Chairwoman Fowler opened the public hearing.

Michael Ferlazzo, 9200 N. Roundtree Road, Flagstaff, Arizona, advised he would like to speak on behalf of a group of nine residents. He provided a copy of a statement from the residents of Roundtree Road to the Board. He expressed their opposition to the applicant’s request.

Wayne House, 7223 Penny Lane within Ranch at the Peaks, stated there is no need for a perimeter trail and he is concerned because of the lack of fire hydrants in the subdivision.

Deputy County Attorney Furuya provided clarification of questions asked by Supervisor Babbott related to the proposed application.

Principal Planner Short noted there are two conditions in the original resolution related to fire sprinklers and fire protection requirements.

Engineer Kent Hodson noted the applicant recently received approval through ADEQ to construct and construct with respect to fire hydrant spacing. He noted it is difficult to go back and bring something into compliance as codes change.

Chairwoman Fowler closed the public hearing.

Principle Planner Short provided clarification of Conditions 7, 18 and 30 as included in the proposed Resolution that is before the Board for consideration.

Motion: With regards to Case No. SUB 06-013, a request to modify the conditions of the approval for the preliminary subdivision plat for the Ranch at the Peaks, the following findings of facts required to make a change to the conditions of approval have been met and are placed on the record as follows: 1) The proposed subdivision conforms to the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and its amendments, 2) The design of the proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage and will not present serious public health problems, 3) The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development, 4) The proposed subdivision is consistent with provisions and

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 6 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 16

intent of zoning regulations applicable to the property and, 5) the proposed subdivision conforms to the improvement and design standards set forth in the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Based on said findings, I move to: 1) deny the applicant’s request on Condition 7, which would have removed the requirements for paving Roundtree Road and 2) approve Condition 18, which relates to the trail along the East and West side of the subdivision; eliminating the trail on the East side and moving said trail to the West side, 3) approve the applicant’s request for Condition 30, which is removing the requirement for a perimeter fence around the subdivision, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

Motion: Amending the motion to include Resolution 2016-54, Action: approve, Moved by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott.

There was discussion regarding the resolution prior to the vote on the floor.

Principle Planner Short provided clarification of the verbiage as included in Resolution 2016-54; he read the resolution into the record.

Chairwoman Fowler called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously.

Chairwoman Fowler called for a break at 7:44 p.m. and reconvened open session at 7:54 p.m.

23. Public Hearing and consideration of Ordinance 2016-06; for Case No. ZC-15-004, a request for a Zone Change from General (G) Zone (10-acre minimum) to Light Industrial (M-1-10,000-10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) Zone for an 8-acre portion for an office and contractor’s yard; and rezone the remaining westerly 2- acre portion to CG-10,000 (Commercial General-10,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum). This property consists of 10 acres and is located on the south side of W. Route 66 just west of Flagstaff Ranch Road and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 116-04-004V. Applicant: Mogollon Engineering, Flagstaff, AZ. Property Owner: Ed Van Beek, Chino Valley, AZ. Community Development

Presenters: Community Development Director Jason Christelman.

PowerPoint: Vastco Zone Change and CUP and Vastco – Van Beek Property Rezoning Presentation 9.27.16.

Director Christelman presented a PowerPoint that reflected an aerial photo of the property, a revised proposed site plan, concerns raised during the public hearing held on June 1, 2016 and revisions made as a result of said concerns.

Director Christelman, Deputy County Attorney Furuya and the Board discussed issues regarding buffering to mitigate noise control.

Director Christelman continued the presentation which highlighted proposed revisions made in order to conform to Regional Plan 2030.

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 7 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 16

Attorney for the applicant, Shelton Freeman, Esq., addressed the Board and presented a PowerPoint presentation that reflected the background of the applicant’s request, the staging area and frequency of the proposed development and deed restriction language. He addressed the applicants request to approve the application.

Mr. Freeman answered questions asked by individual Board members related to prohibited uses, the proposed deed restrictions and the definition of retail business establishments and examples of same thereto.

Chairwoman Fowler opened the public hearing.

Attorney for neighborhood citizens, Katherine Mahady, Esq., with Aspey, Watkins and Diesel, addressed several items of concern that do not reflect the Parties’ agreement. She requested the applicant provide clarification of the Parties agreement related to screening.

Supervisor Archuleta requested information as to the proposed 6’ wall with 6’ screening.

Attorney Mahady clarified her interpretation of the proposed screening.

Shawn Frate, 6400 W. Saskan Ranch Circle, noted he is not represented by counsel. He stated the properties across the highway will be impacted by the rezone and he is against the zone change. Mr. Frate expressed further concerns regarding developers and that commercial CG could be split further.

Rollie Kohl, 4560 W. Route 66, stated he is a retired school teacher/administrator and he has attended meetings and neighborhood meetings but was not contacted to see what his opinions/feelings are regarding this item. He affirmed that not one neighbor has spoken in favor of the zoning and he opposes it.

Judy Kohl, 4550 W. Route 66, stated said she opposes the rezoning request.

Susan Olfers noted she lives across the highway from the property. She has attended all neighborhood meetings and is opposed to the rezone. Mr. Olfers presented statements regarding the fact that her and her husband moved there 30 years ago and built their home themselves and have enjoyed the quiet life. She said findings can’t be made – because it is detrimental to adjacent properties.

Donald Olfers stated he is opposed to rezoning. He added that there are multiple properties available that are properly zoned for the development.

Frank Dickens, a phoenix resident, stated he owns property there and spoke in favor of the rezoning.

Attorney Freeman re-addressed the agreement regarding buffering that was reached as a result of collaboration between counsel.

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 8 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 16

Chairwoman Fowler called for a break at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened open session at 9:37 p.m.

Deputy County Attorney Furuya provided clarification of the items being considered before the Board and the reason for the requirement that this item be approved by a super-majority vote of the Board.

Chairwoman Fowler closed the public hearing.

Individual Board members placed their respective positions regarding the re-zoning request on the record.

Deputy County Attorney Furuya, Director Christelman and the Board conferred regarding deed restrictions to be required in the zoning change.

Chairwoman Fowler called for a break at 10:34 p.m. and reconvened open session at 10:43 p.m.

Mr. House, Engineer with Mogollon Engineering, and Attorney Freeman addressed the Board regarding the issues pertaining to building a screening wall along the boundary line and proposal to modify the deed restrictions to address same.

Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya provided an overview of the items addressed by the Board to be changed in the draft Ordinance; said changes were read into the record

Motion: Move to approve Ordinance 2016-06, an Ordinance of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, approving zone change from G – general zone to the M1-10,000 Light Industrial Zone for the eight (8) acre Easterly portion of the subject property and to CG-10,000, Commercial General Zone for the two (2) acre Westerly portion of the property, motion is reference to all the Exhibits that have been attached, as read and amended into the record by Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya this evening and paying special attention to the amended language relating to Exhibits 4 and 5 that were read into the record with the expanded list of prohibited uses and containing all the other amendments and changes to the proposed Ordinance as read into the record, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Wendy Escoffier, conducted a roll call vote.

Supervisor Art Babbott: Aye Supervisor Mandy Metzger: Aye Vice Chair Elizabeth Archuleta: Aye Chairwoman Lena Fowler: Aye Supervisor Matt Ryan: Excused

Clerk Escoffier announced the motion passed by a super majority.

24. Public Hearing and consideration of Resolution 2016-25 for Case No. CUP-15- 015, an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission action approving a

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 9 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 16

Conditional Use Permit for a contractor’s yard in the 8-acre portion of the property proposed for rezoning to M1-10,000 zone in Case No. ZC-15-004. This property consists of 10 acres and is located on the south side of W. Route 66 just west of Flagstaff Ranch Road and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 116- 04-004V. Appellant: Aspey, Watkins, & Diesel, PLLC, for neighboring property owners. Original Applicant: Mogollon Engineering, Flagstaff, AZ. Property Owner: Ed Van Beek, Chino Valley, AZ. Community Development

Director Christelman provided a brief overview of an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission action approving a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor’s yard in the 8-acre portion of the property proposed for rezoning to M1-10,000 zone in Case No. ZC-15-004.

Motion: Sustain Resolution 34-01 of the Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the granting of a conditional use permit and approve Resolution 2016-25, denying the appeal thereof; reiterating that the four findings previously made have been met in consideration of this conditional use permit, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Fowler adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.

Chairwoman Fowler reconvened the meeting at 11:21 p.m.

Supervisor Art Babbott moved to amend his previous motion as follows:

Motion: Move to sustain Resolution 34-01 of the Coconino County Planning Commission granting the conditional use permit and approve Resolution 2016-25, denying the appeal thereof and recognizing the four required findings of fact that the Board has met in consideration of this conditional use permit, Action: approve, Moved by: Supervisor Art Babbott, Seconded by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger. The motion passed unanimously.

There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Fowler adjourned at 11:24 p.m.

______Lena Fowler, Chairwoman

ATTEST:

______Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

September 27, 2016 – Regular Session Minutes 10 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 16

OFFICE OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WORK SESSION MINUTES

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

1:00 p.m. – Executive Session 2:00 p.m. – Executive Session Work Session immediately following First Floor Conference Room 219 E. Cherry

Roll Call.

Present: Chairwoman Lena Fowler, Vice Chair Mandy Metzger and Supervisor Art Babbott. Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta appeared telephonically at 2:40 p.m. Absent/Excused: Supervisor Matt Ryan.

Also Present: County Manager Cynthia Seelhammer, Deputy County Manager Mike Townsend, Deputy County Manager Neal Young, Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya, Deputy County Attorney Ashley DeBoard, Community Development Director Jason Christelman, Community Development Compliance Manager Christopher Laws, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Wendy Escoffier and Recording Specialist Valerie Webber.

Chairwoman Fowler called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

Executive Session

1a. Discussion or consultation for legal advice relating to utilization of adopted building codes for the purpose of accomplishing abatements. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) the Board may enter executive session for the purpose of discussion or consultation with the attorney or attorneys of the public body.

Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya requested the Board enter executive session.

September 27, 2016 – Executive / Work Session Minutes 1 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 16

Motion: Enter into executive session, Action: approve, Moved by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

The Board entered executive session at 1:01 p.m.

Chairwoman Fowler adjourned executive session at 1:48 p.m.

Chairwoman Fowler reconvened open session at 2:03 p.m.

Executive Session:

1. Discussion and consultations with attorneys regarding land acquisition. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A) (7), the Board may vote to enter executive session. County Attorney

Deputy County Attorney Brian Furuya requested the Board enter executive session.

Motion: Enter into executive session, Action: approve, Moved by: Vice Chair Mandy Metzger, Seconded by: Supervisor Art Babbott. The motion passed unanimously.

Chairwoman Fowler adjourned executive session at 2:18 p.m.

Chairwoman Fowler recessed for a roundtable at 2:19 p.m. with guests, Buchanan Davis, State Representative for Senator Jeff Flake and Mike Hoskins. Individual Board members presented information regarding their respective Districts and some of the important projects the County is currently working on.

Chairwoman Fowler reconvened open session at 2:26 p.m.

Work Session:

2. Presentation and discussion regarding staff recommendations for award of RFP number 2016-114, and the issuance of a Use Permit to Flagstaff Snowpark LLC., for development, operation, and management of a snowplay area at Fort Tuthill County Park. Parks and Recreation

Presenter: Parks and Recreation Director Dustin Woodman.

PowerPoint: Ft. Tuthill County Park Snowplay RFT Award Recommendation.

Director Woodman introduced the owners of Flagstaff Snowpark, LLC, members from the forest service and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Mr. Bruce. He presented a PowerPoint that reviewed the process utilized to develop the Snowplay RFP and factors that led to the Selection Committee’s selection and recommendation to the Board.

September 27, 2016 – Executive / Work Session Minutes 2 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 16

Johnathan Alan of Flagstaff Snowpark LLC, introduced himself and provided information to the Board regarding the purpose of establishing Flagstaff Snowpark LLC and expressed his appreciation of the opportunity to manage Snowplay.

Josh Crane of Flagstaff Snowpark, LLC, addressed the Board and provided information on the background and history of his families residence in Flagstaff and his excitement for the opportunity to manage Snowplay.

Supervisor Archuleta appeared telephonically at 2:40 p.m.

Director Woodman continued with his presentation and provided information to the Board regarding gross and net revenues, risk management factors, the operations plan, answered questions asked by individual Board members related to Snowplay’s future growth.

Chairwoman Fowler left the meeting at 3:15 p.m. and returned at 3:38 p.m.

Johnathan Alan answered questions asked by individual Board members related to pricing; specifically promotional rates and fees for all participants. He answered further questions regarding various activities to be conducted at Snowplay.

Director Woodman answered questions asked by Supervisor Archuleta related to the 3.5% of gross revenues to be held for improvements.

Direction: Deputy County Attorney to work with staff and the Board to revise the contract to be considered at tonight’s meeting.

3. Roundtable: To be discussed (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(H), these matters will not be acted upon)

This item was not addressed.

There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Fowler adjourned the meeting at 4:13 p.m.

______Lena Fowler, Chair

ATTEST:

______Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

September 27, 2016 – Executive / Work Session Minutes 3 Approved on October 18, 2016

9. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Minutes 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 16 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 4, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

SUBJECT: Ratify and/or approve all warrants, electronic fund transfers, and other payments as listed on the agenda. An itemized list of the below-numbered claims is filed in the official records of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

Run Date Warrant Numbers Computer Register Totals 9/29/16 91702170-91702368 $1,961,932.30 9/29/16 EFT 5635-5759 $157,043.60 10/06/16 91702369-091702533 $892,762.66 10/06/16 EFT 5760-5801 $77,316.09

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve all warrants, electronic fund transfers and other payments as listed on the agenda.

BACKGROUND:

The Board has authority from Arizona Revised Statutes 11-251.11 to “examine, settle, and allow all accounts legally chargeable against the County, order warrants to be drawn on the county treasurer for that purpose and provide for issuing warrants.”

The agenda includes a statement that an itemized list of all claims for payment is filed in the official record of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the attachment to this staff report will be included in the meeting minutes in order to comply with ARS 11-217.D; “The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.”

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could decide not to ratify and/or approve payments or could decide to ratify and/or approve a portion of the payments.

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 9 FISCAL IMPACT:

County budget funds for specific payments will be reduced by the amounts listed.

ATTACHMENTS:

Warrant Listing for September 29, 2016 Warrant Listing for October 6, 2016

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 9 Warrant Listing for 9/29/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

000030573 ACTION FOOD $2,157.00 91702170 9/29/2016 $2,157.00 000025913 ANTOL & HANCE PC $1,250.00 5636 9/29/2016 $1,250.00 000005917 APS SERVICES INC $11,480.04 91702174 9/29/2016 $11,480.04 000000405 ARCHULETA, ELIZABETH $2,336.39 5637 9/29/2016 $2,336.39 000028275 ARIZONA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES $2,276.27 91702175 9/29/2016 $2,276.27 004418800 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMNISTRATION $3,959.64 91702177 9/29/2016 $3,959.64 000009707 ARIZONA DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES/ $2,855.00 91702178 9/29/2016 $2,855.00 000013149 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ASSISTANCE $1,860.00 91702179 9/29/2016 $1,860.00 000020911 ARLINGTON ESQ PC, ERIKA A $5,650.00 91702180 9/29/2016 $5,650.00 000019402 ATL INC $4,873.51 5639 9/29/2016 $4,873.51 000188983 AZ PUBLIC SERVICE $5,173.94 91702184 9/29/2016 $5,173.94 000378881 BABBITT FORD LLC $1,009.43 91702185 9/29/2016 $1,009.43 000024951 CARDINAL HEALTH $6,744.30 91702198 9/29/2016 $6,744.30 000030240 CENTURYLINK $2,848.01 91702200 9/29/2016 $2,848.01 001200641 CITY OF FLAGSTAFF $878,660.23 91702203 9/29/2016 $2,639.53 004022300 91702204 9/29/2016 $876,020.70 000013909 CIVILTEC ENGINEERING INC $54,430.03 5656 9/29/2016 $54,430.03 000030550 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC & $1,284.44 91702205 9/29/2016 $1,284.44 000004765 COCONINO COUNTY FINANCE $551,626.10 91702210 9/29/2016 $551,626.10 000019229 COREMR LLC $1,000.00 91702212 9/29/2016 $1,000.00 000029227 CRAIG WILLIAMS ATTORNEY AT LAW PLLC $2,701.68 5662 9/29/2016 $2,701.68 000018454 CRM OF AMERICA LLC $3,793.99 5663 9/29/2016 $3,793.99 000003793 DAVID GOLDBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW $1,705.00 91702215 9/29/2016 $1,705.00 000012333 DIAMOND PHARMACY SERVICES $16,214.41 5668 9/29/2016 $16,214.41 000007113 DPC ENTERPRISES LP $1,383.26 91702220 9/29/2016 $1,383.26 000030483 DSI FLAGSTAFF DIALYSIS $51,997.00 91702221 9/29/2016 $51,997.00

Page 1

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 9 Warrant Listing for 9/29/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

004355900 ECOLAB INC $1,430.72 91702222 9/29/2016 $1,430.72 004031900 EMPIRE SOUTHWEST $1,283.63 91702223 9/29/2016 $1,283.63 000008648 FLAG TRUCK CENTER $1,411.58 91702228 9/29/2016 $1,411.58 000030203 FLAGSTAFF BUICK GMC INC $1,750.12 91702229 9/29/2016 $1,750.12 000010972 FLAGSTAFF FESTIVAL OF SCIENCE $1,500.00 91702230 9/29/2016 $1,500.00 000025339 FLAGSTAFF PUBLISHING CO $3,836.77 91702231 9/29/2016 $3,836.77 000000214 GOODMANS INTERIOR STRUCTURES $4,644.92 5684 9/29/2016 $4,644.92 000028927 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN $3,189.76 91702240 9/29/2016 $3,189.76 000021875 GRAINGER $4,342.01 91702241 9/29/2016 $4,342.01 000018214 GUARDIAN MEDICAL TRANSPORT $2,156.42 91702243 9/29/2016 $2,156.42 004152500 GUIDANCE CENTER INC, THE $1,250.00 5685 9/29/2016 $1,250.00 000016538 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD $1,111.81 91702250 9/29/2016 $1,111.81 000024441 HENRY SCHEIN INC $1,317.77 91702252 9/29/2016 $1,317.77 001781768 HILLYARD FLAGSTAFF $4,307.76 91702254 9/29/2016 $4,307.76 004432100 HOBART $3,379.49 91702256 9/29/2016 $3,379.49 000028583 JORGENSEN BROOKS GROUP $4,601.84 91702262 9/29/2016 $4,601.84 000017757 KAISER LAW GROUP, THE $24,906.25 91702263 9/29/2016 $24,906.25 000026231 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC $11,600.00 91702265 9/29/2016 $11,600.00 000029280 LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY T PARZYCH $2,210.00 91702267 9/29/2016 $2,210.00 000027429 LOPKER, MICHAEL J $1,752.94 91702271 9/29/2016 $1,752.94 000024395 MAURER, ROBERT EUGENE $3,147.00 91702278 9/29/2016 $3,147.00 000001112 NATIVE AMERICANS FOR COMMUNITY $3,704.17 91702286 9/29/2016 $3,704.17 000026197 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN INC $6,677.05 91702287 9/29/2016 $6,677.05 002519044 NILES RADIO COMMUNICATIONS $2,587.57 91702291 9/29/2016 $2,587.57 000010484 NORTHERN ARIZONA SIGNS & GRAPHICS $1,078.61 91702292 9/29/2016 $1,078.61 000022905 NORTHLAND INVESTIGATIONS $2,400.00 91702293 9/29/2016 $2,400.00

Page 2

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 9 Warrant Listing for 9/29/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

000007561 PERFORMANCE REPORTERS INC $2,715.10 91702303 9/29/2016 $2,715.10 000001569 PIONEER TITLE AGENCY INC $2,500.00 91702305 9/29/2016 $2,500.00 000013753 PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $6,286.65 5719 9/29/2016 $6,286.65 000000006 PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT $190,906.42 91702309 9/29/2016 $22,543.73 000000007 91702310 9/29/2016 $104,972.16 002907362 91702311 9/29/2016 $63,390.53 000028362 Q TECH HEATING & COOLING LLC $11,030.64 91702312 9/29/2016 $11,030.64 000012434 QUALITY INN UNIVERSITY $1,070.50 91702313 9/29/2016 $1,070.50 000030141 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY $1,522.99 5721 9/29/2016 $1,522.99 000030553 ROLL, CHRIS $1,118.43 91702317 9/29/2016 $1,118.43 000004101 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT CO $2,039.76 91702321 9/29/2016 $2,039.76 000025012 SCHIFF MD, LAURENCE $5,350.00 91702322 9/29/2016 $5,350.00 000015359 SEPTIC SERVICES $1,800.00 91702323 9/29/2016 $1,800.00 003163968 SHAMROCK FOODS $17,727.05 91702325 9/29/2016 $17,727.05 000030140 SUNE D14 MISC-B HOLDINGS LLC $16,243.71 5744 9/29/2016 $16,243.71 000015203 SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION $7,926.17 5745 9/29/2016 $7,926.17 000012699 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST PAYMENT CENTER $7,250.62 91702334 9/29/2016 $3,556.95 004506400 91702335 9/29/2016 $3,693.67 000009462 TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $4,996.67 91702338 9/29/2016 $4,996.67 000006764 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC $1,500.00 91702343 9/29/2016 $1,500.00 000014030 UNS GAS INC (PRESCOTT) $6,415.36 91702345 9/29/2016 $6,415.36 003596244 US POSTMASTER $16,500.00 91702347 9/29/2016 $16,500.00 000008872 VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE $9,196.96 91702350 9/29/2016 $9,196.96 000029554 VULCAN MATERIALS-WESTERN DIVISION $2,052.64 91702352 9/29/2016 $2,052.64 000029308 WILLEY, AMANDA J $2,138.50 91702357 9/29/2016 $2,138.50 000022013 WLB GROUP INC, THE $9,264.87 91702360 9/29/2016 $9,264.87

Page 3

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 9 Warrant Listing for 9/29/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

004513955 WOODRUFF CONSTRUCTION INC $5,958.69 91702362 9/29/2016 $5,958.69 000002807 YAVAPAI COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT $4,850.00 5757 9/29/2016 $4,850.00

$2,059,209.59

Page 4

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 9 Warrant Listing for 10/6/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

000011166 4M CONCRETE INC. $30,066.00 91702533 10/6/2016 $30,066.00 000010330 ACME GUTTER & SIDING COMPANY $2,460.00 91702370 10/6/2016 $2,460.00 000012861 AGTS INC $1,738.00 5761 10/6/2016 $1,738.00 000005917 APS SERVICES INC $20,405.19 91702376 10/6/2016 $20,405.19 000023198 ARIZONA DAILY SUN $2,500.00 91702380 10/6/2016 $2,500.00 000013614 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $390,000.00 91702382 10/6/2016 $260,000.00 000013614 91702383 10/6/2016 $130,000.00 000013882 ARIZONA EMERGENCY PRODUCTS $2,472.30 91702387 10/6/2016 $2,472.30 000008069 ARIZONA SUPREME COURT $9,040.00 91702389 10/6/2016 $50.00 004489200 91702390 10/6/2016 $8,990.00 000020626 BORDER CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES LLC $3,771.85 91702397 10/6/2016 $3,771.85 000018777 CACTUS TRANSPORT INC $33,933.03 91702401 10/6/2016 $33,933.03 000016327 CENTERLINE SUPPLY WEST $19,075.96 91702403 10/6/2016 $19,075.96 001200641 CITY OF FLAGSTAFF $27,856.54 91702408 10/6/2016 $974.46 004022300 91702409 10/6/2016 $26,882.08 004359500 COCONINO COUNTY VICTIM COMPENSATION $5,133.55 91702414 10/6/2016 $5,133.55 000028153 COCONINO PLATEAU WATER ADVISORY $1,250.00 5767 10/6/2016 $1,250.00 000018454 CRM OF AMERICA LLC $4,017.73 5770 10/6/2016 $4,017.73 004355900 ECOLAB INC $1,020.69 91702418 10/6/2016 $1,020.69 000011933 FIRST CLASS SANITATION $1,111.76 91702423 10/6/2016 $1,111.76 000029635 FLAG FILM PRODUCTIONS LLC $1,307.41 91702424 10/6/2016 $1,307.41 000015398 FLAG ICE LLC $3,286.20 91702425 10/6/2016 $3,286.20 000007198 FLAGSTAFF ARTS COUNCIL $4,000.00 5773 10/6/2016 $4,000.00 000030203 FLAGSTAFF BUICK GMC INC $1,820.75 91702426 10/6/2016 $1,820.75 000020275 FM SOLUTIONS $3,050.00 91702428 10/6/2016 $3,050.00 001302314 FREDONIA UTILITIES $1,200.63 91702429 10/6/2016 $1,200.63

Page 1

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 9 Warrant Listing for 10/6/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

000001150 GOOD SOURCE SOLUTIONS INC $1,162.50 5776 10/6/2016 $1,162.50 000012983 GREATER FLAGSTAFF FORESTS PARTNER- $3,750.00 91702437 10/6/2016 $3,750.00 000018214 GUARDIAN MEDICAL TRANSPORT $3,221.33 91702438 10/6/2016 $3,221.33 004152500 GUIDANCE CENTER INC, THE $9,000.00 5777 10/6/2016 $9,000.00 000004574 IBM CREDIT LLC $2,549.40 91702445 10/6/2016 $2,549.40 000027691 INTERIM PUBLIC MANAGEMENT LLC $2,778.30 5780 10/6/2016 $2,778.30 000001199 JOE DIRT EXCAVATING $2,540.00 91702449 10/6/2016 $2,540.00 000025705 JOHNSON, HOWARD $1,281.82 5781 10/6/2016 $1,281.82 000028746 LITERACY CENTER, THE $2,500.00 91702455 10/6/2016 $2,500.00 000028664 LR ANDERSON LLC $2,645.00 91702457 10/6/2016 $2,645.00 000015799 MAKE YOUR MARK $1,150.00 91702458 10/6/2016 $1,150.00 000013977 MICROSOFT CORPORATION $15,604.83 91702463 10/6/2016 $12,224.30 000013977 91702464 10/6/2016 $331.76 000013977 91702465 10/6/2016 $2,098.39 000013977 91702466 10/6/2016 $65.37 000013977 91702467 10/6/2016 $2.18 000013977 91702468 10/6/2016 $882.83 000006335 PAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT $3,420.00 5787 10/6/2016 $3,420.00 000013753 PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $3,183.30 5790 10/6/2016 $3,183.30 000030141 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY $1,725.13 5792 10/6/2016 $1,725.13 000025462 RICE LPC PLLC, JEFF $1,300.00 91702493 10/6/2016 $1,300.00 000015209 RUNBECK ELECTION SERVICES $7,322.97 91702495 10/6/2016 $7,322.97 003163968 SHAMROCK FOODS $6,408.39 91702497 10/6/2016 $6,408.39 000029464 SOURCEHOV $41,196.64 91702500 10/6/2016 $41,196.64 000001210 SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO LLC $3,436.72 91702503 10/6/2016 $3,436.72 000004737 TERRY MARXEN CHEVROLET CADILLAC $3,134.05 5797 10/6/2016 $3,134.05

Page 2

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 9 Warrant Listing for 10/6/2016 as required by ARS-11-217.D The minutes shall include all demands and warrants approved by the board in excess of one thousand dollars and multiple demands and warrants from a single supplier or individual under one thousand dollars whose cumulative total exceeds one thousand dollars in a single reporting period.

Vendor Name Total Paid to Payment Payment Total by Payment Number Vendor Number Date Number

000012699 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST PAYMENT CENTER $11,836.00 91702506 10/6/2016 $10.00 004506400 91702507 10/6/2016 $11,826.00 000009462 TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $130,073.90 91702509 10/6/2016 $130,073.90 000029772 TUBA CITY PARTNERS LLC $2,100.00 91702512 10/6/2016 $2,100.00 000001917 UNITED WAY OF NORTHERN ARIZONA INC $32,625.00 5799 10/6/2016 $32,625.00 000014030 UNS GAS INC (PRESCOTT) $1,213.74 91702515 10/6/2016 $1,213.74 000021235 VANGUARD TRUCK CENTER OF PHOENIX $3,341.42 91702517 10/6/2016 $3,341.42 000008872 VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE $4,895.42 91702519 10/6/2016 $4,895.42 000004851 VICTIM WITNESS SERVICES $28,750.00 91702520 10/6/2016 $28,750.00 000030198 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS $10,688.53 91702524 10/6/2016 $10,688.53 000028621 WA FRANKE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS $7,875.00 91702525 10/6/2016 $7,875.00 000027772 WESTLAND RESOURCES INC $1,400.00 91702526 10/6/2016 $1,400.00 004513955 WOODRUFF CONSTRUCTION INC $5,135.04 91702531 10/6/2016 $5,135.04

$929,762.02

Page 3

10. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Warrants 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 9 DATE: September 26, 2016 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Chris Mazon, County Assessor

SUBJECT: Resolution 2016-55, directing the Coconino County Treasurer to correct the tax roll as noted on Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016 to refund taxes overpaid with interest pursuant to ARS 42-16254.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve a resolution directing the Coconino County Treasurer to correct the tax roll as noted on Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016 to refund taxes overpaid with interest pursuant to ARS 42-16254

BACKGROUND:

ARS 42-16254 provides that if a taxpayer believes his or her property has been assessed improperly as a result of a property tax error, the taxpayer may file a notice of claim with the County Assessor. If the tax officer agrees on a proposed correction, the Board of Supervisors is then authorized to direct the County Treasurer to correct the tax roll to the extent agreed. If the taxes have been paid, any overpayment must be refunded with interest as provided by law within 90 days after the roll is corrected.

Each month the Assessor compiles a list of all corrections made and forwards that list to the Clerk of the Board. The final changes are entered into the assessment roll via the Tyler computer system, and placed on a Board agenda for action. Following approval, the resolution is forwarded to the County Treasurer for correction to the tax rolls. The Coconino County Treasurer is also directed to refund any overpaid taxes with interest, in accordance with ARS 42-16214(A) and ARS 44-1201.

ALTERNATIVES:

If a change is discovered the statute requires the Assessor to promptly correct the tax roll. The alternative to denying the Tax Roll Correction would require the taxpayer to file a Notice of Claim which could result in additional time and resources from the Assessor, Clerk of the Board, Board of Supervisors and the Treasurer in addition to possible litigation fees and/or loss of tax revenue.

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 34 FISCAL IMPACT:

Fiscal impact is not significant. Most changes involve canceling a taxpayer billing for structure, trailer or other property removed from the County, addition of taxpayer for placement of a mobile home, restoration of an exemption or correction of a legal classification.

SUBMITTED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 34 COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

RESOLUTION 2016-55

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF COCONINO, ARIZONA, DIRECTING THE COCONINO COUNTY TREASURER TO CORRECT THE TAX ROLL AS NOTED ON TAX ROLL CORRECTION SUMMARY DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2016, TO REFUND TAXES OVERPAID WITH INTEREST PURSUANT TO ARS 42-16254.

WHEREAS ARS 42-16254 provides that if a taxpayer believes his or her property has been assessed improperly as a result of a property tax error, the taxpayer may file a Notice of Claim and if the tax officer agrees on a proposed correction, the board of supervisors shall direct the county treasurer to correct the tax roll to the extent agreed, and any taxes overpaid shall be refunded with interest as provided by law within 90 days after the roll is corrected or pursuant to ARS 42-16214(A); and

WHEREAS the taxpayer(s) identified in attached Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016, and have filed Notice of Claim on the property described by parcel or taxpayer identification number shown on the attached list; and

WHEREAS the taxpayer(s) and Coconino County Tax Officer have met and agreed upon the proposed correction shown in Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The proposed corrections to the tax roll for property(ies) described in the attached Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016, are hereby accepted by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors;

2. The Coconino County Treasurer is hereby directed to correct the tax roll as shown in Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016;

3. The Coconino County Treasurer is further directed to refund any overpaid taxes as shown on Tax Roll Correction Summary dated September 26, 2016, with interest, in accordance with ARS 42-16214(A) and ARS 44-1201.

SIGNED AND SEALED this October 18, 2016.

AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 34 COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (SEAL)

______Lena Fowler, Chairwoman

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board Deputy County Attorney

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2013 Account Parcel Number Hearing Date Reason Created Admin Assessor Post Treasurer Tax Year Tax Roll ID Description User ID User ID User ID Correction User ID User ID M0003645 30324001K 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2013 2013.TRC.2809S1 2013 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0009065 11302016 08/10/2016 Other 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2013 2013.TRC.2735S2 2013 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0032048 40308007 08/08/2016 Other 08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2013 2013.TRC.2735S1 2013 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:54:41 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 1 of 5

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2013

Value Totals LPV Primary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) Total 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) Total 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088)

LPV Primary Taxable Legal Class Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference PRIMARY RESIDENCE 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) Total 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181)

FCV Secondary Taxable Property Code Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference PRIMARY RESIDENCE (1300) 90,771 90,771 0 9,077 9,077 0 PRIMARY RESIDENCE (2300) 157,702 140,587 (17,115) 15,771 14,059 (1,712) PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3,757 0 (3,757) 376 0 (376) Total 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088)

LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference COCONINO COUNTY 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) JTED-CAVIAT 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:54:41 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 2 of 5

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2013 LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference LIBRARY DISTRICT 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 252,230 230,432 (21,798) 25,224 23,043 (2,181)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference COCONINO COUNTY 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) JTED-CAVIAT 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) LIBRARY DISTRICT 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:54:41 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 3 of 5

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2013 FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 252,230 231,358 (20,872) 25,224 23,136 (2,088)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:54:41 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 4 of 5

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2013

Tax Totals Tax Area Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 1,578.16 1,445.28 (132.88) Total 1,578.16 1,445.28 (132.88)

Tax Type Original Corrected Difference Ad Valorem 1,578.16 1,445.28 (132.88) Total 1,578.16 1,445.28 (132.88)

Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 02000 - COCONINO COUNTY 137.88 125.97 (11.91) 02001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 129.22 118.05 (11.17) 03000 - MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 07001 - SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 591.88 540.70 (51.18) 08150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 116.94 106.83 (10.11) 11900 - FD ASSISTANCE FUND 25.23 23.13 (2.10) 14900 - LIBRARY DISTRICT 64.47 59.13 (5.34) 15000 - FLOOD CONTROL DIST 99.40 92.56 (6.84) 29999 - PUB HEALTH SERVICE 63.06 57.84 (5.22) 30001 - JTED-CAVIAT 12.61 11.57 (1.04) 30004 - RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 52000 - COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 52001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 57001 - SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 178.11 163.35 (14.76) 58150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 31.35 28.75 (2.60) 67001 - SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77001 - SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 125.59 115.19 (10.40) 87001 - SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 2.42 2.21 (0.21) Total 1,578.16 1,445.28 (132.88)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:54:41 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 5 of 5

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014 Account Parcel Number Hearing Date Reason Created Admin Assessor Post Treasurer Tax Year Tax Roll ID Description User ID User ID User ID Correction User ID User ID M0003105 50224032 09/12/2016 Other 09/12/2016 09/16/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2014 2014.TRC.2809S1 2014 TAX bcomstock kmurphy cmazon cmazon ROLLCORR... M0003645 30324001K 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2014 2014.TRC.2809S2 2014 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0000838 70083007 08/18/2016 Other 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 2014 2014.TRC.2735S3 TAX ROLL kmurphy kmurphy cmazon cmazon CORRECTI... R0009065 11302016 08/10/2016 Other 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2014 2014.TRC.2735S2 2014 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0032048 40308007 08/08/2016 Other 08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2014 2014.TRC.2735S1 2014 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 1 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014

Value Totals LPV Primary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#2 ONLY 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) Total 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#2 ONLY 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) Total 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592)

LPV Primary Taxable Legal Class Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference NON-PRIMARY/BANK OWNED/NOT 171,983 74,170 (97,813) 17,199 7,417 (9,782) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 3,240 0 (3,240) 324 0 (324) AG/VACANT LAND/NON-PROFIT - 13,839 13,839 2,214 2,214 REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS Total 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421)

FCV Secondary Taxable Property Code Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 18,857 4,714 (14,143) 1,886 471 (1,415) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 155,994 70,693 (85,301) 15,599 7,069 (8,530) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL (2401) PRIMARY RESIDENCE (1300) 72,568 72,568 0 7,257 7,257 0 PRIMARY RESIDENCE (2300) 177,067 105,493 (71,574) 17,707 10,549 (7,158)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 2 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014 FCV Secondary Taxable Property Code Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3,757 0 (3,757) 376 0 (376) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 3,757 0 (3,757) 376 0 (376) VACANT LANDS AND REAL 14,143 14,143 2,263 2,263 PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN CLASS 1,3,... Total 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592)

LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) COCONINO COUNTY 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) JTED-CAVIAT 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) LIBRARY DISTRICT 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 253,352 178,061 (75,291) 25,335 17,806 (7,529) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892) SD#2 WILLIAMS 175,223 88,009 (87,214) 17,523 9,631 (7,892)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 3 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014 LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 428,575 266,070 (162,505) 42,858 27,437 (15,421)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) COCONINO COUNTY 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) JTED-CAVIAT 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) LIBRARY DISTRICT 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 253,392 178,061 (75,331) 25,340 17,806 (7,534) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) SD#2 WILLIAMS 178,608 89,550 (89,058) 17,861 9,803 (8,058) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 432,000 267,611 (164,389) 43,201 27,609 (15,592)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 4 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014

Tax Totals Tax Area Original Corrected Difference SD#1 ONLY 1,584.72 1,114.74 (469.98) SD#2 ONLY 1,444.60 793.58 (651.02) Total 3,029.32 1,908.32 (1,121.00)

Tax Type Original Corrected Difference Ad Valorem 3,029.32 1,908.32 (1,121.00) Total 3,029.32 1,908.32 (1,121.00)

Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 02000 - COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 241.95 154.90 (87.05) 02001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 218.11 139.63 (78.48) 03000 - MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 1.62 0.00 (1.62) 07001 - SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 548.10 385.21 (162.89) 07002 - SD#2 WILLIAMS 720.97 396.26 (324.71) 08150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 205.21 131.36 (73.85) 10375 - HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 173.20 95.06 (78.14) 11900 - FD ASSISTANCE FUND 43.20 27.61 (15.59) 14900 - LIBRARY DISTRICT 110.42 70.57 (39.85) 15000 - FLOOD CONTROL DIST 169.80 110.44 (59.36) 29999 - PUB HEALTH SERVICE 108.00 69.03 (38.97) 30001 - JTED-CAVIAT 21.61 13.81 (7.80) 30004 - RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 52000 - COCONINO COUNTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 52001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 57001 - SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 180.87 127.10 (53.77) 57002 - SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 67.12 36.84 (30.28) 58150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 54.78 35.01 (19.77) 67001 - SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67002 - SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77001 - SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 157.79 110.88 (46.91)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 5 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2014 Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 77002 - SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87001 - SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 6.57 4.61 (1.96) 87002 - SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3,029.32 1,908.32 (1,121.00)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:40 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 6 of 6

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015 Account Parcel Number Hearing Date Reason Created Admin Assessor Post Treasurer Tax Year Tax Roll ID Description User ID User ID User ID Correction User ID User ID M0003645 30324001K 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2809S4 2015 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon M0006500 80037051 08/18/2016 Other 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2735S4 FOR TY 2015 - CON... cfiore kmurphy cmazon cmazon M0036393 50338009B 09/22/2016 Other 09/22/2016 09/23/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2809S5 2015 TAX ROLL COR... bcomstock kmurphy cmazon cmazon M0037249 11622006A 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2809S3 TAX ROLL bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon CORRECTI... R0000838 70083007 08/18/2016 Other 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2735S3 TAX ROLL kmurphy kmurphy cmazon cmazon CORRECTI... R0009065 11302016 08/10/2016 Other 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2735S2 2015 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0032048 40308007 08/08/2016 Other 08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/16/2016 08/16/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2735S1 2015 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0233337 11622006A 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2015 2015.TRC.2809S1 2015 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 1 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015

Value Totals LPV Primary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO 95,161 31,794 (63,367) 9,516 3,179 (6,337) TOLANI SD#1 ONLY 261,631 194,180 (67,451) 26,163 19,418 (6,745) SD#2 ONLY 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) PAGE Total 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO 95,161 33,418 (61,743) 9,516 3,342 (6,174) TOLANI SD#1 ONLY 270,132 197,515 (72,617) 27,013 19,751 (7,262) SD#2 ONLY 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) PAGE Total 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527)

LPV Primary Taxable Legal Class Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference NON-PRIMARY/BANK OWNED/NOT 180,582 74,852 (105,730) 18,058 7,485 (10,573) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE 274,915 194,180 (80,735) 27,491 19,418 (8,073) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 95,161 31,794 (63,367) 9,516 3,179 (6,337) AG/VACANT LAND/NON-PROFIT - 17,557 17,557 2,809 2,809 REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS Total 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 2 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015 FCV Secondary Taxable Property Code Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 26,172 6,543 (19,629) 2,617 654 (1,963) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 169,934 77,021 (92,913) 16,993 7,702 (9,291) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL (2401) PRIMARY RESIDENCE (1300) 80,013 80,013 0 8,001 8,001 0 PRIMARY RESIDENCE (2300) 185,366 117,502 (67,864) 18,537 11,750 (6,787) PRIMARY RESIDENCE 24,533 0 (24,533) 2,453 0 (2,453) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL (1402) 23,012 23,012 0 2,301 2,301 0 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL (2402) 72,149 0 (72,149) 7,215 0 (7,215) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 10,406 10,406 1,041 1,041 VACANT LANDS AND REAL 19,629 19,629 3,141 3,141 PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN CLASS 1,3,... Total 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527)

LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference CID-TOHO TOLANI 95,161 31,794 (63,367) 9,516 3,179 (6,337) CITY OF PAGE 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) CITY OF PAGE (54156) 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) COCONINO COUNTY 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) FD HIGHLANDS 95,161 31,794 (63,367) 9,516 3,179 (6,337) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 542,685 318,383 (224,302) 54,268 32,891 (21,377) HOSP DIST PAGE 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) JTED-CAVIAT 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) LIBRARY DISTRICT 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 3 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015 LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 356,792 225,974 (130,818) 35,679 22,597 (13,082) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 356,792 225,974 (130,818) 35,679 22,597 (13,082) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 356,792 225,974 (130,818) 35,679 22,597 (13,082) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 356,792 225,974 (130,818) 35,679 22,597 (13,082) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 356,792 225,974 (130,818) 35,679 22,597 (13,082) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#2 WILLIAMS 185,893 92,409 (93,484) 18,589 10,294 (8,295) SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) SD#8 PAGE 7,973 0 (7,973) 797 0 (797) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 550,658 318,383 (232,275) 55,065 32,891 (22,174)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference CID-TOHO TOLANI 95,161 33,418 (61,743) 9,516 3,342 (6,174) CITY OF PAGE 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) CITY OF PAGE (54156) 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) COCONINO COUNTY 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 4 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015 FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference FD ASSISTANCE FUND 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) FD HIGHLANDS 95,161 33,418 (61,743) 9,516 3,342 (6,174) FLOOD CONTROL DIST 567,205 334,126 (233,079) 56,720 34,590 (22,130) HOSP DIST PAGE 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) JTED-CAVIAT 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) LIBRARY DISTRICT 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 365,293 230,933 (134,360) 36,529 23,093 (13,436) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 365,293 230,933 (134,360) 36,529 23,093 (13,436) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 365,293 230,933 (134,360) 36,529 23,093 (13,436) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 365,293 230,933 (134,360) 36,529 23,093 (13,436) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 365,293 230,933 (134,360) 36,529 23,093 (13,436) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#2 WILLIAMS 201,912 103,193 (98,719) 20,191 11,497 (8,694) SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) SD#8 PAGE 13,974 0 (13,974) 1,397 0 (1,397) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 581,179 334,126 (247,053) 58,117 34,590 (23,527)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 5 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015

Tax Totals Tax Area Original Corrected Difference SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO TOLANI 1,089.62 360.06 (729.56) SD#1 ONLY 1,649.94 1,225.74 (424.20) SD#2 ONLY 1,497.54 835.76 (661.78) SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST PAGE 45.62 0.00 (45.62) Total 4,282.72 2,421.56 (1,861.16)

Tax Type Original Corrected Difference Ad Valorem 4,282.72 2,421.56 (1,861.16) Total 4,282.72 2,421.56 (1,861.16)

Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 02000 - COCONINO COUNTY 315.76 188.63 (127.13) 02001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 278.30 166.23 (112.07) 03000 - MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 04156 - CITY OF PAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 07001 - SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 1,024.47 595.07 (429.40) 07002 - SD#2 WILLIAMS 734.99 412.31 (322.68) 07016 - SD#8 PAGE 17.96 0.00 (17.96) 08150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 267.84 159.99 (107.85) 10375 - HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 180.26 99.82 (80.44) 10376 - HOSP DIST PAGE 7.97 0.00 (7.97) 11240 - FD HIGHLANDS 309.27 103.32 (205.95) 11900 - FD ASSISTANCE FUND 55.08 32.89 (22.19) 14900 - LIBRARY DISTRICT 140.75 84.07 (56.68) 15000 - FLOOD CONTROL DIST 213.38 127.62 (85.76) 28279 - CID-TOHO TOLANI 0.00 0.00 0.00 29999 - PUB HEALTH SERVICE 137.66 82.23 (55.43) 30001 - JTED-CAVIAT 27.55 16.45 (11.10) 30004 - RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 52000 - COCONINO COUNTY (52000) 0.00 0.00 0.00

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 6 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 21 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2015 Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 52001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 54156 - CITY OF PAGE (54156) 0.00 0.00 0.00 57001 - SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 259.21 164.16 (95.05) 57002 - SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 74.15 41.06 (33.09) 57016 - SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 0.77 0.00 (0.77) 58150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 68.33 40.81 (27.52) 67001 - SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67002 - SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67016 - SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77001 - SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 161.09 102.03 (59.06) 77002 - SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77016 - SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87001 - SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 7.71 4.87 (2.84) 87002 - SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87016 - SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 0.22 0.00 (0.22) Total 4,282.72 2,421.56 (1,861.16)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 12:07:59 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 7 of 7

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 22 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer Account Parcel Number Hearing Date Reason Created Admin Assessor Post Treasurer Tax Year Tax Roll ID Description User ID User ID User ID Correction User ID User ID M0001906 20012002E 09/22/2016 Other 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S18 2016 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon M0003645 30324001K 09/20/2016 Adjustment Correction 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S4 2016 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon M0037080 00000000 09/22/2016 Other 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S17 FOR TY 2016 - TRC... cfiore kmurphy cmazon cmazon M0037249 11622006A 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S8 2016 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0002808 40150050 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S10 CHANGE LEGAL jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CLAS... R0020109 10738014 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S13 CHANGE LEGAL jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CLAS... R0021641 10911046A 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S6 TAX ROLL bhampton bcazares cmazon cmazon CORRECTI... R0028975 40138003Q 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S7 SENIOR VALUATION ... jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon R0034555 40103019 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S14 CHANGE LEGAL jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CLAS... R0036845 10040018 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S16 CHANGE FROM 4.2 tvivio tvivio cmazon cmazon R... R0048192 80077015 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S11 LEGAL CLASS tvivio tvivio tvivio tvivio CHANG... R0049137 40388064 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S15 CHANGE LEGAL jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CLAS... R0059168 10904008A 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S5 LEGAL CLASS jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CHANG...

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 1 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 23 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer Account Parcel Number Hearing Date Reason Created Admin Assessor Post Treasurer Tax Year Tax Roll ID Description User ID User ID User ID Correction User ID User ID R0170542 30115014 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S12 CHANGE LEGAL jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CLAS... R0233337 11622006A 09/20/2016 Other 09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S1 2016 TAX ROLL COR... bsnodgrass bcazares cmazon cmazon R0350708 10716007Z 09/21/2016 Other 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 2016 2016.TRC.2809S9 LEGAL CLASS jeblack jeblack cmazon cmazon CHANG...

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 2 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer

Value Totals LPV Primary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 9,713,421 9,713,405 (16) 64,358 48,152 (16,206) SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO 109,819 32,855 (76,964) 10,982 3,286 (7,696) TOLANI SD#1 FD SUMMIT 252,680 252,680 0 25,268 25,268 0 SD#1 ONLY 4,142 0 (4,142) 414 0 (414) SD#2 CITY OF WILLIAMS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#5 FD BLUE RIDGE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 PAGE SD#9 CITY OF SEDONA/FD SEDONA 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#15 NAVAJO RESERVATION 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) Total 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Area Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 9,783,719 9,783,719 0 69,371 53,141 (16,230) SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO 110,890 34,028 (76,862) 11,089 3,403 (7,686) TOLANI SD#1 FD SUMMIT 289,967 289,967 0 28,997 28,997 0 SD#1 ONLY 4,472 0 (4,472) 447 0 (447) SD#2 CITY OF WILLIAMS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#5 FD BLUE RIDGE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 PAGE SD#9 CITY OF SEDONA/FD SEDONA 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#15 NAVAJO RESERVATION 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) Total 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 3 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer LPV Primary Taxable Legal Class Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference AG/VACANT LAND/NON-PROFIT - 9,127,144 9,231,893 104,749 5,730 0 (5,730) REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS NON-PRIMARY/BANK OWNED/NOT 1,740,447 115,256 (1,625,191) 174,045 11,526 (162,519) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE 602,979 2,167,998 1,565,019 60,298 216,801 156,503 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 214,584 32,855 (181,729) 21,458 3,286 (18,172) Total 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918)

FCV Secondary Taxable Property Code Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference EXEMPT NON-PROFIT 1,221,216 1,292,549 71,333 ORGANIZATIONS REAL PROPERTY EXEMPT NON-PROFIT 7,887,885 7,959,753 71,868 ORGANIZATIONS REAL PROPERTY (7213) NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 561,843 15,371 (546,472) 56,184 1,537 (54,647) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL (1401) NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 1,234,113 99,885 (1,134,228) 123,411 9,989 (113,422) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL (2401) NON PRIMARY BANK OWNED NOT 72,271 0 (72,271) 7,227 0 (7,227) IN OTHER CLASSES RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE (1300) 109,563 626,763 517,200 10,956 62,676 51,720 PRIMARY RESIDENCE (2300) 581,348 1,600,913 1,019,565 58,135 160,091 101,956 PRIMARY RESIDENCE 36,719 67,799 31,080 3,672 6,780 3,108 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL (1402) 57,296 24,162 (33,134) 5,729 2,416 (3,313) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL (2402) 148,190 0 (148,190) 14,819 0 (14,819) RENTAL RESIDENTIAL 10,406 9,866 (540) 1,041 987 (54) VACANT LANDS AND REAL 38,199 0 (38,199) 5,730 0 (5,730) PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN CLASS 1,3,... Total 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 4 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference CID-TOHO TOLANI 109,819 32,855 (76,964) 10,982 3,286 (7,696) CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 9,713,421 9,713,405 (16) 64,358 48,152 (16,206) CITY OF FLAGSTAFF (54151) 9,713,421 9,713,405 (16) 64,358 48,152 (16,206) CITY OF PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 CITY OF PAGE (54156) 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 CITY OF SEDONA 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) CITY OF SEDONA (54158) 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) CITY OF WILLIAMS (04153) 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) CITY OF WILLIAMS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) COCONINO COUNTY 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) FD BLUE RIDGE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 FD HIGHLANDS 109,819 32,855 (76,964) 10,982 3,286 (7,696) FD SEDONA 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) FD SUMMIT 252,680 252,680 0 25,268 25,268 0 FLOOD CONTROL DIST 1,856,477 1,719,341 (137,136) 185,647 171,935 (13,712) HOSP DIST PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) JTED-CAVIAT 10,258,581 10,177,432 (81,149) 118,874 94,556 (24,318) JTED-NATIVE 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) JTED-VALLEY ACAD 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) LIBRARY DISTRICT 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) RES NAVAJO INDIAN 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 10,080,062 9,998,940 (81,122) 101,022 76,706 (24,316)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 5 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 10,080,062 9,998,940 (81,122) 101,022 76,706 (24,316) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 10,080,062 9,998,940 (81,122) 101,022 76,706 (24,316) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 10,080,062 9,998,940 (81,122) 101,022 76,706 (24,316) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 10,080,062 9,998,940 (81,122) 101,022 76,706 (24,316) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#2 WILLIAMS 63,263 63,236 (27) 6,326 6,324 (2) SD#5 ADJACENT WAYS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 BUDGET OVERRIDES 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CHEVELON BUTTE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CLASS A BONDS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CLASS B BONDS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 (07990) SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#9 ADJACENT WAYS 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#9 BUDGET OVERRIDES 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#9 CLASS A BONDS 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#9 CLASS B BONDS 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) (07991) SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#9 SEDONA OAK CREEK 1,198,047 1,176,461 (21,586) 119,804 117,646 (2,158) SD#15 ADJACENT WAYS 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 6 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer LPV Primary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#15 BUDGET OVERRIDES 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) SD#15 CLASS A BONDS 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) SD#15 CLASS B BONDS 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) SD#15 TUBA CITY 34,417 0 (34,417) 3,442 0 (3,442) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 11,685,154 11,548,002 (137,152) 261,531 231,613 (29,918)

FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference CID-TOHO TOLANI 110,890 34,028 (76,862) 11,089 3,403 (7,686) CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 9,783,719 9,783,719 0 69,371 53,141 (16,230) CITY OF FLAGSTAFF (54151) 9,783,719 9,783,719 0 69,371 53,141 (16,230) CITY OF PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 CITY OF PAGE (54156) 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 CITY OF SEDONA 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) CITY OF SEDONA (54158) 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) CITY OF WILLIAMS (04153) 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 CITY OF WILLIAMS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) COCONINO COUNTY 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) COMMUNITY COLLEGE 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) FD ASSISTANCE FUND 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) FD BLUE RIDGE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 FD HIGHLANDS 110,890 34,028 (76,862) 11,089 3,403 (7,686) FD SEDONA 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) FD SUMMIT 289,967 289,967 0 28,997 28,997 0 FLOOD CONTROL DIST 2,060,074 1,798,086 (261,988) 206,007 179,809 (26,198) HOSP DIST PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 7 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 29 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference JTED-CAVIAT 10,372,103 10,290,769 (81,334) 128,210 103,847 (24,363) JTED-NATIVE 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) JTED-VALLEY ACAD 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) LIBRARY DISTRICT 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) PUB HEALTH SERVICE 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) RES NAVAJO INDIAN 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 10,189,048 10,107,714 (81,334) 109,904 85,541 (24,363) SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 10,189,048 10,107,714 (81,334) 109,904 85,541 (24,363) SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 10,189,048 10,107,714 (81,334) 109,904 85,541 (24,363) SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 10,189,048 10,107,714 (81,334) 109,904 85,541 (24,363) SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 10,189,048 10,107,714 (81,334) 109,904 85,541 (24,363) SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#2 WILLIAMS 67,799 67,799 0 6,780 6,780 0 SD#5 ADJACENT WAYS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 BUDGET OVERRIDES 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CHEVELON BUTTE 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CLASS A BONDS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 CLASS B BONDS 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 (07990) SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 194,109 194,109 0 19,411 19,411 0 SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 8 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 30 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer FCV Secondary Taxable Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference Original Corrected Difference SD#8 PAGE 115,256 115,256 0 11,526 11,526 0 SD#9 ADJACENT WAYS 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#9 BUDGET OVERRIDES 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#9 CLASS A BONDS 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#9 CLASS B BONDS 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) (07991) SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#9 SEDONA OAK CREEK 1,356,118 1,212,183 (143,935) 135,611 121,218 (14,393) SD#15 ADJACENT WAYS 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) SD#15 BUDGET OVERRIDES 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) SD#15 CLASS A BONDS 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) SD#15 CLASS B BONDS 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) SD#15 TUBA CITY 36,719 0 (36,719) 3,672 0 (3,672) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428) ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 11,959,049 11,697,061 (261,988) 286,904 244,476 (42,428)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 9 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 31 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer

Tax Totals Tax Area Original Corrected Difference SD#1 CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 6,161.34 3,765.82 (2,395.52) SD#1 FD HIGHLANDS/CID-TOHO TOLANI 1,156.56 376.42 (780.14) SD#1 FD SUMMIT 2,924.76 2,428.90 (495.86) SD#1 ONLY 32.80 0.00 (32.80) SD#2 CITY OF WILLIAMS 582.20 463.08 (119.12) SD#5 FD BLUE RIDGE 1,396.60 1,195.28 (201.32) SD#8 CITY OF PAGE/HOSP DIST PAGE 643.14 868.92 225.78 SD#9 CITY OF SEDONA/FD SEDONA 10,058.76 9,121.32 (937.44) SD#15 NAVAJO RESERVATION 222.20 0.00 (222.20) Total 23,178.36 18,219.74 (4,958.62)

Tax Type Original Corrected Difference Ad Valorem 23,178.36 18,219.74 (4,958.62) Total 23,178.36 18,219.74 (4,958.62)

Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 02000 - COCONINO COUNTY (02000) 1,508.02 1,340.57 (167.45) 02001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 1,305.30 1,160.38 (144.92) 03000 - MOBILE HOME RELOCATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 04151 - CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 522.64 391.04 (131.60) 04153 - CITY OF WILLIAMS (04153) 95.15 95.12 (0.03) 04156 - CITY OF PAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 04158 - CITY OF SEDONA 0.00 0.00 0.00 07001 - SD#1 FLAGSTAFF 4,363.80 2,006.34 (2,357.46) 07002 - SD#2 WILLIAMS 252.08 133.07 (119.01) 07005 - SD#5 CHEVELON BUTTE 218.99 116.57 (102.42) 07009 - SD#9 SEDONA OAK CREEK 1,278.51 807.18 (471.33) 07015 - SD#15 TUBA CITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 07016 - SD#8 PAGE 252.68 478.46 225.78 07990 - SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX (07990) 211.56 112.66 (98.90)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 10 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 32 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 07991 - SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX (07991) 878.13 554.36 (323.77) 08150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1,279.01 1,137.00 (142.01) 10375 - HOSP DIST WILLIAMS 61.34 61.33 (0.01) 10376 - HOSP DIST PAGE 115.40 115.40 0.00 11201 - FD SEDONA 2,931.59 2,878.79 (52.80) 11206 - FD SUMMIT 821.21 821.21 0.00 11240 - FD HIGHLANDS 324.74 106.80 (217.94) 11523 - FD BLUE RIDGE 440.63 440.63 0.00 11900 - FD ASSISTANCE FUND 260.56 231.63 (28.93) 14900 - LIBRARY DISTRICT 665.94 592.00 (73.94) 15000 - FLOOD CONTROL DIST 697.88 658.48 (39.40) 23900 - RES NAVAJO INDIAN 0.00 0.00 0.00 28279 - CID-TOHO TOLANI 0.00 0.00 0.00 29999 - PUB HEALTH SERVICE 651.34 579.03 (72.31) 30001 - JTED-CAVIAT 58.95 47.27 (11.68) 30002 - JTED-VALLEY ACAD 59.90 58.83 (1.07) 30003 - JTED-NATIVE 1.72 0.00 (1.72) 30004 - RURAL ACCOMOD SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 52000 - COCONINO COUNTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 52001 - ST SCHL EQUALIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 54151 - CITY OF FLAGSTAFF (54151) 538.42 402.84 (135.58) 54153 - CITY OF WILLIAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 54156 - CITY OF PAGE (54156) 0.00 0.00 0.00 54158 - CITY OF SEDONA (54158) 0.00 0.00 0.00 57001 - SD#1 BUDGET OVERRIDES 737.21 565.30 (171.91) 57002 - SD#2 BUDGET OVERRIDES 24.53 24.52 (0.01) 57005 - SD#5 BUDGET OVERRIDES 0.00 0.00 0.00 57009 - SD#9 BUDGET OVERRIDES 208.34 204.59 (3.75) 57015 - SD#15 BUDGET OVERRIDES 0.00 0.00 0.00 57016 - SD#8 BUDGET OVERRIDES 0.00 0.00 0.00 57990 - SD#5 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 11 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 33 of 34 Tax Roll Correction Summary Coconino County Assessor Hearing Date from 08/02/2016 to 09/26/2016 for Tax Year 2016 and Current Status Sent to Treasurer Tax Authority Original Corrected Difference 57991 - SD#9 MINIMUM SCHOOL TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 58150 - COMMUNITY COLLEGE 340.01 302.25 (37.76) 67001 - SD#1 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67002 - SD#2 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67005 - SD#5 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67009 - SD#9 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67015 - SD#15 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 67016 - SD#8 CLASS A BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77001 - SD#1 CLASS B BONDS 440.42 337.73 (102.69) 77002 - SD#2 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77005 - SD#5 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 77009 - SD#9 CLASS B BONDS 1,459.45 1,433.16 (26.29) 77015 - SD#15 CLASS B BONDS 141.08 0.00 (141.08) 77016 - SD#8 CLASS B BONDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87001 - SD#1 ADJACENT WAYS 28.41 21.78 (6.63) 87002 - SD#2 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87005 - SD#5 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87009 - SD#9 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87015 - SD#15 ADJACENT WAYS 0.00 0.00 0.00 87016 - SD#8 ADJACENT WAYS 3.42 3.42 0.00 Total 23,178.36 18,219.74 (4,958.62)

jeblack @ Sep 26, 2016 1:52:53 PM Coconino County Assessor Page 12 of 12

11. 10/18/2016 | Assessor | Tax Roll Corrections 10/18/2016 Page 34 of 34 Target Meeting Date: 10/18/2016

DATE: September 29, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Michele Ralston, District 1 Executive Assistant, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

SUBJECT: Approve Community Grant Funding from District 1in the amount of $500.00 and District 4 in the amount of $250.00 to support the Sunnyside Market of Dreams Micro- Entrepreneur Program.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests the Board of Supervisors consider approval of Community Grant Funding from District 1 in the amount of $500.00 and District 4 in the amount of $250.00 to support the Sunnyside Market of Dreams Micro-Entrepreneur Program. The Board should review this request to assure it meets the Public Purpose and Adequate Consideration requirements as listed in the Board- approved Community Grant Program Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Sunnyside Market of Dreams/El Mercado de los Suenos is a Micro-Entrepreneur Center and community-supported marketplace that is operated by the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association of Flagstaff, Inc. The Market of Dreams directly reduces poverty and increases personal/family income by empowering people to create their own businesses. Program participants gain valuable middle-level and higher job skills by increasing direct knowledge of entrepreneurship, leadership, and management.

ALTERNATIVES: Not approve the Community Grant funding.

FISCAL IMPACT: CI accounts from the contributing District(s) will be reduced according to the amount each District donates.

ATTACHMENTS: Request for County Allocation form

12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 11 12. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors |FY17 Sunnyside Neighborhood Assoc. Market of Dreams Micro -... 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 11 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 7, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Theresa Thomas, Executive Assistant, District 2

SUBJECT: Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $1,500.00 to the Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance to assist with costs for moive license fees and production costs for the Movies on the Square providing free family freindly and safe environment all summer for the community. Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $1,500.00 to the Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance to assist with costs for moive license fees and production costs for the Movies on the Square providing free family freindly and safe environment all summer for the community.

BACKGROUND:

The Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance is a non-profit organziation. The funds will be used to assist with the costs of movie license fees and productions costs associated with bringing the Movies on the Square, a free family friendly and safe envoriment all summer long to the Community. Coconino County funded this organization throguh Community Grants in the past. The organziastion has submitted a currently expenditure report to Coconino County to show how previous funds were expended. Additional infomration is included in the request form attached.

ALTERNATIVES:

No approve the Communtiy Grant Funding

FISCAL IMPACT:

Community Grant Fund accounts from the contributing District will be reduced according to the amount the district donates.

13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENTS:

W-9 CG Application

13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 7 13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 7 13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 7 13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 7 13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 7 13. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant Funding - Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 7 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 7, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Theresa Thomas, Executive Assistant, District 2.

SUBJECT: Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $3,500.00 and from District 4 in the amount of $250.00 for a total of $3,750.00 to the Museum of Northern Arizona to help with services associated in presenting the 13th Annual Celebraciones de la Gente/Dia de los Muertos Fesitival bringing Hispanic/Latino culture, traditions and heritage to the community. Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve Community Grant Funding from District 2 in the amount of $3,500.00 and from District 4 in the amount of $250.00 for a total of $3,750.00 to the Museum of Northern Arizona to help with services associated in presenting the 13th Annual Celebraciones de la Gente/Dia de los Muertos Fesitival bringing Hispanic/Latino culture, traditions and heritage to the community.

BACKGROUND:

The Musuem of Northern Arizona is a non-profit organiztion. The funds will be used to assist with the costs association with the 13h Annual Celebraciones de la Gente/Dia de los Muertos Fesitival to promote Hispanic/Latino culture, traditions and heritage to the community through visual, literary and perform arts. Humanities-based lectures and discussions will fuse with engaging music and dance performances, blending centures-old cultural traditions with contemproary experiences. Coconino County funded this organziation thorugh Community Grants int eh past. The organziation has submitted a current expenditure report ot Coconino County to show how previous funds were expended. Adiditoinal informaiotn is included in the request form attached.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not approve the Community Grant Funding

FISCAL IMPACT:

Community Initiative accounts from the contributing district(s) will be reduced according to the amount is District donates.

14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENTS:

CG Application

14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 9 14. 10/18/2016 | Board Of Supervisors | Community Grant -Museum of Northern Arizona 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 9 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 6, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Janet Regner, Community Services Director.

SUBJECT: Approve a grant in the amount of $6,000.00 from the Dougherty Foundation to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $6,000 for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the 2016-2017 academic year.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve a grant in the amount of $6,000.00 from the Dougherty Foundation to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $6,000 for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the 2016-2017 academic year .

BACKGROUND:

The federal program Assets for Independence (AFI) promotes asset building for lower income individuals including attaining a post-secondary education. The program requires that local match funds leverage the federal funds associated with the grant. For every dollar of local match funds generated, another dollar of federal funds is provided. In addition, each eligible person who enrolls, opens an Individual Development Account (IDA) in order to regularly save earned income. Enrollees are required to deposit their savings monthly as well as participate in a financial literacy training. The $6000 from the Dougherty Foundation (a Phoenix based foundation focusing on higher education) will generate another $6000 of federal funds. That along with the student savings will enable three to eight students to purchase their asset: tuition and books for a post-secondary education at Coconino Community College (CCC) in the 2016-2017 academic year. Last academic year CCCS recruited and assisted six IDA-$ave2Learn students who received Dougherty Foundation local match funding. All have been part of the CCC2NAU program, with all intending to transfer to Northern Arizona University. These students are currently pursuing their post-secondary education in the following majors: • Secondary Education (Teaching) • Network Engineering • Computer Science & Engineering • Interior Design

15. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve Dougherty Foundation Grant 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 3 • Business/Pre-Med • General Education

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could choose to not approve the grant acceptance. Three to eight students would be affected.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None. There are no General Funds allocated to this program.

ATTACHMENTS:

Grant award letter.

15. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve Dougherty Foundation Grant 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 3 Dougherty Foundation An Education Trust for Arizona

October 5, 2016

Janet K. Regner, Director Coconino County Community Services 2625 N. King St. Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Ms. Regner,

It is my pleasure to share that the Dougherty Foundation Board of Directors has approved a renewal of your grant request for $6,000 to support the $ave2Learn program in the 2016-2017 academic year. We are very excited to continue this partnership. The Board of Directors has been impressed with the program results demonstrated in the first year.

We will request a program report in the summer of 2017 and share opportunities for renewal at that time. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joyce Harper

Joyce Harper Executive Director Dougherty Foundation

15. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve Dougherty Foundation Grant 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 6, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Janet Regner, Community Services Director

SUBJECT: Approve a grant in the amount of $2,137.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustiment in the amount of $2,137.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017. The grant is made up of $1387.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff and $750.00 from the Molly and Joseph Herman Foundation.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve a grant in the amount of $2,137.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustiment in the amount of $2,137.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) $ave2Learn post secondary Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017. The grant is made up of $1387.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff and $750.00 from the Molly and Joseph Herman Foundation.

BACKGROUND:

In addition, each eligible person who enrolls, opens an Individual Development Account (IDA) in order to regularly save earned income. Enrollees are required to deposit their savings monthly as well as participate in a financial literacy training. The $2,137.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation will generate another $2,137.00 of federal funds. That along with the student savings will enable one to three students to purchase their asset: tuition and books for a post-secondary education at Coconino Community College (CCC) in the 2016-2017 academic year.

16. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Arizona Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 5 ALTERNATIVES:

The Board can choose to not accept the grant award. One to three students will be impacted.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None. No General Funds are provided for this program.

ATTACHMENTS:

Grant Award Letter.

16. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Arizona Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 5 16. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Arizona Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 5 16. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Arizona Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 5 16. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Arizona Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 5 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 6, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Janet Regner, Community Services Director

SUBJECT: Approve a grant in the amount of $2,900.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $2,900.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) Micro Entrepreneur Business Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve a grant in the amount of $2,900.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff to Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and corresponding budget adjustment in the amount of $2,900.00, for the purpose of local match funds to the Assets for Independence (AFI) Micro Entrepreneur Business Individual Development Account (IDA) program for the period September 2016 - September 2017.

BACKGROUND:

The federal program Assets for Independence (AFI) promotes asset building for lower income individuals including capitalizing their microenterprise. The program requires that local match funds leverage the federal funds associated with the grant. For every dollar of local match funds generated, another dollar of federal funds is provided. The grant is made up of $1400.00 from the Arizona Community Foundation Flagstaff and $1500.00 from the Ernest & Chilson Fund.

In addition, each eligible person who enrolls, opens an Individual Development Account (IDA) in order to regularly save earned income. Enrollees are required to deposit their savings monthly as well as participate in a financial literacy training. The $2900 from the Arizona Community Foundation will generate another $2900 of federal funds. That along with the entrepreneur’s savings will enable one-two individuals to purchase an asset to capitalize their small business in the period September 2016-September 2017.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could choose to not accept this grant. One to two lower income entrepreneurs would be affected.

17. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Flagstaff Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT:

None. No General Funds support this program.

ATTACHMENTS:

Grant

17. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Flagstaff Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 4 17. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Flagstaff Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 4 17. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Approve grant from the Flagstaff Community Foundation 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 7, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Janet Regner, Director of Community Services

SUBJECT: Approve Independent Contractor Agreement No. 07012016-17, Amendment No. 1 between Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and Arizona Community Action Association (ACAA) to increase funding and the corresponding budget amendment in the amount of $10,000.00 for a total reimbursement ceiling for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 from $68,789 to $78,789.00.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve Independent Contractor Agreement No. 07012016-17, Amendment No. 1 between Coconino County Community Services (CCCS) and Arizona Community Action Association (ACAA) to increase funding and the corresponding budget amendment in the amount of $10,000.00 for a total reimbursement ceiling for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 from $68,789 to $78,789.00.

BACKGROUND:

The Arizona Community Action Association (ACAA), a non-profit organization of all the Community Action Agencies in Arizona (Community Services is on of eleven designated Community Action Agencies in Arizona) acts as a fiscal agent for several private grants from Arizona's utility companies. ACAA in turn contracts with agencies to administer the grants on behalf of low-income residents. This amendment increases the APS Bill Assistance funds from $12,500.00 to $22,500.00. It also moves 10% of the Unisource/Warm Spirit funds to Program Delivery from the Direct Service, resulting in no net change in the amoutn of the Unisource grant. The net affect of this amendment is to increase the ACAA contract by $10,000 for the FY17.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could choose to not approve the amendment proposed. That would result in $10,000 less in APS bill assistance funds for Coconino County.

18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 17 FISCAL IMPACT:

A $10,000 increase in the ACAA contract from $68,789 to $78,789. Budget Amendment attached.

ATTACHMENTS:

Independent Contractor Agreement Amendment Budget Adjustment to Contract Israel Boycott Certificate

18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 17 18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 17 Adjusted Adjusted Original BA #1 - Budget Budget Object Code Description Budget (6/2/16) #1 BA #2 #2

(not yet posted Revenues in H T E) 1424-34-2330-253-25-434-35.4315 EAP-HEAF-Tribal 1424-34-2330-253-25-485-31.4967 Private Grants - APS 62,058 -62,058 0 0 1434-34-2330-253-25-485-31.4968 ACAA Heaf Tribal Vouchers 10,523 -4,770 5,753 5,753 1424-34-2330-253-25-485-31.4969 ACAA URRD Vouchers 36,917 5,439 42,356 42,356 1424-34-2330-253-25-485-31.4970 ACAA-Warm Spirits 6,270 1,910 8,180 8,180 Revenue Subtotal 115,768 -59,479 56,289 1424-34-2330-263-25-485-59.4967 Private Grants - APS Assistance 0 12,500 12,500 10,000 22,500 Total Contract Revenue 115,768 -46,979 68,789 78,789

Expenditures 1424-34-2330-253-25-581-59.6751 ACAA - HEAF Tribal Vouchers 57,263 -51,510 5,753 5,753 1424-34-2330-253-25-581-59.6752 ACAA - UURD Vouchers 36,917 5,439 42,356 42,356 1424-34-2330-253-25-581-59.6755 ACAA - Warm Spirits Vouchers 0 8,180 8,180 8,180 Expenditure Subtotal 94,180 -37,891 56,289 1424-34-2330-263-25-581-59.6155 APS - Vouchers 0 12,500 12,500 10,000 22,500 Total Budgeted Expenditures 94,180 -25,391 68,789 78,789

18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 17 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 35-393.01

In support and furtherance of the First Amendment to that certain “Independent Contractor Agreement 2016-17 Utility Assistance Programs Contract No. 07012016-17” by and between The Arizona Community Action Association, Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation, of 2700 North 3rd Street, Suite 3040, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004 (hereinafter the “Independent Contractor”), and COCONINO COUNTY, on behalf of its Community Services Department, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, of 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 (hereinafter the “County”), and signed by the Independent Contractor on or about June 27, 2016, Independent Contractor provides the following certification:

WHEREAS Arizona state law requires, as a condition of doing business with the State of Arizona and/or any of its political subdivisions, that all service contracts entered into by the State be supported by a certification of the proposed independent contractor that satisfies the requirements of A.R.S. § 35-393.01(A) with regard to boycotts of Israel; and

WHEREAS the above-referenced Independent Contractor Agreement constitutes a contract for services,

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the requirements of A.R.S. § 35-393.01(A), the Independent Contractor hereby certifies that the Independent Contractor is not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel. The Independent Contractor further certifies that no wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, parent companies, or affiliates of the Independent Contractor (if any) are currently engaged in a boycott of Israel. Independent Contractor further and additionally agrees that for the duration of this Contract, neither Independent Contractor, nor any wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, parent companies, or affiliates of Independent Contractor (if any) shall engage in a boycott of Israel.

For purposes of this certification, “boycott of Israel” shall mean engaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities, or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel or with persons or entities doing business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel, if those actions are taken either: (a) in compliance with or adherence to calls for a boycott of Israel other than those boycotts to which 50 U.S.C. § 4607(c) applies; or (b) in a manner that discriminates on the basis of nationality, national origin or religion and that is not based on a valid business reason.

THE ARIZONA COMMUNITY ACTION COCONINO COUNTY ASSOCIATION, INC.

______Cynthia Zwick, Executive Dir. Lena Fowler, Chair Authorized Signatory Board of Supervisors

18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 17 REVIEWED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Janet Regner, Director Deputy County Attorney Coconino County Community Services Department 2625 N. King Street Flagstaff, AZ 86004

18. 10/18/2016 | Community Services | Arizona Community Action Association contract amendment for Energy... 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 17 Meeting Date: October 18th, 2016

DATE: Revised October 12, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Mike Lopker, Deputy Public Works Director

AGENDA TITLE/SUBJECT: Approve the First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement with Mormon Lake Lodge that defines the solid waste materials the Lodge will accept. Public Works

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve the First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement with Mormon Lake Lodge that defines the solid waste materials the Lodge will accept.

BACKGROUND:

Public Works has been working with the Mormon Lake Lodge to move the Mormon Lake Transfer Station to Lodge property. The Board of Supervisor approved a Development and Indemnification Agreement on August 9, 2016 that outlines the responsibilities of the Lodge and the County. This original agreement did not define the solid waste commodities that the Lodge will accept. This first addendum defines those commodities as “to include, but not be limited to, non-hazardous household waste, bulk trash, recyclable materials, forest materials and/or green waste.”

The work on the new site is progressing and hope to begin operations November 1, 2016. Fencing and signage remain to be completed during October, 2016.

Public Works requests Board approval of the attached First Addendum to the Development & Indemnification Agreement with the Mormon Lake Lodge. The Vice President Mormon Lake Properties, LLC, Scott Gold, has already agreed to and signed the attached addendum.

ALTERNATIVES:

19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 20 The following options are available to the Board of Supervisors:

 Approve this request.  Reject the request and request additional research.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no fiscal impacts to this addendum.

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agreement First Addendum document (three originals).

19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 20 19. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |First Addendum to a Development & Indemnification Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 20 Meeting Date: October 18th, 2015

DATE: September 21, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Lucinda Andreani, Interim Public Works Director

SUBJECT: Approve the award of Bid 2017-01 Ice Control Black Cinders to Miller Mining Inc. to purchase 7,500 tons of black cinders in the amount of $118,160.00.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the award of Bid 2017-01 to Miller Mining Inc. for 7,500 tons of black cinders, in the amount of $118,160.00, as the only bid received.

BACKGROUND:

The Coconino County Public Works Department’s intent is to purchase 7,500 tons of black cinders for ice control on County roadways, for delivery to the Sheephill yard, Williams turntable, Williams yard and Ft. Tuthill storage barn.

Results of Bids opened September 20th, 2016 at 2:00PM:

COMPANY NAME TOTAL COST

1. Miller Mining $118,160.00

This represents an increase in cost per ton of 8.4% from the previous year, mainly due to the lack of competition in the black cinder business at the present time. We are hopeful that future bids will attract more competition as mining operations increase in the area.

ALTERNATIVES:

20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 13 The following options are available to the Board:

 Approve recommendation to award bid to Miller Mining Inc.  Reject the bid and request that new solicitations be advertised.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bid amount of $118,160.00 is partially budgeted. $75,000 is budgeted and the balance will be absorbed by transfer from other Public Works line items..

APPROVED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Miller Mining submittal for Bid 2017-01. 2. Acceptance of Proposal Form.

20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 13 20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 13 ACCEPTANCE of PROPOSAL

To: Mr. Robert D. Miller Miller Mining, Inc. P.O. Box 31289 Flagstaff, AZ 86003

This is to inform you that the proposal by Miller Mining, Inc., in response to Bid 2017-01, “Ice Control Black Cinders”, has been accepted.

The acceptance date is October 18th, 2016.

Dated this ______day of ______, 2016.

______Lena Fowler, Chair Coconino County Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

______Clerk of the Board

20. 10/18/2016 | Public Works |Bid 2017-01, ice control black cinders 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 13 TARGET MEETING DATE: 10/18/2016

DATE: 9/30/2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Patty Hansen, RECORDER

SUBJECT: Approve Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services for the Mormon Lake Fire District, Pinewood Fire District, Summit Fire District, Pinewood Sanitary District, City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Unified School District #1, Page Unified School District #8, Sedona-Oak Creek Unified School District #9, and Coconino County Community College District for the November 8, 2016 General Election.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve IGA’s to provide Election Services for the Mormon Lake Fire District, Pinewood Fire District, Summit Fire District, Pinewood Sanitary District, City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Unified School District #1, Page Unified School District #8, Sedona-Oak Creek Unified School District #9, and Coconino County Community College District for the November 8, 2016 General Election.

BACKGROUND:

IGAs for election services are established between Coconino County and the Mormon Lake Fire District, Pinewood Fire District, Summit Fire District, Pinewood Sanitary District, City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Unified School District #1, Page Unified School District #8, Sedona-Oak Creek Unified School District #9, and Coconino County Community College District for the November 8, 2016 Elections, in accordance with ARS §16-408 D. The governing body of any election district authorized to conduct an election may contract with the Board of Supervisors and County Recorder for election services.

ALTERNATIVES:

Board approval is required under election state statute.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contracted cost of such elections shall be a charge against the election district according to the adopted fee schedule.

21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 49 REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

IGA – Mormon Lake Fire District IGA – Pinewood Fire District IGA – Summit Fire District IGA – Pinewood Sanitary District IGA – City of Flagstaff IGA – Flagstaff Unified School District #1 IGA – Page Unified School District #8 IGA – Sedona-Oak Creek Unified School District #9 IGA – Coconino County Community College District

21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 21 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 22 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 23 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 24 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 25 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 26 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 27 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 28 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 29 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 30 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 31 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 32 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 33 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 34 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 35 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 36 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 37 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 38 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 39 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 40 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 41 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 42 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 43 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 44 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 45 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 46 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 47 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 48 of 49 21. 10/18/2016 | Recorder | Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) to provide Election Services 10/18/2016 Page 49 of 49 Meeting Date: October 18, 2106

DATE: September 29, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Risha VanderWey, County School Superintendent

SUBJECT: Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $20,000 and budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor’s Office for the period of August 2016 through June 2017, by amending the Resolution number previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2016.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $20,000 and budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor’s Office for the period of August 2016 through June 2017, by amending the Resolution number previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2016.

BACKGROUND:

On September 27, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved consent agenda item #17, approving Resolution 2016-36, accepting the “Substance Abuse Block Grant” in the amount of $20,000 and budget adjustment in the amount of $20,000 and approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor’s Office for the period of August 2016 through June 2017. Subsequent to the Board's approval, staff realized the same Resolution number 2016-36 was used on two separate agenda items.

Staff is requesting to ratify the approval of said Substance Abuse Block Grant and budget adjustment item by correcting the resolution number from Resolution #2016-36 to Resolution #2016-35.

ALTERNATIVES:

If Resolution 2016-35 is not approved, there will be two Resolutions recorded with the same number.

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 8 FISCAL IMPACT:

This Resolution must be passed in order to correct the Resolution number adopting the item and to not have two Resolution numbers recorded with the same number.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Intergovernmental Agreement

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF ARIZONA, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF YOUTH, FAITH AND FAMILY WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has certain statutory authority pursuant to A.R. S. §11- 952 to enter into intergovernmental agreements; and, WHEREAS, the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools is authorized by statute to provide discretionary programs at the request of school districts in the County, pursuant to A.R.S. §15- 302(B), WHEREAS, the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools has established an Intergovernmental Agreement with State of Arizona, Governor’s Office of Youth, Faith and Family to provide funding for the development, coordination, and implementation of Peer/Parent Substance Use Prevention Programming in a county middle school selected by the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby approves the attached Intergovernmental Agreement as prepared and presented by the Superintendent of Schools, and authorizes the Superintendent of Schools to sign said Agreement on its behalf. APPROVE AND ADOPTED this _____day of September, 2016, by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.

______Lena Fowler, Chair

ATTEST:

______Clerk, Board of Supervisors

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______Deputy County Attorney

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03

Between the

STATE OF ARIZONA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF YOUTH, FAITH AND FAMILY

And the

COCONINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the State of Arizona, the Governor’s Office of Youth, Faith and Family, located at 1700 West Washington, Suite 230, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 “GOYFF” or “State of Arizona”) and the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools, located at 2384 N. Steves Boulevard, Flagstaff, Arizona 86004.

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Health and Human Services provided funding to the Arizona Department of Health Services under the Substance Abuse Block Grant (“SABG. The SABG is administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Health Services provided Substance Abuse Block Grant Funding to the Governor’s Office of Youth, Faith and Family under Interagency Service Agreement No. HS632006.

WHEREAS, A.R.S. §41-101.01 authorizes the Governor’s Office of Youth, Faith and Family to execute and administer agreements and accept and expend any funds received from the federal government or any agency thereof.

WHEREAS, A.R.S. §11-952 authorizes public agencies to enter into agreements to contract for services.

WHEREAS, A.R.S. §15-301 authorizes the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools to enter into agreements with other governmental entities and agencies in order to receive and spend local, state and federal monies to provide programs and services to school districts, charter schools, county free library districts, and municipal libraries within the county.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which the parties hereby acknowledge, the parties enter into this Agreement as follows:

I. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Agreement is to specify the responsibilities and procedures for the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools’ role in the development, coordination, and implementation of Peer/Parent Substance Use Prevention Programming in a county middle school selected by the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools.

Agreement No. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03 Page 1 of 5

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 8 II. TERM OF AGREEMENT, TERMINATION AND AMENDMENTS The term of the Agreement shall commence April 1, 2016, and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2016, contingent upon GOYFF’s receipt of final federal SABG funding, unless terminated, canceled, or extended as otherwise provided herein.

Either party may terminate this Agreement at any earlier time by providing written notice to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date. The GOYFF agrees that regardless of its termination date with the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools, the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools may use the funds distributed under this Agreement to pay for any unpaid services pursuant to this Agreement obligated prior to the date of termination. This Agreement is subject to cancellation pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-511, the provisions of which are incorporated herein.

Amendments to this Agreement shall be made in writing and signed by both parties.

III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools shall:

1. Select and secure participation of one middle school that will include the entire 7th grade student population. 2. Provide the GOYFF with the total number of students in 7th grade. 3. Identify a Project Manager from the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools’ staff (“Project Manager”). 4. Ensure that the Project Manager attends the entire training at the middle school site scheduled during July or August, 2016. 5. Ensure the County Superintendent’s attendance at the entire two hour event at the middle school scheduled for September, 2016. 6. Require that the Project Manager maintains regular contact with the middle school Project Coordinator to ensure the school’s grant deliverables are met. 7. Provide services in accordance with this Agreement, which includes Attachment A (entitled Sample Budget – County Superintendents, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety) and Attachment B (entitled Federal Terms and Conditions, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety).

IV. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools shall submit invoices and programmatic reports detailing all services rendered in accordance with this Agreement on a monthly basis. The reporting deadlines are:  May 31, 2016  June 30, 2016  July 31, 2016  August 31, 2016  September 30, 2016

Agreement No. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03 Page 2 of 5

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 8 V. MANNER OF FINANCING The GOYFF shall:

1. Provide no more than $20,000 to the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools, for costs associated with the activities listed in (i) Section III of this Agreement, (ii)) Attachment A, entitled Sample Budget – County Superintendents, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety, and (iii) Attachment B, entitled Federal Terms and Conditions, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety. 2. Provide payment upon receipt and approval of the invoices for services performed or goods received.

The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools shall:

1. Use the SABG funds received from GOYFF exclusively to support the activities outlined in (i) Section III of this Agreement, (ii) Attachment A, entitled Sample Budget – County Superintendents, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety, and (iii) Attachment B, entitled Federal Terms and Conditions, incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety. 2. Agree that all reimbursement of in-state travel expenses shall be paid only in accordance with the Domestic Per Diem rates allowed under the State of Arizona Travel Policy, and the prevailing State of Arizona standard mileage rates, located at https://gao.az.gov/travel/welcome-gao-travel. There shall be no reimbursement of out-of- state travel expenses. 3. All questions regarding the appropriate use of the SABG funds shall be resolved by mutual written agreement between the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools and the GOYFF.

VI. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The State of Arizona’s Uniform Terms and Conditions V9_ (Rev 7-1-2013) are incorporated into this document as if fully set forth herein. Copies of the Uniform Terms and Conditions may be accessed at https://spo.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Uniform%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20V9 _%28Rev%207-1-2013%29.pdf. The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools warrants that it has read and understands the Uniform Terms and Conditions V9_ (Rev 7-1-2013) and agrees to be bound by them in their entirety. In the event of any divergence between this Agreement and the Uniform Terms and Conditions, this Agreement shall control.

VII. NON-AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS In accordance with A.R.S. § 35-154, every payment obligation of the GOYFF/Arizona Office of the Governor under the Agreement is conditioned upon the availability of funds appropriated or allocated for payment of such obligation. If funds are not allocated and available for the continuance of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by the GOYFF/Arizona Office of the Governor at the end of the period for which funds are available. No liability shall accrue to Arizona Office of the Governor in the event this provision is exercised, and the GOYFF/Arizona Office of the Governor shall not be obligated or liable for any future payments or for any damages as a result of termination under this paragraph.

VIII. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the State of Arizona, and its departments, agencies, boards, commissions, universities, officers, officials, agents, and employees (hereinafter referred to as “Indemnitee”) from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including court costs, attorneys’ fees, and costs of claim processing, investigation and litigation) (hereinafter referred to as

Agreement No. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03 Page 3 of 5

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 8 “Claims”) for bodily injury or personal injury (including death), or loss or damage to tangible or intangible property caused, or alleged to be caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools or any of its owners, officers, directors, agents, employees or subcontractors. This indemnity includes any claim or amount arising out of, or recovered under, the Workers’ Compensation Law or arising out of the failure of such the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools to conform to any federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or court decree. It is the specific intention of the parties that the Indemnitee shall, in all instances, except for Claims arising solely from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Indemnitee, be indemnified by the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools from and against any and all claims. It is agreed that the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools will be responsible for primary loss investigation, defense, and judgment costs where this indemnification is applicable. In consideration of the award of this Agreement, the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the State of Arizona, its officers, officials, agents, and employees for losses arising from the work performed by the Coconino County Superintendent of Schools for the State of Arizona.

This indemnity shall not apply if the contractor or sub-contractor(s) is/are an agency, board, commission or university of the State of Arizona.

IX. INSURANCE The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools is a public entity and shall provide a certificate of self- insurance.

X. OTHER It is agreed that the parties to this Agreement have participated fully in the negotiation and preparation of the Agreement. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. The parties acknowledge they have been advised by counsel, or have had the opportunity to be advised by counsel, in the negotiation and execution of the Agreement.

The parties agree to follow all applicable laws, rules and regulations in the performance of work in furtherance of the Substance Abuse Block Grant initiative and this Agreement.

XI. NOTICES The Coconino County Superintendent of Schools shall address all notices relative to this Agreement to:

Deborrah Miller Special Project Manager Governor’s Office of Youth, Faith and Family 1700 West Washington, Suite 230 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

The GOYFF shall address all notices relative to this Agreement to:

Risha VanderWey County Superintendent of Schools Coconino County Superintendent of Schools 2384 N. Steves Boulevard Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

Agreement No. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03 Page 4 of 5

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto agree to execute this Agreement.

COCONINO COUNTY GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF YOUTH, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FAITH AND FAMILY

Risha VanderWey Date Debbie Moak Date County Superintendent of Schools Director

Travis Price Date Compliance Finance and Procurement Manager Office of the Governor

Agreement No. IGA-SABG-GR-16-040116-03 Page 5 of 5

22. 10/18/2016 | Superintendent of Schools | Approve Resolution 2016-35, ratifying and affirming the “Substance... 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 8 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 12, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Sarah Benatar, Treasurer

SUBJECT: Approve Resolution 2016-61, ratifying the settlement agreement with Antelope Point Holdings, LLC.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move to approve Resolution 2016-61, ratifying the settlement agreement with Antelope Point Holdings, LLC, signed by Coconino County Treasurer and Antelope Point Holdings, LLC, on October 12, 2016.

BACKGROUND:

Antelope Point Holdings, LLC operates a marina in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area under a concessionaire's contract with the National Park Service. For the years 2010 through 2015, Antelope Point has not paid personal property taxes. As a result, a substantial amount of interest and penalties had accrued, but there was a dispute between the County and the taxpayer regarding the exact amounts owed. The Coconino County Treasurer and the taxpayer met to negotiate the dispute. The result was memorialized in a settlement agreement that calls for the waiver of certain interest accrued, in exchange for setting the amounts owed with certainty, and promising payment in full by December 31, 2016. This settlement agreement was signed by the Treasurer and the taxpayer on Oct. 12, 2016, and it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to review and ratify the settlement agreement.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board may choose to not ratify the agreement

FISCAL IMPACT:

Ratification will confirm the terms of the settlement agreement. Election to not ratify the agreement will have certain potential fiscal impacts that must be explained in executive session.

ATTACHMENTS:

Settlement Agreement

23. 10/18/2016 | Treasurer | Ratification of Antelope Point Holdings LLC Settlement Agreement 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: October 3, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Directors

FROM: Marie Peoples, Chief Health Officer

SUBJECT: FY17 Emergency Preparedness Program IGA ADHS17-133181, Amendment 1

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve ADHS IGA 17-133181 Amendment 1, previously approved as ADHS IGA 12-007885 Amendment 10 to provide Healthcare system preparedness services and activities for the Northern Regional Healthcare Coalition for the CCPHSD Emergency Preparedness Program for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. Public Health

BACKGROUND:

The Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program (PHEP) coordinates emergency response planning and preparedness efforts for the Coconino County Public Health Services District (CCPHSD). CCPHSD created the PHEP unit in 2002, and the program supports and enhances the capacity of the state, local public health, Tribes, and the healthcare system to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies which pose a substantial risk to the health of Coconino, Navajo, Apache and Yavapai county residents. This is done through routine response planning, surveillance, early detection of communicable diseases, laboratory support, emergency communications, training / education and exercising plans, through the Northern Arizona Healthcare Coalition.

ALTERNATIVES:

Without this funding opportunity from ADHS, CCPHSD would have to seek alternative funding options for this program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of this budget will allow for the continuation public health emergency preparedness and healthcare system preparedness activities and services The fixed rate contract uses cost center 1334-31 3010-368-20-56-2. The indirect rate for this contract is capped at 15% of total expenditures.

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS: Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment 1

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergency preparedness 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer Contract No. ADHS17-133181 Amendment No. 1 Russell Coplen

Emergency Preparedness Program

Effective July 1, 2017, it is mutually agreed that the Intergovernmental Agreement referenced is amended as follows:

1. Pursuant to the Terms and Condition, Section 6, Contract Changes, 6.1, the Agreement Scope of Work is revised to include additional services as described in the Attachment A of this Amendment One (1).

2. The Agreement Price Sheet is revised and replaced with the Price sheet of this Amendment One (1).

All other provisions of this agreement remain unchanged.

CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE

Coconino County Public Health Services District Contractor Name Contractor Authorized Signature

2625 N King St. Address Printed Name

Flagstaff AZ 85004 City State Zip Title CONTRACTOR ATTORNEY SIGNATURE This Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment shall be effective the date Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney indicated. The Public Agency is hereby cautioned not to commence any has determined that this Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper billable work or provide any material, service or construction under this form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of IGA until the IGA has been executed by an authorized ADHS signatory. the State of Arizona. State of Arizona

Signed this ______day of ______20______Signature Date

Printed Name Procurement Officer Attorney General Contract No. P00120143000078, which is an Reserved for use by the Secretary of State Agreement between public agencies, has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952 by the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, who has determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona.

Signature Date Assistant Attorney General

Printed Name:

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergencyPage preparedness 1 of 5 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer Contract No. ADHS17-133181 Amendment No. 1 Russell Coplen

ATTACHMENT A

Northern Region Coalition

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) receives supplemental funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR/HPP) to further develop and enhance the State of Arizona, Bureau of Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP). These funds are used to support development and implementation of Tasks in this Scope of Work. The ADHS has determined that the most expeditious methodology to enhance these Tasks is to partner with four coalition regions made up of counties, tribes, hospitals and other healthcare services in each region.

1.2. ADHS continues to look at ways to expand our preparedness capabilities based on our Five-Year Plan and the Capability planning Guide (CPG) data. Based on that information and the guidance set forth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR/HPP) ADHS has developed, with your input, this coalition agreement for the Northern Region Healthcare Coalition to be implemented through this IGA with Coconino County.

2. OBJECTIVE

Develop a strategic plan along with the timetable and necessary activities to fully implement the Northern Healthcare Coalition. Focus on establishing the fundamental building blocks of disaster preparedness for the regions healthcare community with follow-up and oversight to assure a sustained level of preparedness.

3. SCOPE OF WORK

3.1. Healthcare System Preparedness

3.1.1. Focus on establishing effective guidance documents, such as Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and activation procedures, which can be used by coalition partners when needing specific resources and assistance during disaster and emergent events.

3.1.2. Integrate the healthcare community into the existing network of emergency preparedness with focus on linkage to the County public health resources;

3.1.3. Prepare Coalition partners for interoperable collaboration with local response agencies as well as community based organizations and service providers, and enhance the overall emergency preparedness management capabilities.

3.1.4. Focus on Information sharing; Plan to better understand and integrate protocols for multi- agency coordination of information in emergency management and response. Active participation, including meeting attendance in established healthcare coalitions, as well as newly developed coalitions. The coalition chair shall additionally focus on establishment of local networking meetings with first responders, hospitals, long term care and other licensed health care settings.

3.1.5. Involve new healthcare coalition partners with an increased awareness of behavioral health, encourage participation from the facilities serving this vulnerable sector.

3.1.6. Strengthen the Northern Region’s community resilience and shorten its recovery to normalcy. Through recommendations, gap assessment survey and review of prior after

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergency preparednessPage 2 of 5 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer Contract No. ADHS17-133181 Amendment No. 1 Russell Coplen

action reports, develop a table top exercise to meet the regions highest priorities. The exercise should align with the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) or other industry standard evaluation process, to measure and evaluate effectiveness of response and recovery exercise training activities.

4. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1. Match Requirement

The PHEP and HPP awards (each) requires a ten percent (10%) “in-kind” or “soft” match from all the grant participants. Each recipient must include in their budget submission the format they will use to cover the match and method of documentation. Failure to include the match formula will preclude funding.

4.2. Inventory

Upon request, the Contractor shall provide an inventory list to ADHS as part of the midyear report. Inventory List shall include all capital equipment (items over $5,000.00 each).

4.3. Budget Allocation and Work Plan

4.3.1. The Contractor shall complete the budget tool provided by ADHS, and return to ADHS for review and approval. Funding will not be released until the budget has been approved by ADHS.

4.3.2. All activities and procurements funded through the PHEP grant shall be aligned with the budget/spend plan and work plan. These tools shall help the Contractor reach the goals and objectives outlined in the Capability Deliverables section of this document.

4.4. Grant Activity Oversight

4.4.1. Each PHEP/HPP grant recipient shall maintain an appointed Preparedness Coordinator that will be responsible for oversight of all grant related activities. The Coordinator shall be the main point of contact in regard to the grant. The Coordinator shall work closely with ADHS to ensure all deliverables and requirements are met.

4.4.2. Pursuant to, and in compliance with, Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring, ADHS shall coordinate with the appointed Preparedness Coordinator responsible for oversight of grant act to include compliance with sub-recipient monitoring.

4.5. Interest Bearing Accounts

4.5.1. According to 45 CFR 74.22 from the United States Government Printing Office, sub- recipients shall maintain advances of federal funds in interest-bearing accounts unless the sub-recipient receives less than $120,000 per year in Federal awards or the best, reasonably available interest rate would not earn at least $250 per year or the minimum balance of the depository would be so high that it would not be a reliable resource for funding; and when there is interest accrued, the hospital is required to submit an annual plan outlining what will be done with the interest accrued. Sub-recipients receiving $120,000 or more per year in Federal Funds under the HPP award will receive a site visit from ADHS annually. Interest earned in excess of $250 shall be reported to ADHS annually for potential return.

4.6. Failure to meet the performance measures or deliverables may result in withholding from a portion of subsequent awards.

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergency preparednessPage 3 of 5 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer Contract No. ADHS17-133181 Amendment No. 1 Russell Coplen

5. REPORTING DELIVERABLES

Progress on the deliverables, performance measures and activities funded through the PHEP/HPP grant shall be reported in a timely manner to ensure ADHS has adequate time to compile the information and prepare if for submission at the federal level.

5.1. Mid-Y ear Report (dates covered: July 1 – December 31)

5.1.1. ADHS shall send out the Mid-Year report template in advance of the Due Date.

5.1.2. Due Date will be determined additionally.

5.2. ADHS shall provide the Performance Measures templates (if applicable) in advance of the Due Date.

5.3. The Contractor shall provide ADHS with updated Public Health Emergency Contact list on a template provided by ADHS. The list should include contact information for the primary, secondary, and tertiary individuals for the Public Health Incident Management System (e.g. Incident Commander, Operations, etc.) and posted on the HSP.

5.3.1. Due Date: At time of midyear reporting.

5.4. End-of-Year Report (dates covered: January 1 – June 30)

5.4.1. ADHS shall send out the End-of-Year report template in advance of the Due Date.

5.4.2. Due Date will be determined additionally.

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergency preparednessPage 4 of 5 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer Contract No. ADHS17-133181 Amendment No. 1 Russell Coplen

PHEP PRICE SHEET

July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016

Fixed Price

Description Quantity Unit Amount Northern Region Coalition for 2015-16 (Not To Exceed)

Healthcare System Preparedness $10,750

Coordinate healthcare system for disaster $18,000

1 Year NTE $75,000 Emergency Operations Coordination $25,000

Information Sharing $10,000

Program Administration Indirect $11,250

24. 10/18/2016 | Health District | Amendment to IGA - NRHC emergency preparednessPage 5 of 5 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 6 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016

DATE: September 19, 2016

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Dr. Marie Peoples, Chief Health Officer

SUBJECT: Approve ADHS IGA 16-099160, Amendment No. 3 between the Coconino County Public Health Services District (CCPHSD) and the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 in the amount of $752,038 to provide tobacco and chronic disease education and prevention services, injury prevention education, family planning, and complete public health accreditation activities.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Approve ADHS IGA 16-099160, Amendment No. 3 between the Coconino County Public Health Services District (CCPHSD) and the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 in the amount of $752,038 to provide tobacco and chronic disease education and prevention services, injury prevention education, family planning, and complete public health accreditation activities.

BACKGROUND:

In order to streamline administrative functions from multiple state prevention programs, and to leverage various public health funding sources, Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) ADHS16- 099160 was developed to combine seven prevention programs into one IGA in subsequent phases throughout FY16.

The Arizona Department of Health Services issued Amendment No. 3 of the IGA providing additional funding in the amount of $41,028 for Public Health Accreditation and level funding for Tobacco and Chronic Disease Prevention Program, Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI), Public Health Accreditation, Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Injury Prevention and Family Planning Services (Title V).

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could choose not to approve this IGA Amendment, which would result in the loss of $752,038 to the Health District. As no alternative funding sources have been identified, CCPHSD would lose the services provided by the Tobacco and Chronic Disease Prevention Program, HAPI, Public Health Accreditation, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and the

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 1 of 20 Community Health and Family Planning Services Programs. This would result in an interruption of these services because no other agency provides the same scope of services to citizens of Coconino County.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Cost center amounts affected by this IGA are Tobacco and Chronic Disease Prevention (1381- 31-3050-000-20-56-2 at $410,000), HAPI (1366-31-3010-000-20-56-2 at $64,224), Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant (1369-31-3010-00-29-56-2 at $52,954), , Teen Pregnancy Prevention (1348-31-3030-000-20-56-2 at $125,000), and Community Health and Family Planning Services (1335-31-3050-000-20-56-2 at $99,860) for a grand total of $752,038.

ATTACHMENTS:

IGA ADHS16-099160, Amendment No. 3 IGA ADHS16-099160, Amendment No. 2 Original Contract IGA ADHS 16-099160, Amendment No. 1

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 2 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Contract No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 1 Tracey Thomas

Healthy People Healthy Communities

Effective January 1, 2016, it is mutually agreed that the Agreement referenced above is amended as follows:

1. Pursuant to Terms and Conditions, Provision 6. Contract Changes, Section 6.1 Amendments, Purchase Orders and Change Orders the following is amended:

1.1. Replace Agreement Price Sheet Phase Three (3) page Thirty-Three (33) with Price Sheet of this Amendment One (1). Total Price Sheet amount is $714,233.50.

Continued on next page. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE

Coconino County Contractor Name Contractor Authorized Signature

2625 N. King Street Address Printed Name

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 City State Zip Title CONTRACTOR ATTORNEY SIGNATURE This Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment shall be effective the Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency date indicated. The Public Agency is hereby cautioned not to commence attorney has determined that this Intergovernmental Agreement is in any billable work or provide any material, service or construction under proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under this IGA until the IGA has been executed by an authorized ADHS the laws of the State of Arizona. signatory. State of Arizona

Signed this ______day of ______20_____ Signature Date

Printed Name Procurement Officer Attorney General Contract No. P0012014000078, which is an Reserved for use by the Secretary of State Agreement between public agencies, has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952 by the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, who has determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona. Under House Bill 2011, A.R.S. § 11-952 was amended to remove the requirement that Intergovernmental Agreements be filed Signature Date Assistant Attorney General with the Secretary of State.

Printed Name:

Page 1 of 5

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 3 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Contract No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 1 Tracey Thomas

COCONINO COUNTY PRICE SHEET PHASE ONE (1) PHASE 1: JULY 1, 2015 - JUNE 30, 2016 PHASE ONE (1) ACTION PLAN (Tobacco and Chronic Disease) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 1 Action Plan Tobacco and EA 1 $20,500.00 $20,500.00 Chronic Disease TOTAL 1 $20,500.00 $20,500.00

TOBACCO UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Prevention, Cessation, QTR 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00 Secondhand Smoke, Enforcement) TOTAL 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00

CHRONIC DISEASE UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Alzheimer’s, Chronic QTR 4 $6,816.25 $27,265.00 Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, Self-Management, School Health) TOTAL 4 $6,816.25 $27,265.00

PHASE ONE (1) ACTION PLAN (HAPI) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 1 Action Plan HAPI EA 1 $9,200.00 $9,200.00 TOTAL 1 $9,200.00 $9,200.00

HEALTH IN ARIZONA POLICY INITIATIVE UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Procurement, Healthy Community Design, School Health, QTR 4 $13,756.00 $55,024.00 Worksite Wellness, Clinical Care, and Special Health Care Needs) TOTAL 4 $13,756.00 $55,024.00 Page 2 of 5

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 4 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Contract No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 1 Tracey Thomas

COCONINO COUNTY

PRICE SHEET PHASE TWO (2)

PHASE 2: OCTOBER 1, 2015 – JUNE 30, 2016

PHASE TWO (2) ACTION PLAN UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 2 Action Plan EA 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 TOTAL 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00

PREVENTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Fees for Accreditation, Quality Improvement Projects, Workforce Development Implementation, QTR 3 $11,926.00 $35,778.00 Performance Management Documentation, Progress Toward County Health Improvement Plan) TOTAL 3 $11,926.00 $35,778.00

Page 3 of 5

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 5 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Contract No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 1 Tracey Thomas COCONINO COUNTY

PRICE SHEET PHASE THREE (3)

PHASE 3: JANUARY 1, 2016 - JUNE 30, 2016

PHASE THREE (3) ACTION PLAN (Family Planning) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 3 – Action Plan – Family EA 1 $19,881.00 $19,881.00 Planning TOTAL 1 $19,881.00 $19,881.00

FAMILY PLANNING UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service QTR 2 $19,881.00 $39,762.00 Strategies (i.e. Exhibit F 1.1.1) TOTAL 2 $19,881.00 $39.762.00

ACTION PLAN (Maternal Child Health) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 3 – Action Plan – Maternal Child EA 1 $25,030.00 $25,030.00 Health TOTAL 1 $25,030.00 $25,030.00

MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service QTR 2 $25,029.25 $50,058.50 Strategies (i.e. Exhibit G 1.1.1) TOTAL 2 $25,029.25 $50,058.50

ACTION PLAN (Teen Pregnancy Prevention) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Phase 3 – Action Plan – Teen EA 1 $20,833.00 $20,833.00 Pregnancy Prevention TOTAL 1 $20,833.00 $20,833.00

Page 4 of 5

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 6 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Contract No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 1 Tracey Thomas

TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service QTR 2 $20,833.50 $41,667.00 Strategies (i.e. Exhibit E 1.1.1) TOTAL 2 $20,833.50 $41,667.00

PHASE ONE (1), PHASE TWO (2), AND PHASE THREE (3) GRAND TOTAL ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $714,233.50

Page 5 of 5

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 7 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

Healthy People Healthy Communities

Effective upon signature, it is mutually agreed that the Agreement referenced above is amended as follows:

1. Pursuant to Terms and Conditions, Provision 6. Contract Changes, Section 6.1 Amendments, Purchase Orders and Change Orders, the Agreement Terms and Conditions are revised as follows:

1.1 Provision Five (5) Costs and Payments, Section 5.2 Recoupment of Contract Payments, Subsection 5.2.3 is replaced with the following:

5.2.3. Refunds. Within forty-five (45) days after the end of each budget term or of the time of termination of the Contract, the Contractor shall refund the greater of: i) the amount refundable in accordance with paragraph 5.2.1, Unearned Advanced Funds; or ii) the amount refundable in accordance with paragraph 5.2.2, Contracted Services.

1.2. Provision Twenty (20) is added as follows:

Continued on next page. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE

Coconino County Contractor Name Contractor Authorized Signature

2625 N. King Street Address Printed Name

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 City State Zip Title CONTRACTOR ATTORNEY SIGNATURE This Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment shall be effective the Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney date indicated. The Public Agency is hereby cautioned not to has determined that this Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form commence any billable work or provide any material, service or and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the construction under this IGA until the IGA has been executed by an State of Arizona. authorized ADHS signatory. State of Arizona

Signed this ______day of ______2016 Signature Date

Printed Name Procurement Officer Attorney General Contract No. P0012014000078, which is an Agreement between public agencies, has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952 by the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, who has determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona.

Signature Date Assistant Attorney General

Printed Name:

Page 1 of 10 25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 8 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

20. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA or Transparency Act - P.L.109- 282, as amended by section 6202(a) of P.L. 110-252), found at https://www.fsrs.gov/

If applicable, the Contractor/Grantee shall submit to ADHS via email the Grant Reporting Certification Form. This form and the instructions can be downloaded from the ADHS Procurement website at http://azdhs.gov/procurement and must be returned to the ADHS by the 15th of the month following that in which the award was received. The form shall be completed electronically, and submitted using the steps outlined in the Grant Reporting Certification Form Instructions to the following email address: [email protected]. All required fields must be filled including Top Employee Compensation, if applicable. Completing the Grant Reporting Certification Form is required for compliance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/open. Failure to timely submit the Grant Reporting Certification Form could result in the loss of funds. This requirement applies to all subcontractors/sub-awardees utilized by the Contractor/Grantee for amounts exceeding $30,000.00 during the term of the Award.

2. The Agreement Scope of Work is revised as follows:

2.1. Provision Five (5), Evidence Based Strategies is replaced with the following:

5. Evidence Based Strategies

Evidence-Based Strategies are strategies that explicitly link public health or clinical practice recommendation to scientific evidence of the effectiveness and/or other characteristics of such practices. (Reference: Community Guide: http://www.thecommunityguide.org ) Evidence based public health practice is the careful, intentional and sensible use of current best scientific evidence in making decisions about the choice and application of public health interventions. (Reference: Community Commons http://www.communitycommons.org /) Counties will select from a menu of evidence-based strategies found in Exhibits A – G specific to each of the following program areas:.

5.1. Exhibit A – Tobacco;

5.2. Exhibit B – DELETED (Included in Exhibit C);

5.3. Exhibit C - Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI)/Chronic Disease;

5.4. Exhibit D - Public Health Accreditation Preparation;

5.5. Exhibit E - Teen Pregnancy Prevention;

5.6. Exhibit F – DELETED (Included in Exhibit G); and

5.7. Exhibit G - Family Planning/Maternal and Child Health.

2.2. Provision Ten (10), Section 10.7 is replaced with the following:

10.7 Exhibit A-G Strategies for each Program and Program Specific Tasks/Requirements and Deliverables (if any).

10.7.1. Exhibit A– Tobacco;

10.7.2. Exhibit B – DELETED (Included in Exhibit C);

10.7.3. Exhibit C - Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI)/Chronic Disease;

10.7.4. Exhibit D – Public Health and Health Services Block Grant;

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 2 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 9 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

10.7.5. Exhibit E – Teen Pregnancy Prevention;

10.7.6. Exhibit F – DELETED (Included in Exhibit G); and

10.7.7. Exhibit G – Family Planning/Maternal and Child Health.

2.3. Provision Eleven (11), Section 11.1 is replaced with the following:

11.1. Notices, correspondence, reports and invoices/CERs from the contractor to ADHS shall be sent to:

Arizona Department of Health Services 150 N. 18th Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Attn: Mark Martz, Program Manager [email protected], 602-364-2586

3. The Intergovernmental Agreement Exhibit C is replaced with the Exhibit C of this Amendment number Two (2).

4. The Intergovernmental Agreement Exhibit G is replaced with the Exhibit G of this Amendment number Two (2).

5. The Intergovernmental Agreement Price Sheet is replaced with the Price Sheet of this Amendment number Two (2). Revised Grand Total amount is equal to $711,010.00. ProcureAZ Items Tab will be updated upon execution of this Amendment.

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 3 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 10 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

EXHIBIT C

Evidence-Based Strategies for Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI)/Chronic Disease

Counties may select one (1) or more strategies from the Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI) strategic area, and one (1) or more strategies from the Chronic Disease strategic area.

This Exhibit defines the Program Strategy/s within each Strategic Area:

1. Strategic Area: Health in Arizona Policy Initiative (HAPI) 1.1. Program Strategy/s: 1.1.1. Procurement of Healthy Foods: 1.1.1.1. Improve procurement policies around the nutrition quality of foods served in institutional cafeterias and/or vending machines; 1.1.1.2. Establish contract and bid writing standards to promote healthy food and beverages; 1.1.1.3. Establish healthy vending policies within institutions; 1.1.1.4. Establish nutrition standards for the procurement of foods and beverages offered in the workplace; 1.1.1.5. Establish menu labeling on all food and beverage items on foods sold in cafeterias and/or vending machines, including highlighting and promoting healthier options aligning with Dietary Guidelines for sodium, fat, and sugar; 1.1.1.6. Establish food and beverage pricing strategies pricing healthy foods lower and/or less healthy foods higher; and 1.1.1.7. Other evidence based related strategy.

1.1.2. Healthy Community Design: 1.1.2.1. Establish community design standards to make streets safe for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transit; 1.1.2.2. Establish community design protocols through Health Impact Assessments (HIA’s) to assess the impact of community design changes on community health and wellbeing; 1.1.2.3. Increase accessibility, availability, affordability and identification of healthful foods in communities, including provision of full service grocery stores, farmers markets, small store initiatives, mobile vending carts, and/or restaurant initiatives; 1.1.2.4. Establish sites for community gardens in institutional settings and/or underserved areas; and 1.1.2.5. Other evidence based related strategy.

1.1.3. School Health: 1.1.3.1. Improve countywide nutrition, physical activity, and screen time policies and practices in early care through postsecondary education settings; 1.1.3.2. Improve the nutrition quality of foods and beverages served in schools; 1.1.3.3. Improve the quality and amount of physical education and/or physical activity in schools; 1.1.3.4. Target outreach and enrollment efforts to populations disproportionately uninsured.

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 4 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 11 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

1.1.3.5. Support the work of schools to implement School Health Index/School Health Assessment; and 1.1.3.6. Other evidence based related strategy. 1.1.4. Healthy Worksites: 1.1.4.1. Increase opportunities for physical activity in the workplace; 1.1.4.2. Establish incentive programs, such as flextime, rewarding and/or recognizing employee healthy behaviors; 1.1.4.3. Provide disease self-management classes to employees; 1.1.4.4. Increase the number of employers that incorporate nationally recognized preventive health screenings within health plans; 1.1.4.5. Increase the number of employees that utilize preventive health screenings within employer health plans; 1.1.4.6. Increase policies and practices to support breastfeeding in the workplace, especially in agencies providing WIC services; 1.1.4.7. Increase WIC employee participation and utilization of worksite wellness activities such as, but not limited to physical activity, healthy eating, preventive health screenings and stress management; and 1.1.4.8. Other evidence based related strategy. 1.1.5. Clinical Care: 1.1.5.1. Provide policy training and technical assistance to health care institutions, providers, and provider organizations to effectively implement quality measures consistent with Meaningful- Use models; 1.1.5.2. Integrate peer-support/promotora models into the healthcare institutional setting; 1.1.5.3. Link evidence-based community and clinical preventive services such as efforts, which drive disparate populations into healthcare providers who offer preventive care consistent with the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) A & B Recommendations: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. (e.g., community-based promotoras working collaboratively with patient navigators within community health centers); 1.1.5.4. Integration or implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of primary care; 1.1.5.5. Increase the number of health care providers and staff that complete the Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards training; 1.1.5.6. Increase the number of health care systems that develop and implement a language access plan; 1.1.5.7. Improve health insurance literacy of consumers to increase enrollment in and utilization of insurance plans; and 1.1.5.8. Other evidence based related strategy.

1.1.6. Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs: 1.1.6.1. Promote inclusion of focus on children and youth/young adults with special health care needs;

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 5 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 12 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

1.1.6.2. Conduct countywide needs assessment for Children/Youth with Special Healthcare Needs; 1.1.6.3. Establish a coalition or advocacy council consisting of 50% family members and young adults and 50% professionals working with children and youth with special health care needs; 1.1.6.4. Ensure family members and young adults who are part of the coalition or advocacy council are involved in policy and program development, implementation, and evaluation at the county level; and 1.1.6.5. Other evidence-based related strategy. 2. Chronic Disease

2.1. Program Strategy/s: 2.1.1. Improve public awareness of Alzheimer’s disease and available resources for patients, caregivers and/or family members and health care providers; 2.1.2. Improve public awareness of risk factors and detection of pulmonary disease. 2.1.3. Promote and implement the Million Hearts Initiative; 2.1.4. Implement the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management model (including Spanish version) and/or other self-management model; 2.1.5. Other evidence-based related strategy.

3. HAPI Specific Tasks and Requirements:

3.1. A portion of activities identified in the action plan must include those that will benefit the health of low-income women, infants, and children; and 3.2. The County will coordinate school health activities with any other funding received for school health activities such as the Arizona Nutrition Network.

4. Chronic Disease Specific Tasks and Requirements:

4.1. Adhere to the guidelines and principles set forth in the ADHS-BTCD 2013-2017 Chronic Disease Strategic Plan and the 2014-2015 ADHS –BTCD Chronic Disease Prevention Strategies that pertain to the services and activities identified in the corresponding action plans. The ADHS-BTCD 2012-2017 Chronic Disease Strategic Plan can be found on the ADHS-BTCD website (http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/chronicdisease/documents/az-chronic-disease-strategic-plan.pdf).

5. Listed below are specific tasks and requirements related to the Menu of Strategy Options for Chronic Disease. 5.1. Alzheimer’s/Dementia: 5.1.1. The County will work with the Alzheimer’s Association- Desert Southwest Chapter to increase public awareness of Alzheimer’s/Dementia including the warning signs of Alzheimer’s disease to patients, caregivers and/or family members and health care providers; and 5.1.2. The County will work with the Alzheimer’s Association-Desert Southwest Chapter to provide resources to providers and implement a referral process to the Alzheimer’s Association from provider’s offices.

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 6 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 13 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

5.2. Chronic Lower Pulmonary Disease: 5.2.1. The County will work with the America Lung Association/Arizona Chapter to increase public awareness of risk factors and detection of pulmonary disease; 5.2.2. The County will work with the American Lung Association/Arizona Chapter to increase the use of home- based, comprehensive interventions with an environmental focus for children and adolescents for children and adolescents with asthma; and 5.2.3. The County will work with the American Lung Association/Arizona Chapter to increase early intervention and participation in disease management programs. 5.3. Cardiovascular Disease: 5.3.1. The County will work with ADHS/BTCD Office of Chronic Disease to implement and promote the Million Hearts Initiative; and 5.3.2. Increase intervention and participation in disease management programs.

5.4. Chronic Disease Self-Management: 5.4.1. The County will implement Chronic Disease Self-Management programs (Include related Spanish version(s)); 5.4.2. The County will ensure that staff is trained; and 5.4.3. The County will participate in regional meetings held by Arizona Living Well Institute. The number of trainings held, lay leaders trained, master leaders trained and number of organizations, agencies, healthy systems, providers that were contacted to increase referrals.

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 7 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 14 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

EXHIBIT G

Evidence-Based Strategies for Family Planning/Maternal and Child Health (Title V Block Grant)

1. Maternal and Child Health

1.1. Program Strategies:

1.1.1. The County shall implement a clinic based reproductive health program which enhances maternal and infant health by providing accessible, comprehensive education, screening and contraceptive services to underserved individuals of reproductive age as outlined in the ADHS Family Planning Policy and Procedure Manual.

1.1.2. The County shall implement multi-faceted, evidence based or evidence informed strategies at the county level that address state priorities as identified through Arizona’s 2016 Title V Maternal Child Health Block Grant application targeting one or more of the Title V MCH Block Grant population health domains (i.e. Women/Maternal Health, Perinatal/Infant Health, Child Health, CSHCN, Adolescent Health and Cross cutting or Life Course). The strategies selected must impact one or more of the National Performance Measures which will in turn influence the National Outcome Measures. The County shall select from the following:

1.1.2.1. Increase the percent of women with a past year preventive medical visit;

1.1.2.2. Increase the percent of infants who are ever breastfed and (B) increase the percent of infants breastfed exclusively through 6 months;

1.1.2.3. Decrease the rate of hospitalizations for non-fatal injury per 100,000 children ages 0-9 and adolescents ages 10-19. Counties may choose from one or more of the following:

1.1.2.3.1. Increase safe sleep environment; 1.1.2.3.2. Decrease injury around the house for the 1-4 yr old group; and 1.1.2.3.3. Decrease injury to teens from car crashes.

1.1.2.4. Decrease the percent of adolescents, ages 12-17, who are bullied or who bully others;

1.1.2.5. Increase the percent of adolescents, ages 12-17, with a preventive medical visit in the past year; and

1.1.2.6. (A) Decrease the percent of women who smoke during pregnancy (B) Decrease the percent of children who live in households where someone smokes.

1.2. Maternal and Child Health Specific Tasks and Requirements:

1.2.1. If a County chooses to implement 1.1.1, Family Planning Program Strategy, the County will also implement, at a minimum, one (1) 1.1.2 Maternal and Child Health Strategy.

1.2.2. Media and/or printed educational materials will adhere to the required wording as follows: “Funded in part by the Bureau of Women’s and Children’s Health as made available through the Arizona Department of Health Services.” Additionally, media and/or printed educational materials will also adhere to the required wording as follows: “This project is supported by funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, under grant number 93.994 and title for $ (to be filled in by Grantee upon receipt of grant award). The information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should be any endorsements be inferred by the U.S. Government, DHHS, or HRSA.

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 8 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 15 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

PRICE SHEET

HEALTHY PEOPLE HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

COCONINO – ADHS16-099160

JULY 1, 2016 - JUNE 30, 2017

ACTION PLAN

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Action Plan – All Programs EA 1 $74,672.00 $74,672.00 TOTAL 1 $74,672.00 $74,672.00

TOBACCO

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Prevention, Cessation, QTR 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00 Secondhand Smoke, Enforcement) TOTAL 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00

HAPI – CRONIC DISEASE

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. HAPI, Procurement, Healthy Community Design, School Health, Worksite Wellness, Clinical, Special QTR 4 $20,572.25 $82,289.00 Health Care Needs, Alzheimer’s, Chronic Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, Self-Management, School Health) TOTAL 4 $20,572.25 $82,289.00

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 9 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 16 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 1740 W. Adams, Room 303 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 2 Russell Coplen

COCONINO

PREVENTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

FAMILY PLANNING / MATERNAL and CHILD HEALTH (Title V Block Grant)

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies QTR 4 $19,972.00 $79,888.00 TOTAL 4 $19,972.00 $79,888.00

TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies QTR 4 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 TOTAL 4 $25,000.00 $100,000.00

TOTAL

ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $711,010.00

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease educationPage 10 of 10 10/18/2016 Page 17 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 3 Russell Coplen

Healthy People Healthy Communities

Effective upon signature, it is mutually agreed that the Agreement referenced above is amended as follows:

1. Pursuant to Terms and Conditions, Provision Six (6), Contract Changes, Section 6.1 Amendments, Purchase Orders and Change Orders, the Agreement Terms and Conditions are revised as follows:

1.1 Exhibit D, Evidence-Based Strategies for Public Health Accreditation Preparation, Number 1, Strategic Area: Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, add the following Strategies:

1.1.6 Conduct a Community Health Assessment (CHA)

1.1.7 Develop or Update a County Health Improvement Plan

2. Pursuant to Terms and Conditions, Provision Six (6). Contract Changes, Section 6.1 Amendments, Purchase Orders and Change Orders, the Price Sheet is revised and replaced by the Price Sheet of this Amendment Three (3).

Continued on next page. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE

Coconino County Contractor Name Contractor Authorized Signature

2625 N. King Street Address Printed Name

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 City State Zip Title CONTRACTOR ATTORNEY SIGNATURE This Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment shall be effective the Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the undersigned public agency attorney date indicated. The Public Agency is hereby cautioned not to has determined that this Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form commence any billable work or provide any material, service or and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the construction under this IGA until the IGA has been executed by an State of Arizona. authorized ADHS signatory. State of Arizona

Signed this ______day of ______2016 Signature Date

Signature Date Assistant Attorney General

Printed Name:

Page 1 of 3 25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education 10/18/2016 Page 18 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 3 Russell Coplen

PRICE SHEET

HEALTHY PEOPLE HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

COCONINO – ADHS16-099160

JULY 1, 2016 - JUNE 30, 2017

ACTION PLAN

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS Action Plan – All Programs EA 1 $74,672.00 $74,672.00 TOTAL 1 $74,672.00 $74,672.00

TOBACCO

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Prevention, QTR 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00 Cessation, Secondhand Smoke, Enforcement) TOTAL 4 $90,558.75 $362,235.00

HEALTH IN ARIZONA POLICY INITIATIVE

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Alzheimer’s, Chronic Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, Self-Management, Procurement, QTR 4 $20,572.25 $82,289.00 Healthy Community Design, School Health, Worksite Wellness, Clinical Care, and Special Health Care Needs) TOTAL 4 $20,572.25 $82,289.00

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 2 of 3 10/18/2016 Page 19 of 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) 150 N. 18th Ave. Suite 280 AMENDMENT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1040 (602) 542-1741 Fax Procurement Officer: Agreement No: ADHS16-099160 Amendment No. 3 Russell Coplen

PREVENTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Fees for Accreditation, Quality Improvement Projects, Workforce Development Implementation, QTR 1 $11,926.00 $11,926.00 Performance Management Documentation, Progress Toward County Health Improvement Plan) UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies (i.e. Fees for Accreditation, Quality Improvement Projects, Workforce Development Implementation, QTR 3 $13,676.00 $41,028.00 Performance Management Documentation, Progress Toward County Health Improvement Plan) TOTAL 4 $52,954.00

FAMILY PLANNING / MATERNAL and CHILD HEALTH (Title V Block Grant)

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies QTR 4 $19,972.00 $79,888.00 TOTAL 4 $19,972.00 $79,888.00

TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION

UNIT OF NUMBER ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION UNIT RATE TOTAL MEASURE OF UNITS See SOW for Specific Service Strategies QTR 4 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 TOTAL 4 $25,000.00 $100,000.00

TOTAL

ITEM/SERVICE DESCRIPTION TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $752,038.00

25. 10/18/2016 | Health District | IGA - Tobacco and disease education Page 3 of 3 10/18/2016 Page 20 of 20